Everyone Agrees With Me: The GOP Is About Resentment

Stuff that I’ve been typing down over & over again the past few years is suddenly emerging as the new conventional wisdom.

Jon Chait:

reasonable compromise to avert the fiscal cliff is impossible. Republicans, as a whole, don’t even seem capable of linear thinking about the budget. Theydon’t know what they actually want on spending. They don’t understand why Obama wants more revenue or what role this would play in the broader fiscal picture. They don’t even seem capable of politically organizing in a way that maximizes their fanatic principles. The House Republican caucus is simply a teeming pit of revanchist anger.

Charlie Pierce:

There is no possible definition by which the Republicans can be considered an actual political party any more. They can be defined as a loose universe of inchoate hatreds, or a sprawling confederation of collected resentments, or an unwieldy conglomeration of self-negating orthodoxies, or an atonal choir of rabid complaint, or a cargo cult of quasi-religious politics and quasi-political religion, or simply the deafening abandoned YAWP of our bitter national Id. But they are not a political party because they have rendered themselves incapable of politics.

Paul Krugman:

And there’s a broader lesson here. This is no time for a Grand Bargain, because the Republican Party, as now constituted, is just not an entity with which the president can make a serious deal. If we’re going to get a grip on our nation’s problems — of which the budget deficit is a minor part — the power of the G.O.P.’s extremists, and their willingness to hold the economy hostage if they don’t get their way, needs to be broken. And somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen in the next few days.

David Frum:

For almost any given Republican, the best possible outcome of the Plan B negotiations would have been for Plan B to pass – but for that particular Republican to vote nay. The trouble was, that there were too many Republicans who wished to avail themselves of that outcome. They all rushed the exits together, and there was not enough room to accommodate the stampede. It’s a classic “prisoner’s dilemma” problem from political science, and the dilemma achieved its usual grim result.

The more haunting question is: why was this dilemma allowed to exist?

The prisoner’s dilemma arises, remember, because the prisoners have no way to make binding agreements. But the whole point of a political party is to overcome that dilemma, to create structures that reward cooperation and punish defection.

The deepest moral of the Plan B debacle is that those structures have broken down inside the GOP. And that’s a very scary moral indeed.

Or more concisely:

I hardly even know which post of mine to quote, ’cause this is pretty much the underlying theory of everything I write.

Here’s an example:

As we’ve seen in the past decade, Republicans don’t have any policy views. They loved and supported Pres. Bush right up to the endbuying an endless supply of fawning biographies and tchotchkes that the conservative “intelligentsia” pumped out. This despite running up a mammoth debt, invading and occupying a country for no reason, expanding executive authority to unheard of levels in Padilla and with warrantless wiretapping, and taking a strong stance on federal authority in Raich and with NCLB.

(All of today’s GOP leaders, like Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, and Cantor, were on board with all of this debt-exploding and executive-authority-enhancing. They have evinced zero capacity for reflection or learning from experience).

Today, of course, the GOP claims to care most passionately about… federalism and the debt. But we remember that history didn’t begin yesterday, so we know that’s not what’s animating them.

The right-leaning FrumForum site has floated the theories that, Charlie-Sheen style, they just like “winning,” or that Republicans like being jerks. We need not wade too far into that psychological thicket; we do know that they don’t care about policy.

A few weeks ago, I anticipated Frum’s point:

In today’s purely tribal GOP, anyone who strays from the right wing’s political correctness du jour can instantly be dismissed as an unreliable element, as Not One Of Us. And it’s pretty unpredictable what mainstream conservative idea– such as the individual mandate– could suddenly be decried as socialism. (Bruce Bartlett was ejected in 2006 for stressing the importance of the deficit; David Frum was fired in 2010 for opposing the Affordable Care Act without apocalyptic rhetoric).

So John Boehner (and Eric Cantor under him, and Kevin McCarthy under him) has every incentive to attack moderate proposals from the president (or their own leadership) as not merely unwise but tyrannical. That’s why Mitt Romney barely even bothered to propose any policies. It was be a zero-upside electoral strategy for him to come up with any policy that meaningfully addresses anything happening in real life. And the man is nothing if not an empiricist!

There are no GOP actors with the political sway, or perhaps even the inclination, to return to rational discourse on public policy.

See also:

The reason for the receptivity to antigovernment rhetoric, in my view, is the orchestrated Republican flipout, not the act itself. …

[A]t the very least at the federal level, a vote for a Republican is a vote for nihilism.

If there weren’t a Republican flipout about a four-year-old, industry-favored, bipartisan bill about light bulbs, there would be a flipout about airline regulations, or tax forms, or shipping wine across state borders, or importation procedures, or the Third Amendment, or the absence of airline regulations, or whatever else could be mined for deceptive, inflammatory demagoguery.

The point of the resentment is the resentment. As Pat Buchanan wrote in his 1971 memo to Richard Nixon, working to heighten whites’ resentment about “the elitism and quasi-anti-Americanism of the National Democratic Party” would “cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.”

In 1971, that was a tactical gambit. Today, it’s the alpha and the omega of Republican rhetoric, policy proposals, and legislative effort. That’s why the Republican Party’s critique of Pres. Obama’s record on the economy consists entirely of lies, and that’s why GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney’s campaign is premised on telling inflammatory lies about America and the president.

This entry was posted in News and Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.tarheelred.com/ Pino

    This is no time for a Grand Bargain

    So, I’ve tried to put myself in the room and see how I might build a deal.

    I would have to allow the democrats to say that they built more revenue. And I would have to allow the republicans to say that they didn’t raise taxes. Now, how to do that?

