Title of a Jonathan Chait blog post:
It’s Paul Ryan's Party: With Romney VP Pick, Movement Conservatives Openly Control GOP at LastChait's conclusion:
... Ryan's nomination represents an important historical marker and the completion of a 50-year struggle. Starting in the early sixties, conservative activists set out to seize control of the Republican Party. At the time the party was firmly in the hands of Establishmentarians who had made their peace with the New Deal....But why does Ryan's nomination represent the moment when power was handed over to the crazies any more than, say, the entire 2012 GOP campaign up to now, in which even the supposedly sane Mitt Romney embraced global-warming denialism and a birther as a top donor/surrogate and the McCarthyite notion that Barack Obama isn't sufficiently American -- and still was regarded as a moderate squish within the party? Why is this the moment of the handover of the party to the crazies any more than the Tea Party year of 2010, and the teabaggers' subsequent budget brinkmanship? Or 2008, when John McCain recanted on previous moderate views on taxes and immigration, then threw in his lot with both Sarah Palin and the neo-red-baiter Joe Wurzelbacher? Or 2002, when the decision to pursue war in Iraq in 2002 was both neocon wish fulfillment and a Karl Rove wedge-issue strategy for the midterms? Or, in retrospect, 2000, when Dick Cheney chose himself as George W. Bush's running mate? Or 1998, when Republicans were defeated in the midterms and still chose to pursue impeachment? Or Newt Gingrich's 1994? Those weren't moments when the extremists were openly in charge?
Over time the movement and the party have grown synonymous, and Ryan's nominations represents a moment when the conservative movement ceased to control the politicians from behind the scenes and openly assumed the mantle of power.
The GOP has been in the hands of the crazies for a long time, and if Chait thinks this is the moment when that became official, it suggests that he's under the influence of the rest of the press corps, which has long been in denial about the dominance of the lunatics.
And that denial will continue. If Romney and Ryan lose, the press will tell us that all that craziness is over now and Democrats and Republicans will soon join hands and dance a jolly hippie dance in the spirit of bipartisanship. Hell, even if Romney and Ryan eke out a win, we'll be told that Ryan and the congressional faction he represents won't really be in charge, because the guy at the top of the ticket is really moderate at his core, and will undoubtedly be cognizant of the fact that his victory was a narrow one and he'll need to govern from the center -- y'know, pretty much what the press said about George W. Bush after the 2000 election.
As far as most of the press is concerned, it's never the moment when the crazies are clearly in charge. I don't know what it would take for most journalists and pundits to acknowledge that obvious takeover.
6 comments:
The minute Reagan invited the Evangelicals into politics, was the moment when that party started to turn.
The Republican Party, throughout the 80's and early 90's began to absorb on the Evangelical's Manichean view.
And, I think George H.W. Bush's loss in 1992 was the first sign of how much the party really had changed.
Now, Ross Perot had something to do with the loss, but I think the fact that Bush had the audacity to raise taxes after making a pledge not to, was taken as an apostasy.
The rest is, as they say, history.
And the past 20 years have seen the Republican Party get rid of any and every one who is not a true believer in the faith.
From within, or without, this nation's future depends on the destruction of the Republican Party as it's presently constituted.
Oh, and Steve, about this, "I don't know what it would take for most journalists and pundits to acknowledge that obvious takeover," maybe the answer is, when Republicans are in charge and close down the "Free Press" and tell everyong that if they want to keep their jobs at JESUS/FOX/PRAVDA, they'll have to swear a loyalty oath to Christ and Murdoch - though not necessarily in that order. And that all stories will be checked ahead of time - for "accuracy."
You're right -- it'll be only when it affects them.
Nice essay. Thanks! I agree, of course, and only wish I'd gone ahead and written it yesterday when I merely equated the Rethug current picks to their last ones.
Chait and Ezra Klein left the ranks of independent journos long ago (no matter how we wish there were still some sane ones left in the press corps).
There are no reporters there now. There can't be. The money is too good.
Again, thanks for the true journalism.
S
The GOP has been in the hands of the crazies for a long time, and if Chait thinks this is the moment when that became official, it suggests that he's under the influence of the rest of the press corps, which has long been in denial about the dominance of the lunatics.
I'm with Victor - once Reagan got the '80 nomination, and certainly once he'd been elected, the lumpenright (with roots going back to Robert Taft, to Joe McCarthy, to Goldwater, and to the then-newly imported southerners & evangelicals) were basically running the GOP. They have basically, with only a minor blip now & then, done so since. As to why most of the media refuses to acknowledge that history for what it is, and even now pretends that there's a subsisting other wing to the GOP, I don't know. I refuse to believe that all the MSM journos are that historically ignorant or dim, so I'm left with self-delusion or conscious well-compensated lying as explanations. Of course, if one labors under a delusion, and speaks accordingly, one isn't subjectively lying.
But why does Ryan's nomination represent the moment when power was handed over to the crazies?
Because now, if Romney double crosses the Tea Party and returns to being a socialist, some patriot can use his 2nd amendment remedy to put a real conservative in charge.
Post a Comment