Contributors

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

An Unrealized Dream

I find myself feeling quite melancholy today and it's largely due to this editorial from the New York Times.

Once, in what seems like another eon of Republican politics, George W. Bush dreamed of building a multiethnic party that would achieve dominance in a nation where the words “majority” and “minority” were losing their meaning. Mr. Bush was adamant, in the days after the terrorist attacks of 2001, that American Muslims not become the targets of public resentment, and he later pushed a plan to offer illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship.

Republicans are now taking a decidedly different approach.

No shit.

I remember two distinct events from the presidency of George W. Bush that echo this piece. He gave a speech in which he stated quite directly that he would use "his FBI" to come down hard on anyone who harassed Muslims. He mentioned an example of a woman wearing a Burqa who was beaten. "If a woman is wearing cover," he said, "she is practicing religious freedom which is what this country is all about."

W was also the first (and only so far) sitting president to call for a state of Palestine.

Now, I am not a fan of Bush and think that most of his presidency was marred by incompetence and a pathological drive for financial dominance that at several moments bordered on criminality. But there is no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush was not a racist, prejudiced or any way discriminatory. Contrary to Kayne West's imbecilic comment, George Bush does not hate black people. Nor any non whites for that matter. And his track record proves this to be true. His in laws are Hispanic and his administration was the one of the most diverse in our country's history.

Given three issues that have come to the forefront recently, Bush's efforts have all gone to shit.

First, we have the "outrage" over building a mosque near (not on) Ground Zero. Second, we have several US Senators and Congressional reps calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Third, we have the hard stance against illegal immigrants and much louder yelling for border enforcement. Put all of these together and it is plain to see that Bush's dream of a multiracial GOP is absolutely fucking gone. In its place is a terribly ugly ideology that serves only to alienate people who don't conform to a highly fictionalized ideal of what it means to be "American." Bai quite astutely compares the current GOP to the Know Nothing party of the 1850s. But let's get back to the subject at hand....W.

When Mr. Bush, a Texan fluent both in Spanish and in immigration policy, advanced a plan to reform the system in 2006, he was going directly into the teeth of that sentiment within his own party. His failure virtually guaranteed that his party — already beset by an unpopular war and mounting distrust from black Americans — would not become the broader coalition he had hoped to build.

I know it seems anathema for some of you but I honestly feel more sorry for the guy than I ever have. So what does that mean for the future?

This could be a problem for Republicans in the years ahead, as the American electorate rapidly grows more diverse. “You can win elections temporarily by accumulating large percentages of the white vote,” says Matthew Dowd, who was a top strategist in Mr. Bush’s two elections, “but over time, it’s unsustainable.”

I contend that everything we are seeing now from the Right...EVERY SINGLE WORD THAT COMES OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS....is the last gasp of a dying man. They know that this election and possibly 2012 are pretty much it for their type of politics. After that, our country's diversity is going to be increasing at an amazingly large rate.

So, how is it going to possible for them to build any sort of broader coalition or have a real future for their party?

27 comments:

rld said...

Congrats. You've only typed the word Obama one time on the entire front page of your blog (the other time is in a quote). You only hope it is their last gasp - the unemployment rate stays where it is and you are on your last gasp because your racism charges don't hold up anymore.

I thought the 2008 election was the end of fear and ignorance, you said so. Now it is this year huh.

blk said...

Has George W. Bush (or his father) said anything about the anti-immigrant stance of the Republican Party? Until Bush starts calling a spade a spade, I'm going to assume he was pro-immigration because his corporate masters demanded a cheap source of labor.

By turning everything into an us-versus-them contest the Republicans may turn out their base, but they're only making their own worst fears come true in the long run. If they stopped treating everyone who disagrees with them like an enemy, and started acknowledging that all Americans have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed in a spirit of cooperation, the country would work a lot better.

