Tuesday, April 7, 2009

If the GOP is pandering to right-wing extremists, why isn't my phone ringing?

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs:
This turn toward the extreme right on the part of Fox News is troubling, and will achieve nothing in the long run except further marginalization of the GOP -- unless people start behaving like adults instead of angry kids throwing tantrums and ranting about conspiracies and revolution.
Christopher Orr of The New Republic:
I was trying to think of a framework that captured the no-enemies-on-the-right dynamic that seems to be pushing the GOP further and further into the political wilderness. . . .
Everyone tries to outflank everyone else to the right--zero votes on any Obama-supported bill! a hyperconservative budget with no numbers! a hyperconservative budget with made-up numbers!--because there's no obvious, non-heretical way to establish yourself as a player otherwise. Denied the opportunity to govern (by their own intransigence as much as by the size of the Democratic majority), they have nothing to do but campaign 24/7.
So there seems to be a certain sort of bipartisan consensus that the GOP is now fully committed to pandering to Buchananites, Birchers, goldbugs, gun nuts, Paulistas and sundry fringe types, and yet . . . I dunno. I'm not feeling the love here.

Do any of my fellow right-wing extremists share this perception? You there -- reloading your 7.62 ammo in the Idaho cabin while listening to the short-wave militia broadcast -- do you feel as if you're now part of the woof and weave of the GOP tapestry?

How is it that Charles Johnson and Christopher Orr both think Glenn Beck (whose Fox show I've never watched, BTW) represents the camel's nose in the tent, a dangerous intrusion of crackpottery into the Republican mainstream, while the genuine wingnuts still feel as ostracized and alienated as ever? Is this a consensus or . . . a conspiracy?

Are Johnson and Orr just mouthpieces for the Council on Foreign Relations, the WTO and the Bavarian Illuminati?

I'm just askin' questions. BTW, does this tinfoil hat make my butt look big?

UPDATE: Linked by Dan Collins at PW Pub and by Jimmie Bise at Sundries Shack, who supplies the quote of the day: "Dude, it ain't the hat."

UDATE II: Memeorandum has a thread, Donald Douglas has related thoughts, and Pam Geller is not a fan of the LGF "CounterJihad of One." What we're dealing with here is a basic problem of organizational dynamics in coalition politics. Absent strong leadership and mission-focused cohesion, schisms are inevitable, and you will always have self-appointed hall monitors who take it upon themselves to say to otherwise enthusiastic coalition supporters, "We don't need your help!"

A successful movement cannot be built by a process of subtraction, and this "urge to purge" inevitably weakens the movement. There will always be grassroots elements whose motivations and beliefs would be embarrassing to discuss on "Meet the Press." Yet the Democratic Party never bothers to apologize for the support they receive from, inter alia, MALDEF or Code Pink, while there are always Republicans denouncing and repudiating some grassroots constituency of their party.

I attended both the LGBT Caucus and the Women's Caucus at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and those kooks were by no means ready for prime-time. Yet the Democrats pander to them shamelessly, while the GOP is always snubbing its kook caucuses. Am I the only one who sees this difference as indicative of a want of confidence among some Republicans?

Don't let your enemy define who you are. Kooks and wingnuts can vote, too, ya know.

As Ronald Reagan once said, for the Republican Party to win, it must have the full support of both its right wing and its far-right wing.

UPDATE III: Paleo Pat likes the big butt joke. (My wife liked it, too.) As I said in "How to Get a Million Hits," the Right has to try to avoid become humorless assholes like those Democratic Underground moonbats.

Humor wins, and laughter is never so powerful as when you're laughing in the face of disaster. It's like Gen. McAuliffe replying to the German demand for surrender at Bastogne: "Nuts."

Everybody in the GOP nowadays invokes Reagan, but none of them seems to have his knack for using humor to deflect charges of extremism. Reagan knew who he was. He knew he wasn't a kook or a hatemonger, and so he always had confident good cheer when the smear merchants came after him. During the 1966 California governor's race, there was some fringe group that endorsed Reagan, and the Democrats tried to make that an issue, but when the press asked Reagan about it, he just smiled and said, "They endorsed me. I didn't endorse them." Scandal over.

If Republicans would stop acting so defensive and guilty, like they've got something to hide, the "ransom note" hooligans wouldn't be able to roll them like they rolled George Allen in 2006. Nobody ever credibly asserted -- or ever could credibly assert -- that Allen hated Indian-Americans. And yet his campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, hit the panic button and next thing you know, Allen's on an "apology tour," begging forgiveness from people who'd never even heard of a "macaca" before. (Final irony: Leading members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans actively campaigned for Democrat Jim Webb, who was far more "neo-Confederate" than Allen ever was.)

Sometimes I think that the real problem with some Republicans is that they're just not right with God. They've got a guilty conscience and that naturally makes them cowards. "Ask and it shall be given you." Pray for courage, pray for wisdom and, above all, pray for faith. Even a tiny mustard seed of faith can move mountains.

BTW, how about some tip-jar hitters out there? My wife's worried because the phone bill is past due. She's a praying woman, but she's also a worrying woman. She's got lots of faith in God, but a little less in me.

