The (GOP) world is going to hell, Peg Noonan thinks. And it has been for some time.
The Democrats aren’t the ones falling apart, the Republicans are. The Democrats can see daylight ahead. For all their fractious fighting, they’re finally resolving their central drama. Hillary Clinton will leave, and Barack Obama will deliver a stirring acceptance speech. Then hand-to-hand in the general, where they see their guy triumphing. You see it when you talk to them: They’re busy being born.
The Republicans? Busy dying. The brightest of them see no immediate light. They’re frozen, not like a deer in the headlights but a deer in the darkness, his ears stiff at the sound. Crunch. Twig. Hunting party.
It’d be tempting, but foolish I think, to write this off as just another bit of anguished, fin de siecle nostalgia from the Reagan-era speech writer. A talented woman once convinced that hers was the party of ideas. That great things were in the offing. Because this time she’s right. The GOP is heading for an epic shellacking in the fall elections – and they deserve it, even if their opposition doesn’t deserve to profit from their losses. In politics, like war, it is insufficient that those who have it coming to them lose – someone else has to win.
It’s the war of course, mostly. That and high oil prices, which may well be linked. And continuous stream of economic alarmism in the press. And the unremitting hostility of the cultural elites on both coasts.
The neatest political trick of the generation was the almost balletic shift of the Democratic Party solons from a position of support for the war to opposition of it. This required a fair amount of historical revisionism combined with the claim that many of them had been deceived by the President into voting for the war – the infamous “sixteen words” – to assertions that it had been grotesquely mismanaged, irretrievably bungled or not worth the cost of finishing in the country’s favor. In this they were abetted by a media tribunes wedded to the “Another Grim Milestone” brand of reportage. Not only because, waspishly certain that they had been misled in the run-up to the war they determined to wring their penance out in the adversarial reporting of it, but also because we – all of us – buy blood. Bad news sells. And news is, after all, a business. You don’t sell what the people want, you’ll lose your job to somebody that will.
They re-branded the country’s war as “Bush’s war” and then busily marshaled allies invested in the losing of it. Exhausted perhaps at fighting two wars overseas and in any case unequipped with the rhetorical graces required to prop up domestic support for a long war – always difficult in a democracy – the President himself essentially ceded the domestic battlefield to his enemies, emerging from the fortified citadel of the White House only long enough to veto congressional attempts at circumscribing his war powers. History will judge me, the president seemed to say, resigning himself to being a political punching bag in the here and now. To such a great degree that, having spoken some really general and rather inoffensive things about the perils of negotiating with terrorists and illusory advantages of appeasement in front of the Israeli Knesset, the outraged howls of those who nevertheless chose to be offended threatened to deafen anyone within a ten mile radius of the District of Columbia. It is the president’s role to be the target of outrage, they insist. A great deal of time and ink has been spent crafting that role for him. He will be permitted no other.
And it worked. Despite the fact that no one was lied to. Despite the fact that mistakes will happen in war – that great attempts come with commensurate risks, or else the achievement of them could not be qualified as great. Despite the fact that none of those things which now are called blunders – disbanding the old Iraqi army, de-Ba’athification, even an occupation strategy crafted around protecting coalition forces rather than setting the conditions for the security of the Iraqi people – were obviously bad ideas at the time. And while the cost of eliminating Saddam’s predatory tyranny and leaving behind something marginally better can be reckoned to the penny and drop of blood, the cost of leaving him and his poisonous prodigy in place to continue with their toxic schemes is incalculable. Although we do know this: If a nuclear mushroom cloud rises over the New York City skyline some day in not-too-distant future, we will know where it did not come from.
But I must stop there, before I commit the political sin of “fear mongering” – of suggesting there are those in the world that might try to target the US homeland with a horrible weapon of mass destructive power. Irrationals and irreconcilables who might try to kill us in our thousands, indiscriminately. Which everyone knows is preposterous. And anyway, it has become common knowledge that we create terror by fighting against it. It is a kind of modern day alchemy, formulated on precisely the same scientific basis as its ancient predecessor.
With the president declining to defend himself, and with GOP “leadership” stuck with his brand, you would think that some articulate man of principle would step up to carry the torch of freedom, democracy and security at home and in the world abroad. It is one of the strange ironies of today’s politics that one of the few men with the courage and moral authority to do so is former Democratic Party vice presidential candidate and current US Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn). Having been banished from the party of his birth for heterodoxy, but re-elected by a loyal constituency, he’s probably the only politician on Capitol Hill with absolutely nothing to lose and is therefore free to follow principle where it leads him. Which must be liberating.