The Rove divide-and-conquer method of segmenting up the population will only work so long for maintaining political power. Mark seems to think that 2012 will be the last gasp, but it'll take at least 10 years longer than that. The elderly whites who make up the bulk of the Republican base all vote, whereas the young and ethnically diverse soon-to-be-majority just doesn't bother. 2008 was an exception, and they will be demoralized this year and in 2012 because Obama is a pragmatic technocrat at heart. Besides, kids have no attention span...

But when the Republican Party falls it'll fall very hard. Once the old white guys like Rush and Newt start keeling over in large numbers you'll see a huge shift in the Republican Party. I imagine it will be taken over by Southern Black Baptists and Latino Catholics on the strength of the anti-abortion and anti-gay sentiment. But that'll leave the NRA and the suits out in the cold. And in the long term, the anti-gay sentiment is doomed. Kids these days just don't seem to give a damn.

GuardDuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

blk, why don't you democrats pass legislation that solves long term problems instead of waiting 10 years for demographics to play out.

juris imprudent said...

Has George W. Bush (or his father) said anything

Since when did you give a fuck what W had to say about anything?

Seriously.

You think you can suddenly throw him up as the guiding light of the Repub Party - after he so thoroughly fucked it over?

I guess you lefties really are desperate. More than I imagined.

GuardDuck said...

acknowledging that all Americans have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed in a spirit of cooperation, the country would work a lot better.

And when the left stops dismissing half of Americans' legitimate concerns as backwards, racist, hate-filled, uneducated, duped or greedy then perhaps said disagreements may start to be addressed with a spirit of cooperation rather than as the attack of an enemy that it is.

But as long as your side thinks I am so wrong that the only solution to your political problem is to wait till me and my kind die off, you are going to be stuck with me treating you like the enemy you have already been treating me as.

Mark Ward said...

"half of Americans' legitimate concerns as backwards, racist, hate-filled, uneducated, duped or greedy"

Then stop talking and acting that way. It's that simple.

I don't think all conservative or right wing ideals are "wrong." But then again what we are seeing now from the Right is more of a circus than anything else. There are no real solutions. It's just about winning the argument and proving me "wrong." And that's what so terribly funny.

Wut the .... said...

blk,
There is no anti-immigrant stance for the umpteenth time. How about understanding the issue first, eh? It is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION that is the issue. ENFORCEMENT which is lacking and getting worse.

M, "Third, we have the hard stance against illegal immigrants and much louder yelling for border enforcement."

Does this mean you are an open border believer? If not, do you believe in catching and jailing bank robbers? Why on earth would you have issue with enforcing the laws of the land and denigrating those that want those laws enforced?

Furthermore, enforcing the laws have nothing to do with building a "multiracial GOP" which it already is even if you haven't noticed. Why are you and your ilk so focused on race when most aren't? All your positions and screeds seem to boil down to "those over there want x because they are racist or greedy or both". Maybe spending more time understanding the opposition points instead of making them up in your head would do you good.

NOT Greg Gutfeld of RedEye said...

Let's just open a gay bar next to the mosque they want to build at Ground Zero. We can name it "The Cock Pit" and see how tolerant and diverse the Muslims are.

rld said...

Wut, he is very good at criticizing what he thinks your stance is while not telling you what his position is.

Haplo9 said...

>It's just about winning the argument and proving me "wrong." And that's what so terribly funny.

So wait.. If you lose the argument, and you are wrong, (or "wrong", whatever difference the quotes are supposed to make) doesn't that kind of mean, you know, that your ideas of what constitutes good solutions to problems.. suck?

Cause you know, I always thought argument was a means by which you expose your ideas to a bit of scrutiny from other people who aren't as in love with them as you are. That could result in useful feedback on your ideas.

I agree, that is pretty funny though - you aren't able to win arguments, and you aren't able to defend your ideas, so you just proclaim they are wonderful and ignore the monsters. Weird, it's almost like you are normally sheltered from disagreement with your ideas, so you have no idea how to deal with it...

Mark Ward said...

