Goodby Two Parties: Hello Danger

One of the durable features of our society is our two party system, at least since 1900--minor exceptions like the Prohibitionist, Socialist, Communist, Progressive, and States’ Rights parties notwithstanding. [And it should be acknowledged there were more significant third parties in the 19th century, such as the Free Soil Party as well as complicated splits of the kind that led to Lincoln’s election in 1860–in this case the Democrats split.]

Yes, of course, there was the attempt by Theodore Roosevelt to regain the presidency as the Bull Moose (or Progressive Party) candidate. And there was also, of course, Ross Perot’s effort in 1992, which probably led to Clinton being elected rather than Bush. But Teddy and Ross were personal affairs, not longer-lasting issue-oriented efforts, like those made by the Prohibition party or Norman Thomas' Socialist Party. In general, it has been the Democrats and Republicans for as long as most people can remember. This is not to say that the Democratic Party of recent years is anything like the Democratic Party of the 1950's, which was an amalgam of Southern conservatives and Northern liberals, a long-standing hangover from the fact that Lincoln was a Republican. The Southerners said goodby to the Democrats in the late sixties, seventies and eighties and became Republicans.

But as someone once sang–“the times they are a-changing.” Let us take the famous (or infamous) 23rd Congressional District of New York, a district or area that had voted Republican since way back in the 19th century. In a special election, recently, caused by the appointment of the Republican Congressman, John McHugh by Obama to be Secretary of the Army, the line-up included the Republican, Dede Scozzafava; the Conservative, Doug Hoffman; and the Democrat, Bill Owen. Because of attacks on her by people like Sarah Palin and Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty, Dede not only dropped out of the race but soon thereafter announced she was supporting the Democrat (who eventually won in a close race). [Scozzafava has subsequently announced she is remaining in the Republican Party.]

But I think what happened here foretells a change. There are conservatives, moderates and liberals. And while a case can be made that the moderates and the liberals are not as antagonistic to each other as the conservatives are to the moderates–after all Dede did support the Democrat–it will still be difficult for many Republicans to vote for Democrats. But, on the other hand, the conservatives are increasingly alienating the moderates because–let’s face it–they are lunatic wingnuts. They are extremists of a vile kind, symbolized by the rantings and ravings of people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They are criticizing Obama’s health plan as being a death plan. As “birthers,” they continue to question his American bona fides. I’m sure there are differences among them, but many (or most) are bigots--against blacks, Latinos, gays, immigrants; creationists and intolerant religious fanatics; and they believe you should love America (in their way, which has meant backing America in its war against Iraq) or leave it.

This type of American could never stomach criticism of America, though our history is filled with perversities, beginning with the murders of Indians and continuing with slavery–and much more. I used to march, early in the sixties, in lonely groups of 10 or 20, with signs, against the early stages of the Vietnam War, which in 1962 only had Green Berets and Special Forces there, and drivers in passing cars told me to “go back to Russia.” How did they know that my maternal grandmother probably came from Lithuania, which in 1962 was part of the USSR?]

I don’t think this vicious group is a temporary phenomenon. I have reprinted below Paul Krugman’s column of November 9, 2009, entitled “Paranoia Strikes Deep.” He argues, to me persuasively, that as long as the right thought that history was on their side, their actions were more symbolic than real, but after the Democratic victory in 2008, something in them snapped. I can’t see this un-snapping in the near future.

One way of seeing this is to look again at the election of 2008. McCain was in a difficult spot since he was in no way the favorite of a large number of his right wing (read Beck, Limbaugh) constituency. Without a conservative on his ticket, he thought (properly in my view) he would lose. Palin was appointed to shore up his right wing vote, but of course this backfired since it moved independents to vote for the Democrat. In hindsight, McCain could have made a less provocative choice, but it would have had to have been a conservative–maybe Haley Barbour, or Mike Huckabee or Tom Coburn or Tim Pawlenty (although whether any or all of these would pass the Rush test is uncertain). But McCain’s problem would have remained and it is unclear whether he could have won with a rock-ribbed conservative as his VP choice.