Because there are very few politicians left in the GOP with the moral authority to do so, even if they were inclined to. They are not plagued merely by their attachment to power for its own sake, and all the sordid little compromises, profligacies and scandals that go along with such an attachment, they have lost their theory of government. Reagan’s dream of a small and non-intrusive federal government did not survive his own second term. Tax cuts – for the wealthy! – no longer stir the people’s soul. We are all willing to pay more out of our own pockets in order to really stick it to the Jones down the street, and who knows? Maybe get a little of it back from the government. “God, guns and gays” is no longer a branding point when your opposition falls all over themselves writing epistles on conversion, sticks a sock in the mouth of their gun control wing and the culture moves on. Gay marriage is a constitutional right, you see. It was in there all along, you just didn’t see it. You bigot.
And so the GOP is going to get creamed in the House, although conservatives – not quite the same thing – can console themselves in the knowledge that many of the new Democratic Party congressmen from formerly safe GOP seats will be anything but poster children for the progressivism. Thus, change.
In the Senate, Republicans must defend 23 seats to their opposition’s 12. Five long-time Republican incumbents are retiring, no Democrats. Four GOP seats will probably change hands: Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska, New Hampshire. Colorado and Minnesota are toss-ups. Maine and Oregon are GOP-leaning, but could be upsets. That’s a probable loss of eight seats, leaving the GOP with 41 if no one else stumbles at the gate. Just enough to sustain a filibuster, if not enough to positively shape policy.
Which is just as well, since the GOP doesn’t appear to have anything positive to say, just now – or at least, nothing positive to say that they could plausibly purport to believe in. A time in the wilderness might be just the ticket.
The election will soon be over (thank God!), true colors will soon fly, and over-reach will breed reaction. The wheel keeps turning.
Lex, Happy retirement! Get in some golf, some stick time, some Guiness.
But I have to make a depressed comment on your post….
Just as it was difficult for the libs to endure 8 years of the evil Bush, it will be tough for me to endure 4 or 8 years of the new generation of liberals (spelled “socialists”).
But even worse than that, I fear what we will have remaining after we finally emerge from that wilderness. What socialist programs will be in place, what changes to the “living” Constitution will take place by activist courts while we lack the power to stop them.
Because, even though “the new Democratic
Party congressmen from formerly safe GOP seats will be anything but poster children for the progressivism”, elected democrats, progressive or not, learn early on that they tow the party line, or they will die, which IS progressive (also spelled “socialist”).
I fear that the dream of the founding fathers is about to come to an end as they had designed it, as we have always known it.
Thank God for Guiness (I prefer mine slightly lower than room temp.)
As a Conservative Republican Arizonan (and lover of labels) I will add my observations.
The Republican Party indeed has no direction–it has recklessly squandered any moral authority it might have had over the last few years. Fiscal and personal responsibility have taken a backseat. Republican politicians have felt safe taking voter support for granted because the alternatives were SO unacceptable. Overall, they have led poorly and articulated worse. Now we have Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid…and potentially, Obama and/or Clinton(s). It is a dry and dusty trail for Republicans. We thirst.
John McCain is a man whom I have never voted for. Despite his distinguished Naval career, I have always blanked him on my Republican Ballot.
McCain-Feingold, Immigration, “The Gang of 14″ are all disqualifiers (to me) in their own right. But, Senator McCain has a long history of rather expedient political triangulation which I have also found objectionable. Far from being a “maverick”, I find him rather self-serving and disagree with him on many “conservative” issues. IMO, McCains election will doom the Republican Party for a long time…
Without Carter there would not have been a Reagan. Unfortunately, we had to suffer those four years to get to Reagan and Gingrich. We seem to be at another one of those crossroads. The crossroads leading to your “wilderness”, Lex. Our Nation just seems to need to hit bottom politically before we will listen to the intervention. John McCain is emphatically N O T T H E M A N.
The dilemma: We are at war. That fact makes me a one issue voter. I have no confidence in a President McCain other than on that one issue. THE issue. He will fight. Americans need to finish this fight (and do it successfully). McCain will get my vote because of the war–and the party (and Country) will suffer and continue to thirst on other issues. So be it. Into the abyss.
Somewhere there is a young “Reagan” out there. Miss Noonan and I will just have to wait.
I think Obama will be the Democratic nominee, but I’m not sure of his chances against McCain in November. Look for moderate SCOTUS appointments from a President McCain. He does have a history of crossing the aisle to get things done, and he’ll need all the skills he can muster to do so in a solidly Democratic Congress.
I can’t bring myself to practice saying “President Obama”. It sounds so – wrong.