    It would require Obama to back down from his “tax the rich” position. And it would require the broadening of the tax base.

    Then the spending.

    Both sides would have to give on their sacred cow. Defense and entitlement. I don’t get the sense that either side will budge on that; the right won’t allow fewer ships and the left won’t allow inflation to be measured correctly.

    I see the problems in the negotiation but I don’t see the crazy loons on the right standing alone in the blame.

    Obama has to give on his tax the rich meme; it doesn’t solve any single problem except satisfying the crazy loons on the left that think the rich are too rich.

    The hawks have to give on defense; we certainly have room to cut.

    And Peolosi et al have to give on their entitlement reform position.

    How wrong am I?

    • http://poisonyourmind.com reflectionephemeral

      The notion that returning some marginal income tax rates to surplus-era levels is merely “satisfying the crazy loons on the left” is the problem.

      The rates in the 2001 & 2003 Bush tax bills weren’t handed down by God. It’s fine to prefer that they remain in place; it is wildly unreasonable to make that the central, perhaps only, policy goal of one of the two major parties. Alas, that’s where we are.

      There’s not an “entitlement” problem. There’s a long-term, fixable problem with Social Security. The long-term problem with Medicaid is a subset of our nationwide, economy-wide problem with health care costs. We pay 2.5 times the OECD average for health care, for not-any-better results. Saying, “cut government spending to shift those massive expenses onto the elderly!” is a dodge from that policy issue.

      • http://www.tarheelred.com/ Pino

        The notion that returning some marginal income tax rates to surplus-era
        levels is merely “satisfying the crazy loons on the left” is the
        problem.

        As you correctly mention, setting rates at surplus-era levels is a valid policy idea. However, it doesn’t do anything to solve the deficit problem. All it does is fulfill Obama’s campaign promise to the far left. If you could show me that a return to Clinton era tax rates, not on everybody – just the top earners, would make any meaningful difference, I could begin to support the idea as well.

        But as it is, Obama doesn’t wanna return to those rates; just some. AND, he doesn’t wanna return to surplus-era spending rates either.

        The only way, in my mind, that giving on the high end rates is if the democrats would then give on spending. That’s why I groaned when, during the primary, every candidate on stage raised their hand when they were asked if they would not take the 10-1 cuts-tax increase deal.

        10 to 1 is a great deal and I’d give on the tax rate issue.

        • http://poisonyourmind.com dedc79

          I think Obama also offered $1.2 trillion in revenue for $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and that was rejected when Boehner instead made his “plan b” move.

          • Alan Scott

            Everyone who observes dispassionately knows that this is not about deficit reduction . Obama has never been serious about making a deal with Republicans . This is about keeping his base of know nothings angry and getting Republicans to negotiate with themselves . Obama does not care about the deficit . If bankrupting the country is what it takes to destroy the Republicans, that is a very small price to pay .

            So amazing that we have group hysteria on the left that swallows the most absurd arguments. Saved or created jobs, 4 million green jobs, 4 years of high unemployment is still G.W. Bush’s fault, taxing job creators more does not kill jobs, and Obama personally oversaw the killing of Bin Laden yet he and Hillary had no idea who left our Ambassador in Libya unprotected .

            How stupid do you have to be to believe anything Obama says ?

          • vicomtepicabia

            Democrats are terrible! Democrats invaded Iraq, getting us involved in a pointless war! Democrats tried to privatize Social Security! Democrats want to cut your Medicare! Democrats want to take away your Dallas Cowboys and replace them with a gay soccer team! Yes, I think dispassionate observers can all agree, Democrats are no-good hound-dogs!

          • Alan Scott

            vicometepicabia ,

            Facts have no meaning when you are consumed with hate, , , do they ? Iraq is great , is it not ? Cite it and then turn your brains off . Bush ran up $ 4 Trillion in 8 years and Obama ran up $ 6 Trillion in only 4 years, yet Iraq is the problem ? Earth to you, what don’t you get ?

            SS and Medicare are going bankrupt . Privatizing them did not cause that !

            When you care to argue facts, I’ll be here . Now if you want to argue gay issues, I will bow to your superior intellect .

          • vicomtepicabia

            “Bush ran up $ 4 Trillion in 8 years and Obama ran up $ 6 Trillion in only 4 years”

            Do you think there was something different about the economic conditions under which they did those things? And I’m afraid we can never cut Medicare by even one single dollar, because that would be death panels. Stop trying to murder my Nana!

            Hey, you never told me what secret technologies you’re researching. C’mon, don’t hold out on me, bro! I wanna be protected from Obama’s henchmen too, cuz I actually voted for Romney. (Because of his rock-solid principles. You don’t always agree with him, but you sure know where he stands.)

            And I’d just like to add—what’s that noise? Oh my God, there’s a hundred henchmen outside my house! They’re busting down the door! They must have detected me typing the phrase “I actually voted for Romney” and now they’re gonna put me in a concentration camp! They’re through the door–they’re grabbing me–I just have time to hit “Post” as they drag me away from the computer! Help meeeeeeeeee!

        • http://poisonyourmind.com reflectionephemeral

          Right now isn’t the time to try to “solve the deficit”.

          Borrowing rates are low, cutting spending in this weak economy is self-defeating (see the UK), the deficit is inflated by weak revenues so we shouldn’t be making long-term decisions right now, and we also have one political party with zero interest in governance or rationality. No one should be trying to solve the deficit right now; solve unemployment, and the deficit comes down.

          We tax and spend less than just about anyone else in the OECD; one can reasonably argue that spending on this or that item should be decreased or cut off, but it’s not reasonable to point to “spending” altogether as the problem.