But generally, vice-presidents don’t decide elections, even if in this one it played a larger role than usual. In the world we are entering, the wingnuts will insist that Republicans put in conservatives to head their tickets for President (and for that matter as NY 23 shows, for the House and Senate). If they don’t get what they want, they will either run their own, as a separate party, or sit the election out. I can’t see how this situation can be resolved, barring a huge change in attitudes on the part of this disaffected but sizeable minority, except in a new re-alignment, a Three Party System--Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats. How long this re-alignment might last is of course unknown, especially since it is simply a conjecture, but it could easily last a few decades or more. Over time–I’m thinking at least a decade but maybe more--I believe moderate Republicans will gravitate to the liberal Democrats, since younger persons are more liberal, especially on gay issues, and more Latino voters (and white women as well) are increasingly sympathetic to the Democrats. Moreover, the Democrats are increasingly less scary to many than they used to be. What they favor–a universal health care system, a cleaner and greener environment, an end to discrimination against minorities of all kinds (and women), and most of its other programs--is increasingly the norm.

In other words, in a few decades, if nothing terrible happens, I think that we will return to a variant of the two party system–Democrats and Conservatives, with the Republicans having faded away. Political battles will be between the more moderate liberals (including former Republicans) and those more liberal, with the wingnut Conservatives hopefully becoming a fringe. (In a sense, we may then have a vibrant one-party state, with the real battles in the primaries.)

But, and this is a big but, the near future strikes me as politically dangerous, and extremely so, with the possibility of quasi-fascistic conservatives winning out. The reason the extremists may win out in the short run–2012 or 2016--is that we have intractable economic problems and politically we lack the maturity to face the fact that we are not going to have the superlative economy we once had–or even close--or be able to dominate the world economically, politically and militarily. Gaining this maturity will take time and maybe vast numbers will never be able to accept what appears to be unfolding in the 21st century.

But also, in the next few years, the Afghan War will very possibly come to the foreground. I think it is a tragic mistake, with little chance that we will be pulling out, in significant numbers, in 2011. Obama officials have already announced the pullout will be slow. This war may produce such large numbers of casualties, create such dissension in Democratic ranks, cause such increased fiscal problems--and all this without any real sign of success--that it will inevitably play into the hands of the extremists. If this should happen, it is quite possible, even likely, that the conservatives take will take over the Republican Party and have a chance at winning in 2012 or 2016. Or they may run as a 3rd Party and somehow the electoral votes line up for them–unlikely but possible. If they do take power, then I fear, but really fear, for this country. The right wing extremists, as I see them, may end democracy as we know it. Elections, as we know them, may be postponed or cancelled. At the very least, civil liberties and the right to dissent will be diminished if not endangered. And hatreds will express themselves in ways we cannot even imagine.

OK. I am sure to many this sounds unrealistic. But listen to what we are getting at the Tea Parties. Listen to the language calling Obama a Fascist. And what does one make of the fact that many who were previously considered moderates in the Republican Party are going along with much of this. Again, OK, maybe it’s all a bit of a game and in power these persons would behave reasonably well. But I doubt it. And besides momentum plays a role. Would you really feel safe if Beck, Limbaugh or Palin–or their facsimiles--were actually in power? Would you feel secure that our sacred institutions–the Congress and the Judiciary–will protect us? If so, you believe American Exceptionalism lives unscathed.

Wikipedia: American Exceptionalism: refers to the theory that the United States occupies a special niche among the nations of the world in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions and unique origins. And, by implication, will forever be a democratic beacon. I think, instead (alas), we could go the way of a country like Argentina, which was a leading economic power prior to the Great Depression and then fell apart because of disastrous political infighting and for a while was an outright dictatorship. Or even worse possibilities exist--I won't even mention them. I would pray, if I could. I will continue to contribute to the Democrats and, holding my nose, support Obama.

*****************


Paranoia Strikes Deep by Paul Krugman (November 9, 2009)

Last Thursday there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to protest pending health care legislation, featuring the kinds of things we’ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption “National Socialist Healthcare.” It was grotesque — and it was also ominous. For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied.

The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn’t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership — in fact, it was officially billed as a G.O.P. press conference. Senior lawmakers were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.

True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is “mild.” The signs were “inappropriate,” said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor, “conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.”

What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

The state of mind visible at recent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” which reads as if it were based on today’s headlines: Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.” Sound familiar?

But while the paranoid style isn’t new, its role within the G.O.P. is.
When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed because it was rejected by both major parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Republican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.

Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elections were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite. Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and “values,” only to announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first priority was changing Social Security.

But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once the party consolidated its hold on power, they’d get what they wanted. After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.

Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down management. At this point Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P. And he has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York’s special Congressional election.

Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren’t interested in actually governing, they feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.

In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: elections aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most rational argument. They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.
In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration’s job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.

The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.