22 comments:

  1. More importantly why the hell does Charles Johnson think he is an arbiter of the real Republican party?

    Other than his opposition to Islamism just what are his bona fides?

    If Charles Johnson wants to speak for conservatives let him start by openly voicing his personal support for some honest conservative principles.

    Until these people tell me where they stand I don't give a fig for what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So there seems to be a certain sort of bipartisan consensus that the GOP is now fully committed to pandering to Buchananites, Birchers, goldbugs, gun nuts, Paulistas and sundry fringe types, and yet . . . I dunno. I'm not feeling the love here.

    Me either!

    First, you aggravate my vertigo with your sucky new blog format (how's a girl supposta refresh like a monkey on crack with this mess going on?!), THEN you slam me and my Paulian brethren (who you were being so decent about there for awhile).

    Laaaane! ::shakes fist::

    BTW, does this tinfoil hat make my butt look big?

    Bwah!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Charles Johnson and Christopher Orr are bailing out the Titanic as the Olympic and Brittanic set sail on maiden voyages. That's from a long time LGFer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the other hand, they're not calling my neocon, vaguely-libertarian, SSM-supporting, squishy-soft moderate phone either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I never understood the right's attraction to Charles Johnson. He's just another Christopher Hitchens--a lefty that happens to agree with the right on an important issue. In Johnson's case, that issue is a deeply ingrained suspicion of all Muslims and all things Islam, bordering on the paranoid.

    Since he has nothing else in common with the right, it's rather odd if not a little creepy for him to, as anonymous noted, act like an arbiter for the real Republican party.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since when did the right have "a deeply ingrained suspicion of all Muslims and all things Islam, bordering on the paranoid" in common? The last time I checked, every major anti-Arab & anti-Muslim hate group in Western society was screaming "Not In Our Name."

    ReplyDelete
  7. For real am I supposed to know what a Christopher Orr of The New Republic is? Drawing a blank here.

    I think there's a tension between people what want to treat Baracky like a for real president and thems what understand he's popcultural trash. It's a new thing. It has to just sort of shake out, but in the end, you're either for the dirty socialists or you're for America, so I think one can make too much of this sort of
    squabbling.

    There's also the cognitive dissonance of so many people cringing at our loser president what not long ago... voted for John McCain.

    Also, many of these angsty ones what want to strike the right tone seem very uncomfortable with Christians. Maybe not the Christoper Orr one cause I have no idea who that is. But the others. I think they're sort of insecure or something. Identity issues? Don't know don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Meh,

    The tone of such remarks has always struck me as being like that of the kid who is embarrassed that his dad's a plumber.

    He pretends his father doesn't exist and gets pissed when his friends see them in the company truck.

    The fact that he is entirely dependent on his dad's efforts is lost on him. The only thing that matters is what the cool kids think.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rae: You know I love ya. I'm the Crazy Glue O' Love that holds the extremist fringe together.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't have anything at all interesting to add here, but I got such a huge laugh out of the tinfoil hat/big butt comment I had to say thanks. Plus I agree with you, and it was great to be reminded of the wonderful Reagan, who appreciated us tinfoil hat wearers. Jayne

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I never understood the right's attraction to Charles Johnson. He's just another Christopher Hitchens--a lefty that happens to agree with the right on an important issue. In Johnson's case, that issue is a deeply ingrained suspicion of all Muslims and all things Islam, bordering on the paranoid."

    Amen to this--if anyone should be walking the plank of the SS Conservative, it's Captain Self-Righteous (that'd be Johnson) and his buddies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Charles Johnson was an OPEN leftist before 911. After 911 he took up the Neocon line, so he is like the current David Frum, except Johnson is more leftist than even Frum.

    Johnson was described as a rock musician and a California surfer dude prior to 911. I’m just wondering how that qualifies him for being taken seriously. I know he supports the Iraq war, which was fought like Vietnam under liberal principles, not conservative ones. Other than Johnson’s support for the Iraq war, the Gaza operation and the Lebanon war, just what positions has Johnson taken that even uninformed people could consider “conservative.” I’d suggest NONE. What was his position on Proposition 8? Was he in favor of gay marriage? I really don’t doubt that he was and that the LGF position would be that taking (popular) social conservative positions is a “distraction” from the “War on Terror.”

    ReplyDelete
  13. Chuckie Johnson is, and always has been a 'stastist' liberal with fascist tendencies. He has more banned members than active ones. Took me about an hour of reading archived posts the first time I bothered to look around LGF,(Little Greedy Fascist),to have him figured out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It appears as if some folks like Charles are buying into the Left Wing talking point, one which I read a thread about on the DU not long after Barry took office (at least officially, since the campaign still seems to be going strong), which stresses that any disagreement with Obama and the Democrat agenda is to be considered hysterical rants and Obama Derangement Syndrome. I've had people pull this with me on my site.

    The GOP is not pandering to anyone at the moment. The only time they seem to have done that in the past 10 years or more was with the pick of Sarah Palin for VP, a lady with pretty strong Conservative credentials. Not perfect, but, then, who among us is? If The Gipper wasn't perfect.