But if I must, I’ll do it – and suffer with every syllable. And suffer much more at his hands I’m sure. Because I agree with Marianne – I too fear what will happen to my beloved country under the jackboot of a socialist masquerading as something much more warm and fuzzy – Change! Hope! – and I fear about the fallout in the years after we finally kick his gaffe-filled butt out.
Remember that bunker I was going to build???? I’m thinking of something a little more large-scale should we have to say President Obama; like a tropical island.
The one consolation I have as a conservative is that conservatives do seem to be better at leading the country from the minority than from the majority.
Jim C
Wandering in the desert. You can get used to it. It’s kind of peaceful in fact. I’ll hold my nose and vote for McCain, who, in his own special way is as narcissistic as the Chosen One who will run against him. I’d fear 4 years of Obama less if I felt that there was some young Republican politician who offered hope in 2012. But the well in both parties seems to have run dry just now.
You heard it here first-McCain will win the Presidency, and the Democrats will control Congress. Which is great if you ask me-provided the Dems pick up enough seats to make the Senate fillibuster proof. There can be a check and balance.
As for Bush-it still comes down to the fact that: 1) he never really had a domestic agenda save for cutting taxes. 2) Rightly or wrongly ( and you know my feeling on the issue) he had the United States invade a sovereign nation that had not attacked it-and in so doing reaped the consequences of that decision. In particular, he showed a very poor understanding of the Arab world in doing so ( Not that Arabs are capable of helping themselves-as long as they have Islam around their necks). And when he was committed to it-his appointees did nto resource the effort properly. He had the responsibility for all of that. And unlike Ronald Reagan he never, ever, threw the other side a bone.
The grey hair was the author of all that. So he deserves every bit of scorn that has been heaped upon him. People turned on the war because in the end it blew up in our face and because the President-not the media-shaped expectations of a quick victory and a victorious march to his re-election. This reckoning would have come in 2004 except the Dems just as they did this year, shove all their really qualified people to the back of the bus and nominate people who are less than qualified.
The Repugs can get their groove back. They need to shove the so called “conservatives” and evangelicals under the bus and get back to showing that they can actually listen to the rest of us. When die hard Republicans say they will hold their nose “ove McCain”-that pretty much sums up the problem. McCain is the future-not so called pure conservatism.
If the Republicans get licked ( and I still think its an if, not a when) it could not have happened to a more deserving bunch of guys.
The war, no matter how unpopular, will never be the central issue for most voters. The central issue will be the economy.
McCain will likely win the foreign/war policy debate over the inexperienced Obama, but it will not be decisive. To win, he has to convince voters that Obama’s economic policies are unsound and risky. Otherwise, the default position will be to vote out the Republicans.
The election may very well be decided by events that are completely out of control of the candidates. If the economy goes into a full blown recession, McCain is sunk. On the other hand, if we start to feel a rebound and energy prices relent by the fourth quarter, voters will likely look to a moderate McCain.
Mark- You summed up my feelings quite well thank you! Also, most conservatives know McCain is a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to being a true conservative. The whole election this year in my opinion is a big mess. I really liked Huckabee that is but a vapor in the wind now. The “New” democrats are just that Socialists. Look at California. They somehow think that their liberal minded judges are above the laws and the way this country was set up to run. WE THE PEOPLE is a joke to them. On that subject…I am a very conservative person. Do I agree with gay marriage? No. But, if THE PEOPLE VOTE to allow it then so be it. But these liberal judges over ruling what the people choose is just WRONG. They did it with home schooling in CA too. What’s next? I fear that answer.
Skippy
Agree with 96.7% of what you said. I hold my nose at McCain the politician not McCain “the Moderate”–I would choose “Pragmatist” and not in a good way.
As for Conservatives being lumped with Evangelicals (and vice versa) and “not listening”–that is a sloppy and very broad brush ya got there big fella. I listen. And, dangit, stop using “Conservative” like the “L” word…;)
I just don’t understand why certain blocks in the Republican party cannot get behind McCain. I disgree with him on the war, but I think he is the only adult in the room right now. If he is a Pragmatist-that’s a good thing.
And you are correct I am using a broad brush-I have particular and personal issues with some in the evangelical movement. I just think that religion has no place in politics. For example, there are plenty of priests who will tell me about sex and abortion and their invocations will have no effect on my vote. Does not mean they should stop trying to persuade me-they just need to do it during the homily not via campaign events.
I just don’t understand what it is that has made McCain such an anthema-he’s been loyal to the party and and done a good job as a Senator. And if he does a Press Conference once a week-well that would be a great improvement over his predecessor.
