Adios, Stockholm!

posted at 1:13 pm on November 4, 2009 by Mitch_Berg
printer-friendly

One of the Democrats’ most irritating memes is the idea that there’s some “Moderate Republican” out there that, if the GOP would just send ‘em to office, would unite with Democrats and, well, fix everything! 

There’s a complementary meme, of course; that conservatism – government that favors the utterly Jeffersonian ideals of lower taxes and free markets and security – is “Extremist”. 

Of course, this is never accompanied by the equal-but-opposite idea – that nationalizing a sixth of the economy, taxing achievement and subsidizing failure is equally “extreme”,  as opposed to being just what people (wrongly, in this case) believe and how they differ from you. 

In so doing, Democrats pine for the days before 1980 (2002, in Minnesota) when the GOP did nothing more than try to bring a little restraint to the statist fantasies of the far left that has been the mainstream of the Democratic Party, with a six-year break from 1994 to 2000, ever since 1972.

And after last night, as The Obama Dream staggers off to Wisconsin with a black eye, expect Dems to start pining for those days again – the days when Republicans had Stockholm Syndrome.

Jeff “Don’t Call Me Joel” Rosenberg of MNPublius - one of the better liberal blogs in the upper midwest – gives the meme voice:

Once upon a time in American politics, there was a character known as a Moderate Republican. The defining characteristic of the Moderate Republican was his or her tendency to occasionally Compromise on Things. Very young political observers may not understand what I’m talking about, but there was a time when the occasional Republican would actually vote for a bill sponsored by a Democrat.

They’d have to be very young “political observers” indeed. John McCain was one of them. 

So, for that matter, was George W. Bush; except for foreign policy and that whole “God” thing, he wasn’t far to the right of Jim Ramstad.  He presided over a domestic policy that only a moderate-to-lefty could love; prescription drug subsidies, co-sponsoring an  Education bill with Ted Kennedy, racking up a spending record to the left of Bill Clinton.

The problem is, once a “Moderate” Republican is in a position to threaten Democrat power, he/she is instantly labelled an “extremist”; see John McCain, whose lifetime ACU voting record of two points to the right of Jim Ramstad and “Maverick” label and history notwithstanding got branded by the Dems attack-PR machine and the media that basically spent the last two years working as their adjuncts as “an extreme conservative”.

The lesson all Republicans (and smart Democrats) should learn is that, when the chips are down, “the Moderate Republican” does not exist.

Today, however, Republicans fit into a much narrower band of ideologies. In fact, Newt Gingrich, a onetime leader of the conservative wing of the party, is now on the moderate side of his party.

{{facepalm}}

Now, Jeff is not by a long stretch a dumb guy.  Indeed, in a Twin Cities leftyblogosphere dominated by the stupid and the depraved, he’s near the top of the curve.  But this is just absurd.

Gingrich, in his capacity as both an intellectual and party leader, threw some institutional love to the party apparatus in a generally-insignificant, backwater upstate district.  That apparatus hand-picked Dede Scozzafava, who is a textbook example of a RINO – a woman who ran to the left of the Democrats’ endorsed candidate.  The endorsement is a sign that Gingrich didn’t think the race through, and that Palin and Pawlenty saw an opportunity and ran with it.  Not that Newt turned into a hamster on us.

Anyone to the left of Gingrich is considered an America-hating communist?

Oh, good lord, Jeff.  Give it a rest.

It’s all well and good that conservative activists want to elect politicians who reflect their beliefs. What they’ve created, though, is a monster?—?a Republican party that votes en masse against any bill sponsored by a Democrat,

I’m sure Rosenberg is aware that the GOP controls neither house of Congress. 

 that’s more interested in fire-breathing political gamesmanship than participating in the legislative process.

Jeff:  If you and I play a game of chess, and I actually move my pieces to try to put your king in check, it doesn’t mean I”m “not particpating in the chess process”.  It means I’m doing what I set out to do at the beginning of the chess game; enact my agenda (by beating you).

The left’s meme (for Republicans) would have it that agreement is the end.  It is not – or rather, it is not the end that any given elected official should seek as of election night.  It is a means to the end.

And the truly amazing thing is, it’s going to get worse.

Where “worse” equals “present the left all of that scary cognitive dissonance that comes from having to defend your agenda, rather than get it for the asking”. 

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who upended the race in New York’s 23rd District, is just the tip of the iceberg. Right-wing extremists have big plans for replacing Republican to the left of Glenn Beck with “real” conservatives.

Notwithstanding Rosenberg’s invocation of boogeyman-du-jour Beck, as well as the absence of any commensurate move by the Dems to replace anyone to the left of Byron Dorgan with moderate Joe Lieberman clones to show the sincerity of their commitment to “compromise”, why would he care?  I mean, if conservatism is truly “extreme”, and truly doesn’t reflect the electorate, then wouldn’t a good Democrat want the opposition to immolate itself?

Because, I suggest, Rosenberg (or the K-street spinmeisters he’s echoing, knowingly or not) knows it’s a bunch of baked wind.

When the Tea Parties can turn out millions of people in the shadow of the Obama Honeymoon, and when the best the left can do is call them naughty names in response, the left knows the “swing to the right” isn’t just a passing fad.

When the left has to demonize entertainers like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, rather than just let them do the voodoo they do (which, you’d think, would only help the left, if any of them were so “extreme” that they really did marginalize themselves and their followers, you know they’re scared of something.

When the left has to try to impart a patina of illegitimacy, depravity and even criminality on simple cognitive dissonance – everything from Janet Napolitano’s “enemies list” to the recurring slurs about the Town Hall meeting dissenters to Barbara Boxer’s “Nazi” references – you know it’s not because they think dissent isn’t self-abnegating.

On the bright side, this internal battle is going to make a mess of the 2010 election cycle for Republicans, who could have had a pretty good year in 2010. On the not-so-bright side, it’s going to mean even less cooperation from Republicans in Congress over the next year, if that’s even possible.

Um, Jeff?  If the GOP has a bad year in 2010, building on our almost-negligible position today, then why is our cooperation even an issue? 

Republicans will remember what happened to Scozzafava, and toe the conservative line lest someone challenge them, too.

That is the idea. 

I’m sure that will strike hardline conservatives as major progress. The funny thing, though, is that in the long run this scorched-earth strategy is likely to do major damage to the Republican party. That’s what Gingrich warned conservatives about after Scozzafava withdrew from the race:

If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we’ll make Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee Obama’s re-election

 And it’s there that Rosenberg gets close to a point, although he might not know it. 

Gingrich was warning about the dangers of excessive purism, and of the Pat Buchanan approach of taking ones toys and leaving the sandbox.   It’s a legitimate concern – ask Algore! – but should not be confused with what’s been his real message for 15 years now; selling conservatism to the middle, rather than running to the middle (the loathsome Scozzafava notwithstanding) like a $2 streetwalker to get some cheap votes.

And those are wise words indeed; which is why the left is working hard to try to portray all conservatism as “extremism”.

Blowback

You must be logged in to post a comment.