The Difference Between Two Parties, Part II

In an earlier post, it was made clear that the Republican and Democratic Parties have clearly-delineated differences between them that separate the two. Though there are still many aspects of the two that are more or less the same - witness President Obama's continuation of Bush-era foreign policy as a good example - there are nonetheless fundamental differences at the core of each party.

One of these core, fundamental differences lies in each party's base. A party's base is the soul of the party. They are the ones who will support the party above all else, who strive to make it the best it can be. The ones who are among the very low percentage of Americans who vote in primaries or non-Presidential election years. The ones who are the most rigidly ideological - conservative or liberal. The base pushes the party either more to the Right or more to the Left, depending on how far the party strays.

It is common knowledge that both parties are actually composed of several factions that together combine to make up a coalition of moderate-to-center-right and moderate-to-center-left organized political bodies. History has shown this to be the case for much of the last 100 years, with most policy being compromises that end up squarely in the middle of the political spectrum.

This common knowledge is, however, completely false. Two moderate, pragmatic American political machines, one center-left and one center-right, have not existed as such for at least 40 years, if not longer. Much of this is due to the increasingly right-ward drift of the Republican Party, whose conservative wing now composes the majority of members and for all intents and purposes is the party. There are barely any liberal Republicans any more, and moderate Republicans have mostly been purged.

With the Republican Revolution in the mid-1990s, when they took control of the House for the first time in over 40 years, the party's conservative wing had finally won an enormous victory (if you discount the 12 years of Presidents Reagan and Bush). This was followed up by the eight-year reign of President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress, who managed to spectacularly fail in essentially every single thing they did. Such failure was always going to happen because the Republican Party had become a party of fanatical ideologues whose only goal it was to enact their pet conservative policies, regardless of whether these policies worked.

Decades of right-wing economic policies and many socially-conservative victories in Congress have substantially shifted the country to the Right. The United States is now one of the most unequal industrialized countries in the world, while also managing to be the lowest-taxed, least-regulated, and most-dependent upon fossil fuels. It is a country in which it has become increasingly complex and difficult to get an abortion, receive already scanty unemployment benefits, but where it is spectacularly easy to purchase and carry a firearm in public.

The immense failure of the Right's policies can be seen in the explosion of the deficit, the racking up of enormous amounts of debt, engaging in two illegal, unfunded wars that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and severely tarnished the nation's reputation abroad, the absolute financial collapse of Wall Street which nearly completely ruined the U.S. economy, and allowed health care costs to rise unaccountably high due to intense opposition to the one thing is known to bring it down - some form of universal, single-payer coverage.

That this failure of conservative ideology has resulted not only in denial of its failings, but in a doubling down of voting in even more conservative conservatives is rather astonishing. But it speaks to the power of the Republican Party's base, and how the party itself caters to it. Republican office-holders will do anything, anything, to appease their base. They will pledge to destroy the economy unless taxes are not raised. They will stand on principle to oppose a health care bill that will lower costs. They will go back on literally anything they have said in the past that might compromise them now - Orwell would be nodding his head - all in order to appease their base. They will do all this because they are absolutely terrified of their base. And they have good reason to be. Republican primary voters have shown that they will not tolerate those who they consider to be insufficiently conservative. So, Republicans constantly harangue each other as to who is the most conservative, who is the true conservative, etc. They do this not only because they have to, but because being conservative is a good thing.

In contrast to the Republican Party's base, the Democratic Party hates their base. With a passion. It should be noted that, though Democrats are usually thought of as "liberals", most Democrats are not self-identified liberals. A plurality of Democrats are liberal, with many moderates and a substantial amount of conservatives. The Democratic Party, then, still embodies the old notion of a center-left coalition. Even though most moderates share almost every single belief that liberals do, "moderate" Democratic politicians often find themselves ostracizing their liberal colleagues. This has resulted in many moderate and conservative Democrats embracing right-wing, conservative, Republican policies that have truly been terrible for the country. As a result, national policies have skewed to the Right for several decades.

Whenever there is a complaint about this rightward drift from the Democratic Party's base - that is, from liberals - the "mainstream", "moderate" Democratic politicians like to push back against them to prove how "serious" they are. Liberals are branded as "extremists" and their complaints are not accepted. And they can do this because they know that nothing will happen to them. Nothing at all. Whereas Republicans are terrified of their base, Democrats hate their base. Democrats will not vote out a politician for not being liberal enough or for doing something that the Democratic Party does not stand for.