Hap, you have demonstrated perfectly something I have come to realize of late regarding the Right. There are no solutions at all coming from them...just "proving" the other side wrong in whatever way possible including out and out lying. This happens every day with me on this blog.

See, it's about "getting back" for all those years of Bush bashing which is honestly hilarious when you think about it. Now, it's Obama bashing time but the difference is that Bush made very large mistakes...many of which still have not been admitted by the Tribe...and that's the main reason why people bashed him. He was incompetent and a criminal. Obama is neither so he must be Hitler!...according to the Cult.

The Cult thinks that everyone thinks like them as you demonstrated quite well above. Losing the argument means that you are wrong and many times in this gray world of ours that is not the case.

The other thing is I'm happy when I'm wrong. It usually means that something good came out of it all. But if someone from the Right is wrong (which never happens, of course, because they just make up a bunch of shit to pretend it's all not real) it is the End of Everything....which is why you can't grok a liberal admitting error. To you that means...well...what you said above.

GuardDuck said...

Then stop talking and acting that way. It's that simple.

Wait a minute. So if I think you are wrong and say so - then I am guilty of not acknowledging your concerns as legitimate and deserving of being addressed in a spirit of cooperation.

But if you think I am wrong it's just because I'm wrong and it's so obvious that even a simpleton could see it - that's the end of your cooperative acknowledgment?

Cooperation for me but not for thee is no cooperation at all.

Kevin said...

"...regarding the Right. There are no solutions at all coming from them..."

Here are some solutions for you.
Seal the borders - allow immigration in an orderly manner.
Lower taxes - let people keep more of their money and watch the economy take off.
Less regulation - get rid of the myriad agencies that have a stranglehold on this country's economy for no other reason than to continue their existence and watch the economy take off.
Less laws - repeal most of the BS laws that have been introduced in the last half century or so, AND ENFORCE THE REST. "If a man doesn't know the law, there are too many laws."
Those are my solutions, and I think they'll work a damn sight better than whatever crap we have that passes for governance right now.

juris imprudent said...

Then stop talking and acting that way. It's that simple.

I won't be the first obviously, but let me add a big, wet FUCK YOU to your condescending bullshit attitude. I won't take that crap from the right and I won't take it from you.

This just couldn't be more appropriate, though I already posted it to the thread above.

last in line said...

There's not a whole lot of solutons coming from you these days either. Just talking about the Cult.

Winning the Argument and Proving the other guy wrong is what happens on blogs because it's just a blog. It's not about Getting Back...couldn't care less about that. It's about pointing out things like blk's criticism of budgets magically stopping at the year 2006 and pointing out the fact that you haven't told us what you think of the mosque or illegal immigration, you just talk about the other sides reaction to those issues.

Haplo9 still equals ownage.

Mark Ward said...

Kevin, to your points.

Seal the borders-I do agree we need more enforcement but that costs more money. You OK with that spending? The other issue is...then what? What do we do with 12 million undocumented workers that are already here and are an integral part of our economy? Deport them on trains? And your orderly manner is far too simplistic an idea to tackle the various intricacies of our current system. BTW, President Obama has been deporting illegals in record numbers.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0812/Obama-as-border-cop-He-s-deported-record-numbers-of-illegal-immigrants

Lower taxes and watch the economy take off? Good Lord. Bush cut taxes twice and Obama cut them once. How is our economy doing? This idea has been proved WRONG by ACTUAL EVENTS IN REALITY. Our economy has a whole host of problems and making the Bush tax cuts permanent would be a huge mistake. Again, terribly simplistic.

Less regulation-Well, we tried that with Graham-Leach-Bliley...how did that work out? I will agree that there are elements of our system that are overregulated. There are also elements that are underregulated. Remember, things are too interconnected to fail and that's what needs to change.

Less laws-You'll have to be more specific on this one. Which laws?

Kevin said...

