Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Welcome to the New Wedge Politics: A political calculus.

Well, it's here. (Or, rather, it's back.) White, Christianist * Terrorism (yes, terrorism, since the Right has decided to use this term when it's convenient to its purposes). Charged with plotting to kill police officers and civilians and to set in motion a new American Civil War, the aims of these armed Christianist militiamen were entirely politico-religionist and ideological: they have committed treason against the United States government and its people and engaged in seditious activities. In yearning to start the next Civil War, these militiamen stand alongside the tea-bagger rank and file.
 This is a moment in which the bogusness of the Fox News Right's sham claims to consistency, moral authority and—most deliciously ironic of all—patriotism is exposed for all to see. And I mean exposed in a way that forces the old-fashioned Republican base—the suburban, upper-middle class—to confront the chaos, ugliness and violence in which all supporters of the current Republican Party have been complicit.

The wealthier households of the American suburban bourgeoisie, who have long served as the real political base of the Republican Party—and whose defection to Obama in 2008 helped cost McCain the presidency—basically only care about two things:
  1. physical security for themselves and their families at all costs, and

  2. low taxes (i.e.: financial security for themselves and their families at all costs).
Whichever party can scare this still-very-powerful echelon of the American citizenry into perceiving** that either (1) or (2)—in that order—or both cannot be trusted in the hands of the other party, wins.

[***]

Consider, for example, Joe Briefcase. Joe is a medium-level Big Shot in the [whatever] business and is a case study in the mentality of this socioeconomic stratum of American society. He typically—before the Iraq War, anyway—falls for, I'd say, at least 75% of neoconservative scare-mongering lies (i.e.: 'An attack on the USA is imminent if we don't do a, b, and c to stop it...') and is also especially easily flattered by Republican laissez-faire & square charm tactics (i.e.: 'You've pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and deserve to hold onto every precious penny you've earned...')... and has voted Republican ever since he graduated from [whatever] school and entered what is known colloquially as "The Real World."

Joe Briefcase doesn't give two shits about the "restoration of American values" or the "maligned legacy of state's rights" that the brainless, fat, racist, uneducated, neo-secessionist, Fox News-watching hordes seem to care so much about. The fact is that Joe Briefcase doesn't want trouble, and trouble is exactly what he has begun to see that he will get if the Republican Party manages to regain control of the country.

Three additional factors shall flesh out my hypothesis of a new electoral alignment that I believe may be a component of the Democratic Party's (and especially Obama's) electoral strategy, which I shall call the New Wedge Politics:
  • All of the "tea party" shenanigans during the health care debate managed to poison the well of public discourse to such an extent that most Americans stopped caring about the content of the health care bill a long time ago and simply grew increasingly irritated by the shrill health care bill debate. And it was the Republicans who, after all, vowed over and over and over and over and over again to obstruct the passage of the bill. Thus—irrespective of most people's inclinations as regards the content of the bill (and irrespective of the likelihood that the Obama Administration shrewdly planned to allow the Republican demagogy to meander until it reached the pinnacle of outrageousness)—Obama gets all of the credit for putting the whole miserable display out of its misery with a stroke of his pen. Meet Obama, the restorer of 'law and order' from the clutches of tea-bagger-fueled chaos and anarchy.

  • The Civil War. Don't forget the Civil War. It's very much on the minds—or in the hearts—of many among the tea-bagger faithful, whether they realize it or not. From incumbent Governor Rick Perry's Texas Secession Rallies to the new revelations of Far-Right paramilitary activities to the ugly racism of so much of the redneck sloganeering, the ghost of the Civil War has returned to the national subconscious in a big way. And it just so happens that Joe Briefcase's great-great grandfather fought in the Civil War. And guess whose side Great Great Grandpa Briefcase fought for? That's right, it wasn't for the Confederacy. Joe Briefcase has always taken pride in the fact that he belongs to the Party of Abraham Lincoln. He has no sympathy for protesters of any kind. He wants the secessionist rednecks to get off his TV already. He most certainly does not recognize the current Dixiecrat Shambles as His Republican Party. This 'Party of No' is not the Republican Party as he has known it.

  • The Iraq War. Don't forget the impact of that war either. The minutia of the USA's continued presence in Iraq under the Obama Administration, of course, fail to capture anyone's interest. But the people of the United States have not forgotten the Iraq War, nor its costliness in lives and dollars, nor the sleazy lies that the Bush Administration told in order to sell it. This still stands as a significant betrayal of trust between the Republican Party and its erstwhile supporters.
To close, some caveats: my analysis here is intended to be hypothetical. Furthermore, it's a hypothesis about long-term political and/or electoral strategy—not a prediction of whether or not such a strategy would work. And when I say long-term, I mean that it's not about the vicissitudes of 'cable news' cycles, which Obama has made it his habit to ignore (or at least to appear to ignore)—a way of doing things that has worked well for him in the past and which furthers the impression of his being 'above the fray' of the bullshit.

Lastly, although I dislike the Republican Party something fierce, and although I'm not as critical of Obama as many others on the Left have been (not having expected him to act as a genuinely progressive president in the midst of our current political/economic conditions and ideological alignments), I'm not saying that it is necessarily a good thing that the Democratic Party might be preserving its spot at the Center by pushing the Republican Party ever-farther to the Right. I'd have much preferred it if the health care bill had been more aggressive and radical, etc., etc. And I'd certainly have preferred to see Obama actually take a firm legal position against torturers, liars and manipulators like Dick Cheney, et al.