How many Democrats lost their primaries to more liberal politicians after voting for the War in Iraq? How many Democrats lost their seats after voting for the Bush tax cuts, or for cutting welfare, or for supporting de-regulation. or for passing the PATRIOT Act, or for voting against gay marriage, or anything else that went directly against liberal principles? The Congressional Progressive Caucus did not stand as a group and vote down the Affordable Health Care Act for not providing a public option or single-payer mechanism like the Tea Party Republicans almost certainly would have done (though this may or may not have been a good thing).

While Republican presidential candidates argue about who is more conservative, you would be very hard-pressed to get a Democratic candidate to admit that they are liberals. Being liberal is a bad thing, you see. It means you aren't "serious", that you are "out of touch". Of course, being conservative means exactly the opposite. This hesitancy to embrace liberalism and the corresponding "hippie-punching" that the Democratic Party regularly engages in with its base is due to the acceptance of the status-quo by liberal party members who do not vote with their principles. By accepting the Democratic Party's embrace of illegal wars, illegal torture, deregulation, unconstitutional surveillance activities, interventionist, warmongering foreign policies, liberals are accepting the status-quo. By not voting to change policies to fit their own values, like conservatives do, liberals allow the American political spectrum to shift to the Right. Inevitably this leads to compromise between the center-right and the Right. This is a terrible choice that inevitably also leads to terrible policies.

Therein lies another major difference between the two parties. Republicans are afraid of their base, while Democrats hate theirs. This divergence among the die-hard ideologues of both parties has resulted in creating a shadow United States, one that is somehow still a superpower but that also is only a fraction of the greatness it has the potential to be. One way to shift the dialogue, shift the spectrum, shift the nature of policies, is for liberal Democrats to gain a voice, stand up, and vote their conscience. They must make the Democratic Party responsible and accountable. They must return the party to its core whence it has for several decades been fleeing.

Republicans are Authoritarian Corporate Fascists

Professor Bob Altemeyer from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, has spent several decades scientifically studying authoritarianism. The findings of his life's work were published in the 2006 book The Authoritarians, and is available in its entirety for free.

What he has through his years of research discovered - who authoritarian followers are, what their characteristics are, how they act, how they think, why they think and act the way they do - explains the roots of fascism and authoritarianism in a way that many will find helpful. His conclusions also describe the current state of the Republican Party and most of its followers.

Altemeyer's research deals mostly with the followers of authoritarians; those who submit to their authorities. Right-wing authoritarians show a high degree of submission to the perceived legitimate authority figures in their society, high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities, and are highly conventional, adhering to traditions and social norms endorsed by society and authority figures while believing that the rest of society should as well. Most right-wing authoritarians are conservative, though they can also be politically on the left (think Stalinist-era Communist Party cadres).

The Right-wing Authoritarian Scale has been developed to determine how authoritarian a person is. Most people who take the test admit to a certain amount of submissiveness to authorities: people follow traffic laws, for example. Right-wing authoritarians, however, submit on a far greater scale, and will do so regardless of whether what their leader is doing is evil, corrupt, undemocratic, unprincipled, or dishonest. Conservatives and Republicans tend to scale much, much higher on this scale than most other Americans. Republicans, no matter where they were from or at what level of government, were much less diverse in their responses than Democrats.


Right-wing authoritarians display high levels of hostility towards any "out groups" that their authorities tell them they are against (an "us versus them" mentality); this can be seen in Republicans' marked anti-homosexuality stance, fervent anti-immigrant and anti-minority legislations, and their religious devotion to the Constitution - which does not stop them from curtailing sacred and inalienable rights with policies such as the PATRIOT Act.

This hostility towards the out group is also remarkable in that they approve of authorities who attack members of the out group, despite any crimes the authority figure may have committed. People showing this trait are also unable to display normal levels of empathy, to "go a mile in someone else's shoes" - Republicans have no sympathy for those who have fallen on bad times through no fault of their own and are virulently against any form of universal health care.

Right-wing authoritarians share a strong sense of group loyalty and cohesion, are more likely to be fundamentally religious (thereby also being extremely prejudiced), trust leaders who cannot and should not be trusted despite evidence to the contrary (Richard Nixon, George W. Bush), do not hold authority figures accountable for crimes, and accept illegal abuses of power by government authorities (the PATRIOT Act, legislation discriminating against minorities and immigrants).

Authoritarians cannot draw logical conclusions based on evidence. They hold many contradictory ideas at the same time in their head, use double standards, accept insufficient evidence to support their beliefs, and believe fully without questioning what their leaders tell them.

Authoritarians are dogmatic, hypocritical, oppressors who abuse their power when they have it to dominate others and inflame inter-group conflict. They are self-righteous, do no believe in any of their own failings, and embrace religion as a way of masking their guilt while sustaining this self-righteousness.

All of these traits of authoritarianism can be seen in the modern Republican Party and their followers.