"Lower taxes and watch the economy take off? Good Lord. Bush cut taxes twice and Obama cut them once. How is our economy doing? This idea has been proved WRONG by ACTUAL EVENTS IN REALITY."

You seriously believe raising taxes IMPROVES the economy? Our economy is in the shitter mainly because of the UNCERTAINTY of what Obama's going to do next. If they KNEW that the government wasn't going to meddle, if they KNEW they'd be able to keep the fruit of their own labor, people would invest, take chances and this economy WOULD take off. This HAS happened in the past.
As to the border - yes, it is worth spending money on. Protecting the nation is actually one of the functions of government that is actually spelled out in the Constitution. As to the forcible removal of millions of people already here, not so simple. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with a government that has the kind of power and will to do such a thing, so I have no easy answer for that. It also was NOT one of the solutions I gave you. Nice strawman though.
Yes, less regulation. Regulatory compliance is a huge cost to small businesses in EVERY sector of our economy. Big business applauds it, because they are more able to absorb the costs while they watch their smaller competitors go under due to those same costs. I thought you were all for the little guy, Mark?
Laws - ignorance of the law is no excuse, we're told often enough. If I were to devote my time to learning all the stupid laws that could impact me in my daily life, I'd have no time to do ANYTHING else. There are TOO MANY laws, way too many for ANYONE to have a decent understanding of, beyond the basic common law stuff. This doesn't infuriate you? You like this sword hanging over everyone's head? There are so many laws that EVERYONE is in violation of one or another at any given time - so what it comes down to is prosecutorial discretion - our lords and masters have the luxury of picking and choosing who they want to destroy at any given time. You see it all the time. This needs to stop.

rld said...

How about the highly taxed states of California and Illinois markadelphia? Democratic policies for decades and now it's not sustainable anymore.

Who the hell on here said to deport illegal immigrants on trains? Keep burning that immigration strawman.

Mark Ward said...

"You seriously believe raising taxes IMPROVES the economy? Our economy is in the shitter mainly because of the UNCERTAINTY of what Obama's going to do next. If they KNEW that the government wasn't going to meddle, if they KNEW they'd be able to keep the fruit of their own labor, people would invest, take chances and this economy WOULD take off. This HAS happened in the past."

Not necessarily raising taxes but letting tax cuts expire. Kevin, the top one percent had a 90 percent tax rate in the 1950s and our economy boomed. I'm not saying we should return to that but the slight up tick to 39 percent isn't going to destroy our economy. You can't bitch about the deficit and then turn around and cut taxes. That's just insane.

And when has this happened in the past? Cite some examples. I have last in line on record as saying this is false. People kept their money and gave it to people like Bernie Madoff. Your last line in the above quote bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever. No one is investing in anything because the criminals that ran our financial services industry stole all their money.

Deportation-it's not a straw man. And I know it's not easy. I say we embrace them and put them on a path to citizenship. As far as I can tell, the Right doesn't want this because that would be anathema to their ideology. But they don't want to deport them either. So what do they want? This is why I say solutions that have no practical application in reality.

As far as regulation and laws go, you didn't answer my question. How did GLB work out?

last in line said...

I could bitch about the deficit and cut taxes all I want. I'd just cut govt spending along with those 2 things. Works well.

Last in line did not declare that as false. What last in line said is that he doesn't necessarily buy the line that all rich people directly create jobs and directly hire people with their money when they get more of it. Socking it away in some hedge fund isn't my idea of creating jobs even though the investments and purchases do help keep the economy moving. I could be wrong...it's just a hunch I have. Having last in line on record doesn't amount to much btw. I'm a moronic asshole.

It's also safe to say that what the folks you voted for are doing with the economy isn't working. Have they named that second garbage stimulus bill yet?

Ask union construction workers what they think about embracing all that cheap labor. What do YOU think about Obama deporting all those illegals?

Mark Ward said...

Regarding the stimulus...

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/10/john-boehner/rep-john-boehner-proposes-us-stop-stimulus-spendin/

I don't think you are a moronic asshole. I just wonder why you listen to ones like John Boehner.

last in line said...