Anyway, there you have it. If anyone's actually read this far down, I'd love for you to prove it to me by leaving a comment. Heh.

[N.B.: I updated this post (mostly grammar and formatting edits) on the morning of 3/31/10).]

* Note the distinction here, between Christians and Christianists, Christianity and Christianism, religion and Religionism. Each of these dyads comprises:
  1. first, a phenomenon that is so heterogeneous and multifarious, and rooted so deeply in our history and society as to resist evaluation in one direction or another, in and of itself, and

  2. second, an extreme politics that enshrouds itself in a rhetoric that has been appropriated from the first, and then manhandled and distorted to accord with tactical or strategic ends.
I am an atheist, but I consider the notion of the 'inherent evil of religion' to be both inherently childish and itself always a cloaked political gesture, every bit as much as Religionism. I suppose I could distinguish my brand of atheism from that of Sam Harris by calling him an 'atheismist,' but I won't. You get my point. (Up.)

** This is a not-insignificant component of the process to bear in mind. Perception, that is. Kind of a slippery concept, I know, but sometimes we forget that we're not talking about the unmediated, abstract truth of these things, but rather, the truth of people's perceptions, which—in addition to being very difficult to determine—is frequently unconscious (that is, people don't always perceive the content of their own perceptions). That's one of the reasons why polls are frequently pure garbage. (Up.)

*** Notice that the trick that the Republicans have pulled off over the decades—in concert with the enormous interest group it serves, namely the military-industrial complex—is to eliminate any and all cognitive dissonance between (1) and (2), despite the fact that the 'bloated government' and 'proliferating, unaccountable government bureaucracy' that the GOP claims to so oppose are nowhere more strongly in evidence than in unfunded military spending. Remember that the Bush Administration deliberately left the deficit-spending on the Iraq War off of the books! (Up.)

9 comments:

Shane said...

I agree with your premise and at least so far, from my vantage point, Obama seems to be winning the game. Kinda fits in with his opening up the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling along with nuclear power. This way when (and if) environmental legislation comes up he can claim the moral high ground by showing that he has listened to Republican suggestions. The downside I see is that when the extremists start to realize the jigs up, all hell could break loose - there's nothing more dangerous than a cornered redneck.

cft said...

@Shane:

...there's nothing more dangerous than a cornered redneck.

That's true, and it's risky business to let the extreme right get all hot and bothered like this.

Of course, even if the Obama Administration is incorporating some of the premises I've described into its strategies, it is the Fox News/AM radio/Dick Armey/Bill Kristol crowd that is responsible for deciding to encourage and fund the 'revolutionary' fervor. Furthermore, they're the ones who have no intention of delivering on their 'populist' promises, should they regain the means to do so.

I don't know what any of this means for 2010, but certainly by 1212, if unemployment is down (no idea if such a thing is possible), nobody will remember or care about the 'tea party.' It's amazing how little anybody cares about anything in this country when the economic situation is improving.

Jack said...

Did you hear Robert Seigel's interview w/ David Frum yesterday? Check it out:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125468435

Paddy said...

Why are the republicans always fat? :-)

Get ready for more violence! YAYYYYYYY!!!!

cft said...

Thanks for sharing the NPR link. This is pretty good, too:

http://www.frumforum.com/frum-on-colbert-tonight

Frum is a conservative ideologue who's wrong on many many thousands of things, but he's right not to give in to the sound-bite bullies of GOP Stalinism.

One of the blog posts I want to do is an exploration of procedural democracy and/or procedural liberalism. What's good about the way in which Obama constantly 'reaches out' to the GOP and calls for negotiations (despite/because of the fact that he knows they won't reciprocate) is that he's in effect (&/or by design) taking a stand for procedural democracy, a concept that was tossed into the trash-heap during the W. Bush administration.

In a way, it's as though Obama is weaning us—and, perhaps, especially lefties who are of course impatient with him—off of our appetite for immediate/bombastic/total victory. After Bush, who took the concept of the unitary executive to dangerous new levels, we have the appetite to, as it were, fight fire with fire, to put everything right in the same sweeping manner in which things had been put wrong. Now, as my above post points out, a lot of this is actually just because he's a centrist (and prone to compromises) by nature.

But, it's perhaps redeeming to some extent to think of Obama's style as a procedural, deliberative response to a dangerously autocratic predecessor. It means he gets to be the adult. The GOP used to supposedly be the party of the 'adult', the party of the 'stable father figure', the party with 'gravitas'. One way in which Frum is right in his Waterloo comment is that the GOP is very quickly hemorrhaging the parts of its reputation that used to win it presidential elections.

cft said...

Oh, it just occurred to me that the comments I just extemporized draw heavily upon somebody else's ideas. I don't want to take credit for her smart thinking about this stuff. But anyway.

Paddy Z said...

This is always makes me feel better though. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHq4laFwAEM

cft said...

Excellent clip!

Phuck Politics said...

Don't forget the Civil War.

I try to but those goddamn rednecks won't let me.