Contributors

Friday, July 15, 2011

Republican Messiahs

Listening to the debate in Congress and in the states, it has become clear that the Republicans have developed a messianic complex.

Democrats, in general, seem to believe that they were elected to do the job of making the country or state run smoothly and efficiently. During the campaign they tell us the way they think things should work. Once they get to the capitol they do what they can to make things work that way, but when push comes to shove it's more important to have the country continue to function than to get their way.

But that's okay, because a broad swath of progressives, moderates and independents voted for Obama and the Democrats in the 2008 election. It was obvious that all the people who voted for them didn't expect or want Obama and the Democrats to carry through on every single promise they made during the election. They sent Democrats to Washington to clean up the messes that Bush and the Republicans had made of the economy, the wars in the Middle East, international relations, and so on.

On the other hand, Republicans and especially Tea Partyers like Michele Bachmann seem to go to Washington with the delusion that they're doing the bidding of the people who voted for them if they ram through every crazy notion that ever spilled from their lips.

Bachmann is perfectly willing to let the US government default and lose our AAA bond rating. Or she pretends that nothing bad would happen, and all we really need to do is pay off creditors like the Chinese government, Wall Street, and wealthy individuals who bought treasury bonds, and stiff FAA flight controllers, USDA inspectors, and Social Security recipients.

Republicans won the House in 2010 not because the American people wanted the things the Tea Party was promising. They won because the people who voted for Obama in 2008 stayed home, and many independents were angry about the poor state of the economy (caused by Bush's errors) and the bailout (engineered by Bush) and bought into the rhetoric of the Tea Party. There were a lot of protest votes.

In 2000 Bush lost the popular vote 47.87% to 48.38% (winning 271-266 electoral votes). In 2004 Bush won by 50.74% to 48.27% (winning 286-251 electoral votes). In 2008 Obama beat McCain 52.92% to 45.66% (winning 365-173 electoral votes).

Clearly Obama and the Democrats had a much wider margin of victory in 2008 than Bush and the Republicans did in the 2000 and 2004 elections. For the first eight years of the century Republicans pretended that they were granted a huge mandate and were entitled to do absolutely anything they felt like. In 2006 and 2008 they were trounced by Democrats, who received an obviously much larger mandate.

But if the Republican House victories in 2010 indicated that the American people wanted massive budget cuts and no change in the debt ceiling, why didn't the Democrats' much larger victories in 2008 indicate that Americans wanted single-payer health care? Why are marginal Republican victories always mandates, and solid Democratic victories aberrations?

This country was founded on the basis of compromise, coming together for the common good of the people. The founding fathers didn't all speak in one voice, and they made serious compromises to make sure this country got started in the first place. Compromises like allowing slavery -- which had essentially been outlawed in England since 1701.

Obama has been running the country from the middle. He gave up on single-payer health care and instead accepted a plan like Romney's in Massachusetts, a plan that Bob Dole -- who deep-sixed Clinton's health care initiative -- supported. He accepted Republican insistence on extending Bush-era tax cuts. And on and on. Attempts to portray him as radical and liberal are simply lies. He's right down the middle of the road on just about everything -- much to the annoyance of many Democrats.

And that's not a ploy to get reelected. That's how all politicians should operate: work together to get the job done and the best deal for the greatest number of people.

Americans in general are disgusted by politics. They hate it when politicians promise something and don't deliver. But they hate it more when politicians can't even do their basic job and keep the country or state functioning properly.

Republicans elected to Congress are not messiahs anointed by god to enforce Grover Norquist's will on the country by throwing us down the rathole of default. They were hired by the American people to keep the country running smoothly.

They need to get on with it.

10 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." -- Thomas Jefferson

Anonymous said...

Democrats good.
Republicans bad.

You could save all of us a lot of time and just post four words whenever the urge hits you.

-just dave said...

Wow...just...Wow...
Nuttier than squirrel droppings.

6Kings said...

Rather than debunk that foolish drivel, I will post some gems that are good.

Americans in general are disgusted by politics. They hate it when politicians promise something and don't deliver. But they hate it more when politicians can't even do their basic job and keep the country or state functioning properly.

Hence the single digit poll approvals for Congress.

They were hired by the American people to keep the country running smoothly.

They need to get on with it.


There, not so bad. Something we can agree on.

Mark Ward said...

I didn't get that at all from this post. Democrats always move to the center because that's where elections are won. They constantly piss of their left wing but I think that's a good thing because many of their ideas, quite frankly, suck.

The current form of the GOP is doubling down on the extreme, though, with their purity tests, RINOs, and assorted BS. The Grover Norquist thing should scare the hell out of you, dave, and it shows a key difference between how the Democrats operate and how the GOP operates today. President Obama and the Democrats receive daily complaints from the professional left but they do what is necessary to get the job done. The GOP, in contrast, better fucking well listen to the base or they will get "primaried."

This stark difference is as plain as night and day. Compare George Soros with Grover Norquist, for example. Does Soros make any sign pledges like Norquist does? No one says no to Grover (ex: Tom Couburn who is one of the few good guys still out there in the GOP) but people say no to Soros all the time. In fact...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/george-soros-obama_n_785022.html

At a private meeting on Tuesday afternoon, George Soros, a longtime supporter of progressive causes, voiced blunt criticism of the Obama administration, going so far as to suggest that Democratic donors direct their support somewhere other than the president.

Anonymous said...

"Hence the single digit poll approvals for Congress."

Hence the incumbent re-election rate of ~99%. Wait... how can that make any sense?

"And here is one last question to consider as you celebrate the tattered vestiges of what was once American freedom. After every war of the 20th century, from World War I to Vietnam, Americans eventually learned that they had been manipulated into going to war by their political leaders. From the sinking of the Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin, from Woodrow Wilson's secret machinations to those of Winston Churchill and F.D.R., history has always revealed that the bloody flag was at least partially stained with red paint. In light of what has happened in the last 10 years, what are the odds that this is not also true of the current collection of wars?"

-Vox Day

rld said...

It's not hate when democrats do it.

http://wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2238026&spid=

Anonymous said...

As I am ignorant of this Norquist fellow, I wiki'd him and found this:

In 2010, Norquist joined the advisory board of GOProud, a political organization representing conservative gays, lesbians, transgendered people, and their allies, for which he was criticized by the Family Research Council.

This cock-sucker is no Republican! Republicans hate cock sucking more than Mark does.

Haplo9 said...

>it has become clear

Heh Mark has the same problem as Obama. Whenever he says something like the above, you know that whatever comes next will be anything but.

Obama in 2006 said...

‎"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills".

"It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!" - Obama 2006