What the hell does me saying "I'd cut government spending" have to do with John Boehner fudging stimulus numbers in some interview? You erected another strawman there. Debate me, not John Boehner.

A politician fudging numbers - stop the presses! OMG LOL!! Whether it was $292 billion or $500 billion, the unemployment rate keeps rising.

If you want to go on the record, go to the comment section of The Sad Return of a Monster, Feb 9, 2009 on this blog where you said "I think you need to look at the specifics of the (stimulus) bill regarding the weight the private sector is going to bear. In addition, companies will be forced to lay off more people and we will be at 10 percent unemployment if the bill does not pass. Is that a bad thing though?"

Well, we are just about to 10% unemployment even though the bill passed.

Care to explain to us all how spending $448 million to build the Department of Homeland Security a new building, spending $2 billion for neighborhood stabilization programs, spending $150 million for a Smithsonian museum, spending $75 million for smoking cessation activities, spending $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas, spending $1.2 billion for youth activities, spending $88 million for renovating the public health service building, spending $522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, having a $500 million earmark for National Institutes of Health facilities in Maryland, $1 billion for administrative costs and construction of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration office buildings, spending $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings, etc etc has worked so far to bring the economy back?

juris imprudent said...

12 million undocumented workers that are already here and are an integral part of our economy

Doesn't it bother you in the least that those 12 million workers are being exploited? Or what of the unemployed citizens who could be filling those jobs?

I say we embrace them and put them on a path to citizenship.

No, the reason for the majority of opposition to that is two fold: first it rewards breaking the law in the first place, and second, we did this once before. Remember the amnesty in the 80s - was promised as a one-off deal with better border control as the follow on? How did that work out?

Remember, things are too interconnected to fail and that's what needs to change.

Wrong. Things must fail or failure will never weed out the bad ideas. You cannot avoid the use of failure or you perpetuate a zombie-like economy, not quite dead but not alive either.

Kevin, the top one percent had a 90 percent tax rate in the 1950s and our economy boomed.

Manzi has been completely flushed down a memory hole I see.

White Racists said...

Third, we have the hard stance against illegal immigrants and much louder yelling for border enforcement.

I'm a lifelong pot smoker in my 50s.

Do I disagree with marijuana laws? Yes, I do. Do I think they are long overdue to be changed? Yes, I do. Do I pay a price for that choice that I consider unfair? Yes, I do.

Do I think cops should stop enforcing marijuana laws, politicians should advocate breaking those laws, and whole cities or states should declare themselves "sanctuaries" from those laws, and be lionized for it?

No, I do not.

Why? Because I think the rule of law is supposed to trump what any given individual wants. If you don't like it, work to change the law.

However, if I use the logic and line of argument you bring to the immigration debate, I should demand that police stop enforcing drug laws immediately, whether they ever get changed or not. If I get busted for possession by a black cop, I should automatically assume racism. If a city that has a majority of blacks comprising its police force insists on enforcing the laws as written until they are changed, I should shout from the housetops how "obviously fucking racist" the residents of that city are, and refuse to hear any argument that suggests any possibility of a different motivation.

In short, I find your argument so juvenile as to be insulting that you think I should be stupid enough to fall for it.

Kevin said...

"No one is investing in anything because the criminals that ran our financial services industry stole all their money."

I repeat - no-one is investing in expansion/employment because of the uncertainty of what the administration will have them on the hook for.
As for personal investments, mine are doing fine thanksverymuch and no-one has stolen from me.
People invest of their own free will. If they're not careful, if they go for the "too good to be true" returns then yes they can be screwed. It doesn't happen to everyone as you seem to imply.
My worst "investment" is the one I have no choice in - Social Security. I'm reasonably certain that by the time I retire, it will be gone, one way or another. It will either be literally gone, or I'll be means-tested out eligibility.

Kevin said...

"..out OF eligibility"
PIMF.