    I think Charles is just annoyed by what he calls all the stealth creationist bills put for at the State level, which, whether you agree with them or not, are the Constitutional Rights of the states. I think Chuck has forgotten the 10th Amendment, like everyone on the Left. Also, most of the bills seem to want to allow the teaching of Intelligent Design to go with Evolution. God forbid, in Chuck's world, that kids learn alternatives and be provided with knowledge.

    I'm not so sure that it is a lack of leadership in the GOP. Conservatives don't actually respond well to being led politically. Liberals want to be led. What we want are solid ideas with details. Reagan didn't say "follow me!" He gave us reasons to follow him and his ideas. Liberals just want a catchy soundbite and someone to tell them what to do. We want a reason to join in common interest.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Johnson´s alright, but he is being stupid here. The shoe is on the other foot: Democrats have no enemies on the left. Find me some examples of public figures who were ostracized by the Democrat party for being too far on the left. And they are not exactly moving to the center, whether they win or lose elections.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Johnson´s alright, but he is being stupid here. The shoe is on the other foot: Democrats have no enemies on the left. Find me some examples of public figures who were ostracized by the Democrat party for being too far on the left. And they are not exactly moving to the center, whether they win or lose elections.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Somebody needs to remind Orr that mainstream GOP commentators were making the exact same charge against the Democrat party back when Bush increased his majority during the mid-terms. The MoveOn types were destroying the party, it was said, and dooming it to a permanent minorty status, it was said.

    The problem with that theory was that Bush was bound to generate active opposition among centrists during the waning years of his presidency, just as BHO is already doing just a couple of months in. Losing the hard right was never an advantage for the GOP, however much liberals within the party continue to proclaim it was. The truth of the matter is that nothing can revitalise the flagging fortunes of the GOP (or, in their turn, the Democrats), than a major shoring up and channeling of the passions of the its hardest core ideologues. This can literally change the terms of the debate, and help redefine the political center, which is necessary when under the rule of a largely unopposed, ideologically rigid leftist like Obama.

    To the minimal extent that genuinely conservative positions are given an airing--and it does remain pretty minimal--it will only help the GOP.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yet the Democratic Party never bothers to apologize for the support they receive from, inter alia, MALDEF or Code Pink, while there are always Republicans denouncing and repudiating some grassroots constituency of their party.

    Methinks this is because the Media doesn't play the same game that they do with Republicans - viz, stick a microphone in the face of the kooks and then challenge the elected Republicans to denounce. We saw Gibbs give the press corps an assignment, which they dutifully fulfilled, by challenging elected Republicans to denounce Limbaugh.

    Conversely, the Media allows Democrats to make contradictory pledges to their kooks and to the mainstream electorate - i.e. Obama can congratulate GLBTs
    (and sometimes Ys) for the California Supreme Court's "gay" marriage decision, but then proclaim that he is opposed to the same in debates in the general election.

    It does make some sense, in this Media environment, of the elected Republicans' behavior - I just think it is dishonorable for the "moderate" elements of the coalition to use this unfortunate circumstance to attempt to purge the party of ideological enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To hell with that. The real wingnuts are of the Islamofascist under every bed variety. The gun nuts, and the limited government nuts, and the gold bugs, and the rest are just garden variety GOP grassroots.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not only is Johnson attacking Beck, he thinks "I want him to fail" is beyond the pale. He's been steadily excommunicating from the Church of Charles anyone whose position on cultural issues can be (mis)interpreted as "extremist" or "racist", including by association people like Robert Spencer and Pamela "Atlas" Geller.

    And lately he's been showing pictures of G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney lowering their heads to allow Saudi King Abdullah so he could hang a medal round their necks, as some kind of moral equivalency to Obama's bend-at-the-waist-until-he-nearly-hit-his-head-on-the-floor debasement at G20. He insists that both of these things can be described as "bowing", so therefore we shouldn't be outraged at Obama's actions.

    That logic is precisely the same as the standard Leftist line that after 8 years of Bush running up the national debt (6 with GOP majorities in Congress) no Republican is allowed to complain when Obama and his Democrat majorities run up more debt in two months than Bush did in two terms.

    It's a BS argument when the lefties do it to us, and it's BS when "one of ours" does it too.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rae: You know I love ya. I'm the Crazy Glue O' Love that holds the extremist fringe together.

    It's true, it's true! You are that, and then some!

    Thanks for the 'tard love this morning, Stacy! ::kiss::

    ReplyDelete
  22. RS McCain: "I attended both the LGBT Caucus and the Women's Caucus at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and those kooks were by no means ready for prime-time. "

    I was there, too!

    That being my first political convention, I didn't know how to evaluate the caucuses.

    However, it doesn't matter whether they're ready for prime time if prime time will only put them in the best possible light.

    The GOP's lovable "kooks" tend to be white, older, rural and/or Southern and lack the magical minorities' anti-insensitivity force field.

    Their qualities are stereotypical "bad guy" ones the media loves to hate. Why shouldn't the GOP be diffident?

    ReplyDelete