Authoritarian conservatives believed more firmly and for a longer time than most other Americans the egregious lies that the Bush administration spread about Saddam Hussein's connections to the September 11 terrorist attacks and the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Republicans claim to believe in small government and the Constitution, yet while in power they massively expanded the government and infringed upon the inalienable rights of millions of Americans in flagrant violation of these so-called beliefs. Though they nominally should believe in the Constitutional right that every citizen shall not be put to cruel or unusual punishment, conservatives had no problem when the Bush administration sanctioned torture, arrested citizens without trial, repealed habeas corpus, or turned the country into a police state. Conservative authoritarian followers unflinchingly followed George W. Bush, and the Republican Party single-mindedly pursued a dogmatically authoritarian track while in power.

The Republican Party and its base are constantly in fear of those who are not like them: Muslims, Blacks, immigrants, gays, atheists. They believe these "others" to have a sinister, nefarious plan to deliberately destroy the country - just see some of what they have had to say about the first president of non-European descent.

Republicans cannot accept the legitimacy of a Democratic president. Conservatives believe, because they were told so by their authorities, that Obama is a terrorist, a Muslim, that he hates America, that he is a Communist and that he used massive voter fraud and a biased media to cheat a win out of the 2008 Presidential election.

The Republican Party, its members, representatives, and most of its followers are authoritarians. The traits that distinguish them as such blend as well into fascism - an undemocratic ideology that believes in devotion to a strong leader, aggressive nationalism, suppression of others, and the right to engage in violent war to secure its safety.

Republicans are nationalistic, ethnocentric, glorify and exalt the military, reject any measure to increase equality, oppress those who are not like themselves, and stop at nothing, no matter how undemocratic, to rout their political enemies and gain power. Republican lawmakers who exhibit exceptionally high authoritarian tendencies and display one of the above-mentioned fascist ideological traits are likely to rise up through the party; the same cannot be said for Democrats.

The Republicans' hatred of democracy is well-documented:

-in the 2000 Presidential election, there were multiple cases of crimes by Republicans that effectively disenfranchised thousands of African Americans in the hotly-contested state of Florida, allowing nominee George W. Bush to be awarded the state's electoral votes by the conservative Supreme Court in an unprecedented decision that, for the first time in the entire history of the country, was told would count for this one instance;

-in 2004, Republican lawmakers held an open vote in the House of Representatives for over three hours (the mandated limit is 20 minutes) in order to threaten enough other members to vote for a bill that added billions of dollars to the national deficit;

-the democratically-elected Democratic majority in the United States Senate was unable to pass any legislation or appoint any person due to the undermining of democracy that is embodied in the filibuster as used by Republicans

-Republican-controlled state legislatures all over the country are pursuing policies that adversely affect and disenfranchise African-Americans, Latinos, students, and immigrants - all of whom tend to vote for Democrats.

-in the Republican-controlled Wisconsin state legislature, lawmakers flagrantly violated laws in order to pass an anti-union law that they did not campaign on; in the aftermath, a contest for Supreme Court was awarded to the conservative after a county clerk in a heavily-Republican district made a "mistake" in miscounting over 7,000 votes that happened to hand the victory to the Republican.

The Republican Party is the party of Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq, Afghanistan, McCarthyism, the PATRIOT Act, multiple sex scandals, Savings and Loans, and the Committee on Un-American Activites; the party that massively increased the nation's debt and then used it to hold the country hostage several times for partisan political gain.

The modern Republican Party cares exclusively about the corporations that run the economy and the super-rich plutocracy who benefit from their economic policies. They will do all in their power to maintain and enhance their corporate overlords, including holding the American and global economies hostage to preserve the favored status in tax brackets of the world's most well-endowed businesses and oligarchs.

Republicans have shown almost no interest in curtailing the pervasive and outrageous influence that corporate money presses upon American politics; on the contrary, they have embraced it, thereby undermining democracy even further.

This is despite clear evidence showing that the American economy was at its strongest when taxes on the rich were at their highest, savings from tax cuts are much more likely to be saved than spent by the wealthy, the United States is the least-taxed industrialized country in the world, and that corporate profits are higher than ever but they are not now and do not usually create that many jobs. But facts and evidence don't matter to the authoritarian, slavish devotion to their ideology does.

The Republican Party is a monolithic, extreme right-wing, antidemocratic, ideologically driven authoritarian, corporate, and fascist political organization.

They are not interested in governing, nor compromise. They exist solely to gain political power at any cost and to destroy their political opponents, while worsening the oppressive socio-economic power relations that keep all minorities - religious, ethnic, racial - excluded from the upper echelons of society in the richest country in the world. And they are dangerously close to gaining control of the levers of power of the richest, most powerful country in the world.