What we are seeing is the Democratic party being found.
They are now reborn as the party of coastal elites, not of blue-collar workers. I will oppose them with everything I have.
My very negative opinion of McCain has been formed over more than a few years of watching his various positions on many issues. The suggestion as to the label “Pragmatist” applies not to policy, but to politics. Or “What keeps John in power”-and that’s a bad thing.
When he got burned in the “Keating 5″ scandal, McCain became the most devout of campaign finance reformers. A holy crusade of legislation that was distinctly disloyal to the Republican Party, bad policy, political pandering, and has solved nothing and confused much.
The single most prominent sponsor of the “Gang of 14″, McCain chose sides against his party and against the Executive Branch getting an up or down vote on judicial nominees. He opted for a political “rolling scissors” that put HIM back in a position of prominence but assured more future deadlock. Remember, at that time, there were even rumors of him becoming a Democrat–He did not dispel these too quickly as it gave him some capital to work over Bush and the Republican leadership with. Admirable.
Immigration Reform was a drastic miscalculation on McCains part. He jumped out in front to support corporate interests and gain Hispanic support in his home state. He basically was supporting the Bush position that was horribly out of step with the country and reality. After a popular uprising, he has since repackaged his Immigration Amnesty to include a wall first and recanted. This will not end well.
Look at him go to town on Global Warming…He is an operator, a hack.
All that said, I did indicate as a Conservative (and Non-Evangelical) that I will vote for him due to one issue–war. Like it or not, we are in–ALL IN. Either of the other choices lack…to be kind…any merit. They are empty.
Finally, couldn’t agree more about the often distasteful injection of religion–but don’t you think it is an inevitability when we have so many activist groups organized to promote their distinct views of our culture/society that they want legislated/protected?
There is NO way I can deny Evangelicals (simply people who share certain values) on the right from weighing in when Reverend Wright’s church and many like it maintain their Tax Exempt status, or the Catholic hierarchy and Jewish Orthodoxy exercise their political muscle in Boston, New York, Chicago, or Miami.
Yes, the Republicans deserve their wilderness–but it hurts. They will emerge from it not because of McCain, but in spite of him.
Regards.
As Skippy-san says above, whatever McCain’s faults, and there are quite a few, he’s the only adult in the room right now. And anyway, who says we deserve a perfect candidate anyway, any more than we deserve a perfect spouse? We’re all fallible in some ways.
I loved Mrs. McCain Sr.’s comment on a TV interview, “Well, then, just hold your nose and vote for John. Don’t stay home. Vote.” Beautiful old lady, isn’t she? And she obviously hasn’t missed a step, and she’s 95. That’s what I’m aiming for.
Marianne
Ditto what Mark & Marianne said.
At this stage We can do little more than “Vote McCain- He sucks the least!” and actively support the few real conservatives running for down ticket races.
Not a single dime to the NRCC or RNC as they only enable the weaknesses and foible that contribute to the dismal failure of the Republicans. Money direct to a few good candidates, yes. The “Club for Growth” is pretty good at picking worthy candidates.
Well, I figure that if Obama wins, at least I will again able to submerse myself in pop culture. The days over every.single.thing on TV, radio, movies, or novels taking slams at Chimpy McShruburton will be long gone.
The yellow-bellies that are afraid to even look askance at Islamic/Muslim violence won’t dare lift a finger or utter a “just look at the size of those ears” against the thin-skinned, untouchable Wonder Boy. The constant drone of “BUSH LIED” and all of the other media invented facts will finally taper off. Unless Prince Obama stumbles, of course, as any bump in his path to immortality will surely have been left there by “the idiot President.” We may even get a modicum of consumer confidence back once the media sees 7% unemployment and double-digit inflation under a Dem as the greatest economy ever, and sooo much to be preferred over the dark, dismal 5% days of the terrible Bush years.
Small comfort, but I’ll take what I can get.
Lex mentions “fear mongering.” Funny, a headline in today’s paper talks about McCain telling gun owners the Democrats will take away their weapons.
ENOUGH with the GOP “fear mongering” and telling me what the evil other party-candidate will do. If he’s wasting time warning me about Obama’s plans, he must not have any of his own to sell. All I want to hear from any candidate is what THEY will do. And then do it, for a change.
Fear-mongering is bipartisan. I’m still waiting for the Bush military draft that was warned of the the prescient Dems in both 2000 and 2004, for example.
Fear-mongering is bipartisan. I’m still waiting for the Bush military draft that was warned of by the prescient Dems in both 2000 and 2004, for example.