The Rush to Limbo: The Rise of Reactionary Zealots (2)

This is a shortened (and I think better version) of what appeared here in February. I sent it to the LA Times, which has published many of my pieces, but I haven't received any kind of notice from them whatsoever. Ah, life!
********
The vitriolic assaults on Democrats by Republicans during the health care debate were distressing, not to mention, after the bill passes, bricks being tossed through windows by unknown malcontents, coffins dumped on lawns, and most alarming, Congressional Democrats receiving anonymous murder threats. Republicans and conservatives, in and out of office, have implicitly adapted Nancy Reagan’s slogan, “just say no,” originally directed at drugs, and later at premarital sex, and have applied it to anything emanating from the White House or Democratic policy makers. The nastiness and brutishness of this partisanship is symbolized by the empty tables in the private dining room where members of both parties used to eat. The Congressional Quarterly confirms what our eyes and ears tell us, calling 2009 the most partisan year ever, at least since it began this kind of analysis in 1953.

How are we to understand this rise of right wing fanaticism? I would posit that the roots of modern political ugliness, and extreme partisanship, were touched off by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed by Lyndon Johnson, who is purported to have said to an aide, “We have lost the South for a generation,” (which turned out to be an understatement). Before 1965, it was much harder for the solid but conservative Democratic South to attack Democratic liberals in the North, since both were in the same party. At that point, there were also a larger number of Republican liberals and moderates. But, over time, an almost solid Republican South has made it easier for conservatives to be more partisan since now they all sit on the same side of the aisle.

By 1993, every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against President Bill Clinton’s tax increase, designed to reduce the deficit and increase investment by lowering interest rates. It passed the Senate only with Vice-President Al Gore’s tie-breaking vote in the Senate and squeaked by in the House, 218 to 216. But partisanship seems lately to have risen to a new level. We are now in what some might call “The Tea Bagger Era.”

The proximate cause of Tea Bagging seems to be the severe economic decline of the last few years, known by many as the Great Recession, and the fact that an eloquent President has not been able to snap his fingers and restore our prosperity. In their fear and rage, the Tea Baggers (and others like them) yearn, it would seem, not only for prosperity but for the America they once felt at home with, in which blacks (and, for some, women) knew their place and gays were in the closet. To these persons, a black President is symbolic of everything that has gone wrong.

Their seething may also reflect the fact that many Americans cannot face the fact that our country is no longer “beautiful” and unique, but flawed like all others. The Great Recession, however, is a heightened continuation of economic weakness that has plagued America ever since the early 1970's, with exceptional moments of prosperity–the late nineties and the year 2000, for example, in which unemployment briefly dropped below 4 per cent. Real wages–wages adjusted for inflation–are lower now than what they were in 1972.

In addition, income inequality is increasing by leaps and bounds. The distinguished Berkeley Professor, Emmanuel Saez, has calculated that in 1928 the top 1/100th of one percent of American earners took home 5% of total income, a peak that in the earlier post-war years seemed freakishly out of line. That is, from about 1943 to 1978, this group earned “only” 1 % of the total, not the 5% it had garnered just before the Great Depression. But by 2007, the earnings of this group rose to an even higher level, 6 % of the total–an all-time high. Not surprisingly, studies reveal that income inequality is closely correlated with political polarization.

Worse, many are even unable to earn any income at all, or very little. Unemployment, measured by the publicized figure is about 10 %. But this gauge excludes those who have given up looking for jobs and those working part time who would like to work full time. “Real” unemployment is almost twice that of the figure given in the headlines. In essence, we have a nation in which a substantial proportion of our society is living as many lived in the Great Depression of the 1930's. No wonder Tea Parties and other extreme groups are fuming, and growing, with overt or covert racism, and loony but dangerous ideas.

The present crisis reminds one of the movie, Network, which might be said to be a fictionalized version of the Tea Party movement, without its political partisanship. In it the newscaster, Howard Beale, induces untold numbers to go to their windows and shout, “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take this anymore.” (Glenn Beck, the conservative talk-show host, has, on more than one occasion, compared himself to Howard Beale.) The fact that the film appeared in 1976 points to the reasons why Beale’s harangue was so appealing: economic factors, such as the high unemployment associated with the severe downturn of 1974-75 and the high inflation associated with OPEC’s pushing up the price of oil, coupled with the humiliating defeat of America in Vietnam.