Austerity is not the Answer

Since the collapse of the global economy in 2007-2008, almost every industrialized country has embarked on a series of so-called austerity measures, in an apparent attempt to either grow the economy by contraction, reduce accumulated debt, or sometimes both.

Such measures involve in most cases drastically scaling back social spending and social safety nets - pensions, welfare, unemployment benefits - while raising taxes and privatizing formerly-public institutions. These actions inevitably fall the hardest upon those who most depend upon public services: the poor, the middle-class, minorities, students, the working class. In these tough economic times, citizens are told, governments and countries must endure "shared sacrifice" and to "live within their means". This narrative has been taken up by most of Europe's governments, the majority of whom are conservative, as well as the United States - despite having a Democratic President and Senate.

Though the austerity movement is pervasive and being attempted everywhere, it is not the answer. For nowhere is austerity working the way its proponents said it would. Indeed, it appears to be causing more harm than good, and coincidentally happens to be favoring the rich, big businesses, and corporations; though calls are made for "shared sacrifice", almost nothing of substance is being asked of the rich or corporations to contribute to the effort in scaling back.

The rich don't need pensions, welfare, or social security. The rich don't care if health care is reduced, as they are already healthy and can afford quality care if they need it. Corporations are making record profits and have no desire to see things change, as firing large sections of their workforce increases their profits while not reducing efficiency. At a time when the vast majority of society needs the essential services that government social spending provides, they are being told that it can no longer be afforded, and they must make do without.

It appears that this is partly a matter of priorities, and governments everywhere have shown that their main priorities are maintaining the banking and financial systems, which have cost billions and trillions of dollars to preserve. Though it was these institutions' reckless greed and irresponsible behavior that caused this global recession, the myth persists that it was the debt that caused the crisis, rather than the other way around. Nobody seemed to care about their country's debt before the global recession - why should it matter now? It matters now because it presents a fantastic opportunity for conservatives and neoliberals to radically transform society into what they hope will be a libertarian utopia. Trillions of dollars are put aside to salvage the financial sector, but in exchange, teachers must lose their jobs, workers have to give up more for the same benefits, education budgets must be drastically cut, and millions of people must reduce their quality of life - all because of a relatively small handful of people/organizations and their insatiable appetite for making more money.

Many proponents of austerity proclaim that cutting services, cutting debt, and cutting spending is the only way to shore up business confidence, and in this way the economy will grow by contraction. Yet this business confidence is nowhere to be seen, with the cruel effects of the cutting being shown in the millions of people in the United States who are now living on food stamps, unemployment benefits, and are without jobs. It can be seen in the rioting and mass protests in the United Kingdom, Greece, and France.

It seems that, despite widespread public opposition to such cuts, conservative and even leftist parties are agreed on this course of austerity.

In the United States, the Republican Party's objectives of dismantling the New Deal and returning the country to 1900-era standards of living are nakedly obvious; they are merely using the financial crisis (a crisis they largely helped to create) as a way to savagely exterminate the feeble American safety net of unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This can be seen in the vast majority of states under Republican governors and legislatures, and all with disastrous results. The undemocratic breaking of unions in Wisconsin and Ohio, the destruction of unemployment insurance in Florida - these measures were not causes of the crisis, but are nonetheless being targeted merely because of the ideological opposition of radical neo-fascist Republicans. Such drastic spending cuts are sure to harm the economy, as most economists and even financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs say. Their argument is that the U.S. is spending too much, and so-called "entitlements" need to be reformed, that is, destroyed. This argument, for cutting spending, reforming the safety net, and balancing the budget, has largely been taken up by the Democratic Obama administration, as well as most Democratic state governors - despite there being an incredibly strong case to be made for running a deficit, raising taxes on the rich, fixing the corruption inherent in Wall Street and Washington, and reversing all of the negatives the Bush administration inflicted upon the country.

Republicans say the U.S. has a spending problem, but this could not be farther from the truth. Taxes are the lowest they've been for decades, with the vast majority of the $1.4 trillion deficit coming from Bush-era policies. Though the stimulus added some to the deficit, most of the rest of that has been because of the economy's decline, as more people require unemployment insurance, food stamps, health care, and so on. Neither the U.S. deficit or national debt are serious problems at the moment, despite all the rhetoric. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is about average for industrialized countries, and while the $1.4 trillion deficit sounds large, the United States still has the largest economy in the world by far, at over $15 trillion. Interest rates are low and foreign governments still are more than willing to buy U.S. Treasury bonds; the deficit is not a problem. That extremely fiscally conservative Republican ideology has been largely embraced by President Obama and many other state Democratic governors and parties despite widespread popular opposition to such policies is worrying for the future of the United States.

In Great Britain, David Cameron's Conservative Party have embarked upon a radical agenda of draconian cuts to the British social safety net, despite dressing up the process in somewhat progressive terms. These cuts come amid mass demonstrations that oppose them, as well as riots against the raising of student fees and other cuts to vital social services. The opposition Labour Party has a large faction of Blairites who largely agree and accept the principle of the Conservatives agenda, thereby failing to present an alternative for the people of the United Kingdom. This comes at a time when the Labour Party should be more relevant than ever, as inequality in Britain is higher than it has been for decades - yet the party is more unfocused, diffident, and weakened that at any point in the last 20 years.

For the European countries that are requiring bailouts due to their financial situation, one can argue about the extent to which such measures are necessary, but what should not be debated is that these countries have lost their ability to democratically determine the course of action the people of those countries want to choose. The IMF, European Central Bank, and ratings agencies are a group of unelected, unaccountable private institutions whose agenda is clear. They have demanded that countries like Ireland, Greece, and Portugal embark upon severe and drastic austerity measures before they are able to give them the loans they need to help solve their distress. By applying essentially the same measures to each of those countries, regardless of the differences in their situations, these private institutions with leaders who no one elected are dictating the course of action that sovereign nations take, thereby undermining the democratic foundation of these countries' citizens' right to self-determination. Even when, for example, Greece employed such austerity measures as dictated to it by the IMF and ECB, their economy did not recover; in fact, its credit rating has continued to be downgraded while its financial situation shows little sign of improving - despite decreases in the quality of life for most citizens while also drastically and forcibly changing the Greek social landscape.

Austerity is not working. Austerity is not the answer. The best way to grow the economy and reduce debt is by putting people back to work. At a time when private-sector growth is anemic, and can no longer be relied upon to employ the same amount of people that it had before, the government must step in and directly stimulate the economy by massively spending on the employment of its citizens.

When asked what got the U.S. out of the Great Depression, most people will respond with "World War II". What was it about the war that put the economy back on its feet? Massive government spending on the military for several years, combined with much higher taxes on the rich. The United States debt-to-GDP ratio in the middle of World War II was 143%, incredibly higher than it currently is. But after robust economic growth following the end of the war, this was significantly reduced to a point where it was no longer an issue. So why are governments not treating this global economic crisis like World War II? Why not spend massively, not on tanks, rifles, and planes, but on housing, roads, bridges, and rail?

Germany is a good example of a country that has largely pursued a Keynesian economic course; the German government spent large amounts of money keeping their workforce employed, while also giving bailouts to companies on stringent conditions dictating what they could and could not use the money for. As a result, the German economy has grown far faster than any of their neighbors and employment has rebounded. The governing conservative-neoliberal coalition is planning on introducing a tax cut for middle-incomes and a tax hike for higher-incomes, due to the budget deficit being so low.

The money that was used to save the financial sector can also be used to save the middle-class. The beneficiaries of the bailouts need to give back to society what they took through their own negligence, corruption, and criminality. This is a time when public service and government social spending should be higher than ever, when the safety net is strengthened and enhanced, not destroyed. This is a time when people need their government to provide for them because no one else can. This is a time when the excesses of right-wing economic policy should be reversed and destroyed, not the opposite.

Austerity is not the answer. Democracy, citizens, and government are the answer.

The Difference Between Two Parties

American politics is rather unique. One of the major differences between the United States and other countries is the entrenched position of the two major parties, something which has lasted for decades and likely will continue to do so. Being a country that essentially only has two parties, one would expect there to be pretty big gulfs in ideology, policies, etc., so as to give voters a clear choice. Though there are some pretty big differences to be found among the average Republican and Democrat, many things are actually quite similar.

In his 1948 book, titled The American Political Tradition, historian Richard Hofstadter argued that the American presidency had always maintained two major themes, no matter the ideology or party affiliation of the president. Those two currents of American politics were capitalism and nationalism - something which Hofstadter saw in every administration up to his time, and which can still be seen in many instances through to the present day.

Democrats and Republicans often have narrow debates, not really arguing about the proverbial where so much as the how. For example, the current big issue enveloping the American political world is how to reduce the deficit and how deep spending cuts should go, instead of whether the deficit is something to be concerned with right now or whether spending should be cut at all.

It is obvious, therefore, that the American two-party system tends to narrow the political debate in ways that are not really seen in other multi-party democracies. Nonetheless, there do remain certain important ways that can be seen separating the two parties.

The biggest difference between the Democratic and Republican party is their approach to governing. Democrats tend to try to at least seriously tackle important issues of the day in an attempt to responsibly govern, whereas Republicans maintain an ideological chain that renders them invariably lusting after political power when in the minority and chasing unrealistic far-right policies when in the majority.