Tea Party ferment varies. “It is an amorphous, factionalized uprising with no clear leadership and no centralized structure,” to cite analyst, David Barstow. It includes libertarians who, following Ron Paul, would like to abolish the Federal Reserve; anti-immigration advocates; those who believe people who warn of global warming are frauds in the pockets of elitists; Ayn Randists, John Birchers and Lyndon Larouchers; secessionists; subtle or not so subtle racists such as birthers; militia groups who not only oppose gun controls, but flagrantly display guns at meetings; anti-government types who opposed the stimulus and oppose Social Security and Medicare; and on and on–patriots all, of course. Some Tea Partiers wear T-shirts, on which are written “Proud To Be A Right Wing Extremist.”

Those inclined to allay our fears argue that there have always been fascistic fringes that gain a degree of prominence, and point to McCarthyism or George Wallace, or reaching back to the 1930's, Huey Long and Father Coughlin. These movements, it is argued, flare up but invariably recede and disappear. But there are differences that should be cause for deep concern. Most of these movements had a central figure at the helm, and while there are Tea Party and right wing figures of national prominence–Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Dick Armey, and Rick Perry (governor of Texas)–to name a few, the movement is not solidified around a Savior. It exists independently of any one individual and is thus likely to have greater durability as it is not subject to the mistakes and idiosyncrasies of a leader that often cause a political “Crusade” to unravel.

On the other hand, being leaderless, it may only remain a powerful thorn, unable to take power, but capable of inflicting considerable social pain. This right wing movement, stemming from the failures of the economy (but also fired up by foreign policy failures–from the humiliation in Vietnam to our evident inability to impose our will on the world, by force, and stop terrorism or “insults” by Iran, China and others), can only be reduced significantly if our economy rights itself.

Unfortunately, no saving grace–no prosperity–is on the horizon. To the contrary, many indicators suggest that not only will our recovery continue to be weak, the recent jobs report notwithstanding, but that we may be in the early stages of an endless stagnation, a precedent being the “lost decade” in Japan. Supporting this view is the fact that for years we have been importing far more than we export, with no signs of correction. Our manufacturing, as a percentage of our GDP has dropped to incredibly low levels and there is no evidence that technological prowess in services can take up the slack. What needs to done politically–a 2nd stimulus; infrastructure appropriations; Federal aid to developing greenness; implementation of technological advances that use American workers (not Chinese workers); fundamental repair of pre-college education; and other “salvations”–appear unattainable, as Federal ungovernability gradually grows, just as it already exists in many states.

Republicans in Congress oppose all of the above measures, if not out of ideology, then out of fear. Moderates know they would face far right opponents in the primaries and what happened to Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd Congressional District can happen to them. (A moderate Republican, she was forced to drop out, leading to a Democratic victory in an area East and North of Syracuse that had not elected a Democrat in more than a century). That effort ultimately backfired but it appears that with Tea Party support, the ultra-conservative, Marco Rubio, is significantly ahead of the previously popular Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, in the Republican Senatorial primary. Crist’s crimes: he appeared on stage with President Obama and he supported his stimulus plan. Horrors!

Democrats might behave similarly, and attempt to oust conservative deviants, if there existed a movement of size capable of doing this. But it is of great political significance that a left wing variant of the Tea Party movement does not exist. That doesn’t mean that a conservative Democrat–say, Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln–will not be challenged in a primary (she is in fact being forcefully challenged by the liberal, Bill Halter), but mostly such Democratic challenges are isolated and limited and that is so because our culture is conservative and left wing organizations like MoveOn.org were formed to oust Republicans, not shape up Democrats.

If genuine prosperity continues to elude us, the political dangers are obvious. Can we, in such a world, maintain our democracy? How, in such a world, can we contain the Glenn Beck’s and Howard Beale’s, and the Sarah Palin’s and Rush Limbaugh’s, and all who seek to transform our society in unknown but clearly frightening ways?