Take a look at the recent 4-year period when the Democrats controlled Congress and the 2-year period when they also had Presidency. If one looks at the wish-list of the liberal base that Democrats are alleged to represent with the actual policy outcomes, the two are not even close.

The Democrats were unable to pass any significant environmental or climate-change legislation. They did not pass a gay-marriage bill, and only managed to repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell during the lame-duck session of Congress when no one had to care about being reelected. The District of Columbia remains a district and not a state, though by doing so it would have tremendously helped their own party. Capital punishment is still legal, the PATRIOT Act was renewed, more soldiers were sent to Afghanistan, universal health care remains a pipe dream, the minimum wage is still insufficient, the richest Americans remain taxed at the same percent they were under President Bush, Wall Street remains largely unregulated, no substantial immigration bill was passed, and on and on.

For liberal and left-leaning Americans, the period of Democratic control can only be seen as mostly glass half-full, if not worse. Part of the reason why such liberal desires went unfulfilled was because of the opposition of Republicans, but also because there were more pressing matters to attend to, like trying to save the economy. A lot of bills were also watered-down by compromises with Republicans, who abused their Senatorial privilege of the filibuster. But the least that can be said about the Democratic Congress was that they sincerely tried to govern in the best interests of most of the American people most of the time.

Compare that to the 6-year period when Republicans controlled every level of government and with the recently-elected Republican majorities and governorships in many states.

The Republican mantra of low taxes and high military spending led the country to two ill-led wars of questionable legality, both decisions of which are the major reasons why the national debt was increased by several trillion dollars under a so-called fiscally responsible party. Republican distaste of alleged "Big Government" led to the appointments to the heads of federal departments people who were incompetent or had a direct, monetary stake in not regulating what they were supposed to regulate. See the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina to see how that turned out.

Now that Republicans control several state legislatures in addition to those states' governorships, the Republican party's hatred of abortion is resulting in the most severe attacks on women's rights in recent memory. Republicans' populist dislike of immigrants and people of color has seen neo-fascist immigration laws springing up in places like Utah and Arizona. In the name of fiscal responsibility, Republicans have nakedly attempted to destroy cherished liberal and Democratic-supported institutions by enacting massive spending cuts of programs they don't like - regardless of their usefulness - and stripping public unions - who tend to get Democrats elected - of their basic function as a societal institution. Though many of the policies are unpopular and idiotic -see the fraudulent Paul Ryan budget plan laughingly called the "Path to Prosperity" that privatizes Medicare while enacting even more huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans - Republicans remain steadfast in their wishes, no matter how far away in fantasy-land such proposals may be.

That is the difference between two parties.

One may make mistakes and anger their core supporters through compromise in an attempt to responsibly govern while the other maintains a rigid ideology at all times, no matter what the circumstances may call for, in an everlasting attempt to seize or maintain political power. See, for example, the time at any point in which the Republican party has been okay with current tax levels, the EPA, corporate taxes, regulation, etc. This mindset, in which a certain set of policies are favored no matter the circumstances, is what MIT economist David Autor calls "now-more-than-everism", and its pervasive, often deleterious effects can clearly be seen at all times within the right-wing gong show that incorporates one of the two major American parties.

At a time when approval ratings of either party are scandalously low, and with those of Congress even lower, the presence of such a puerile, impractical, and irresponsible party threatening to take the reins of governing makes a slanderous mark on American democracy. Americans deserve to make a choice upon whom to vote for, and they deserve all of the choices to be responsible, with the nation's best interests at heart.

Though Republicans no doubt believe they have America's best interests at heart, they are not a responsible choice. The party is, in fact, delinquent, irresponsible, incompetent, and untrustworthy. There are of course certain members of the party who can act as mediators, moderate voices of conscience or dissent, but they are too few and are consistently drowned out by the boorish drone of the neo-fascist, neoconservative, neoliberal wing of the party that is now the heart and soul of what was once, many moons ago, a pragmatic, responsible American political institution.

Why Do Republicans Hate President Obama?

As this blog has pointed out on several occasions, Republicans and conservatives have been throwing an unending tide of slander at President Obama since before he even was elected. Most of this has been vile, despicable, and even so outlandish as to be hilarious.

But the question remains: why exactly do Republicans hate the President so much? Granted, he is a member of the Democratic party, so the right-wing can't be expected to be happy about everything that goes on under the Obama administration.


There are, however, multiple aspects and policy decisions taken by the President that are in fact much more conservative than liberal - things which seem right up the Republican party's alley, but which they unilaterally and quixotically dislike. Ezra Klein, among others, has posited that the President is actually more like a moderate Republican than anything near the left-wing closet-socialist that conservatives make Obama out to be. Consider the following:

- the President favors civil unions for homosexual couples instead of full marriage equality

- the Obama administration has not raised taxes; indeed, the President has extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy while also reducing tax rates for 95% of the rest of the population. Taxes are now at their lowest level since Eisenhower was in office.

- President Obama is almost as pro-business as staunch conservatives: he has surrounded himself with people like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, who were part of the Clinton-era deregulation craze that played a large role in dismantling the nation's economy; he has appointed such business and financial-sector luminaries from companies like GE and Goldman Sachs to high positions of economic importance in the White House

- contrary to claims of Obama's economic policies strangling business, American corporations are currently recording their highest profits ever, currently sitting on some $2 trillion

- the PATRIOT Act, something the liberal base of the Democratic party fervently wants to repeal, has been extended repeatedly

- gun rights have been expanded, now allowing firearms to be carried into National Parks

- financial regulatory reform is in many respects right-wing, leaving "Too-Big-to-Fail" alive and well, as well as keeping derivatives from being monitored publicly - something which also played a large role in devastating the American economy

- the much-balleyhooed Economic Stimulus Bill was only about half as large as many liberals wanted, as well as consisting more of tax cuts and credits than actual spending; despite this, it has saved or created millions of jobs

- Guantanamo Bay has remained open, and suspects will be tried by military tribunals instead of civilian court

- under the President's orders, American SEAL forces assassinated Osama Bin Laden

- the President has sent thousands of additional troops to fight the war in Afghanistan

- under Obama, unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan have substantially increased, resulting in civilian deaths

- the crown jewel of Obama's presidency thus far, health care reform, resulted in the most right-wing reform of the health care sector possible; no single-payer, no public option, but a lot of new customers for the private insurance industry and some other aspects (such as banning preexisting conditions and allowing kids to stay on their parents' insurance until 26) make this bill better than nothing, but at the end of the day it is essentially the same bill as the one produced by Republican former-Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.

- the Obama administration has overseen a record level of deportations of illegal immigrants

Much of the preceding points would almost certainly be being praised by Republicans right now were Obama not the president. After all, President Obama has cut taxes, is against gay marriage, sent troops to Afghanistan, escalated drone attacks on Pakistan, killed Osama, extended the PATRIOT Act, expanded gun rights, and has reformed health care and the financial sector in a generally-speaking center-right manner.

What's not to like about all that, if you're conservative? What is it about this president that Republicans refuse to like, if he has governed in much the same way one of their own party would? Why, exactly, do Republicans hate President Obama?

No doubt some dislike him because of his skin color and strange-sounding name; this is a minority of people, though not as small as could be hoped in this day and age. Establishment Republicans hate him for being articulate, sophisticated, and appearing "cool". The media hoopla that surrounded Senator Obama during the presidential campaign, both nationally and internationally, was something that hadn't been seen around a candidate for president in decades - let alone a Republican candidate.

Republicans hate the President because he won the election. They hate him because their side lost, and they lost because almost everyone agreed that they had run the country in a horrifically terrible and incompetent manner in literally every way possible.

The only reason they are opposing him now in so vicious a manner is to gain political power. By denying, rejecting, slandering, and twisting Obama and the Democrats' agenda and message, the Republicans were able to paint the President as a failure - directly leading to the right-wing's massive gains in the 2010 midterm election.

They continue to hate the President -including the not-so-subtle attacks on his background, ethnicity, race, and religion - because it is politically expedient for them to do so, and they deserve the country's condemnation because of it. The United States stands at a point of staggeringly weak economic status, and the Republican party's number one stated goal is to make President Obama a one-term president. Such positioning of the party above the country is despicable and craven.

The Republican party, in their current state and with their current actions, are a stain upon the face of American democracy, and the country is undeniably worse off for it. Americans want and deserve better. Unfortunately, this type of leadership from one of the two main parties looks set to continue for the foreseeable future, a tactic that will negatively impact the country.

America is a Liberal Nation

It seems to be common knowledge that the United States is a pretty conservative country, relative to other industrialized countries like Germany, France, or Canada. The recent electoral triumph for the Republican Party would back this up, as they have never seen an expansion of government they approved of or a tax increase they liked (unless proposed by a Republican administration).

Polling numbers seem to bear this out as well, with more Americans reporting that they are "conservative" over "liberal" or "moderate" (in fact, the Republican Party has a super-majority of members who say they are conservative, compared to the Democrats who are split mostly between "moderates" and "liberals"). This is actually an increase from previous years, and since moderate voters tended to go for the Republicans in the midterms, it would make sense to claim that America is a conservative country.

Except it's not.



The extension of the Bush tax cuts, as vehemently advocated by the Republican party, would seem to confirm that Americans favor the right-wing economic view of "trickle-down" economics. Except they don't. The vast majority of Americans want taxes raised on the rich, with even a majority of self-identified Republicans expressing disapproval of the GOP tax plan.

Over 70% want abortion to remain legal.

65% wants the government to protect them from terrorism, but not at the expense of their civil liberties.

50% compared to 43% want the protection of the environment given precedence over economic priorities, even in the middle of a monumental financial crisis.

Majorities and Super-majorities support a variety of LGBT rights' issues.

59% support stem-cell research.

Most Americans want the wealthy to help fund Social Security - a cherished support system for the majority of Americans.

A majority of Americans oppose cuts to education, social security, and other social spending to help reduce the deficit.

A super-majority of Americans want less corporate influence.

Most Americans support the new Health Care Law, either approving of it as it currently is or wanting it to be more expansive (diametrically opposed to the GOP call to repeal the law).

In stark contrast to the Republicans, Americans overwhelmingly favor extending unemployment benefits during the economic crisis.

Contrary to what the Tea Party and the Republican Party says, Americans don't want smaller government, necessarily, but rather more efficient government. This means most support social programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare but have a decidedly unfavorable view of how well Congress functions.

How is it that on almost every issue, majorities of Americans favor what would be called the center-left or liberal position, yet only 20% or so call themselves liberals? Why does the political landscape not reflect this in Congress?

Much of the failure of the U.S. government to do its job in a more efficient manner is because of the increasingly-polarized nature of politics. The presidency of Barack Obama has seen an unthinkable amount of resistance from Republicans, even though they agree with some of what he's done and much of his policies have widespread support. The Tea Party movement has arisen, calling for a farther turn to the right. It's hard to take a center or center-left position when one party has a significant amount of moderates and the other is unapologetically on the far-right, with very few moderates. Such an unwillingness to compromise and deal in a responsible fashion with the other party has led to a pushing of the political spectrum to the Right, even though ordinary people's views for the most part have become more liberal.

There are, of course, the plutocratic reasons - huge corporations paying millions and billions of dollars, funding a vast network of right-wing think tanks and spending on propaganda campaigns to get right-wing Republicans elected - which steer political discourse far to the right (and have the added benefit of enacting policies that directly affect how much money the plutocrats make/are allowed to keep).

An effect of this plutocracy has been to make "liberal" an ugly word, so people don't call themselves that even if they hold liberal views. The center-right has become increasingly uncompromising and deranged, as evinced by the apoplectic raging of Rush Limbaugh, the insane conspiratorial ramblings of Glenn Beck, or the incomprehensible raving of Sarah Palin. The hegemony of the two major parties is reinforced, creating a system in which they must take part rather than reform.

The result is that the government has increasingly become more for the plutocrats than for the people, and only a monumental grassroots campaign to change things will be able to solve America's coming economic, political, and social crises. Publicly-financed elections, a switch to proportional representation and a multi-party system, and the abolishment of the electoral college are needed, necessary steps to help make up the democracy deficit in America. The country needs and deserves a well-functioning government that reflects the true will and desires of the American people.

Without some kind of mass grassroots social movement, it appears that Lincoln's impassioned declaration that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" will go unfulfilled.

Disillusionment and the Two Obamas

Several months ago, this blog advised the Democrats to grow a pair. They did not, and they paid for it in the midterms. Now, two months into the presidency of Barack Obama, what is the country's stance on the President and his policies? Those on the Right are unsurprisingly against almost everything he has ever said or done (though it must be said that this level of vehement rhetoric goes above and beyond that which was applied to Bill Clinton). The Left are equally as annoyed and disappointed in Obama, just for radically different reasons than the Right is. How has the President managed to dismay and anger just about everybody?

The Right's critiques of Obama range from outrageous, hilarious, to hysterical, vague, and shallow. The right-wing media's over-the-top propaganda machine and big-spending sugar daddies, along with their Tea Party allies, have undoubtedly had an impact on convincing people that the President and his policies are ruining the nation, spending the country into a debt that they will never be able to come out of.

Conservative critics point out that the Obama administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars that would reduce unemployment to under 8%; when this number stayed relatively high, they could then claim that the stimulus was a waste of money, government spending was out of control, and the size of the government had substantially increased. As Paul Krugman has pointed out on several different occasions in several different ways, this critique is almost completely false: while it was naive to claim the stimulus would reduce unemployment to under 8%, it was largely composed of tax cuts/credits and only a fraction as large as it needed to be to spur economic growth; the supposed "huge increase in government spending" is almost entirely related to increased unemployment benefits, health care spending, etc., as a result of the financial crisis.

While small-government conservatives were bound to be aggrieved at any perceived government interaction in the economy, the Left is equally up in arms over the Obama presidency. Their disillusionment with the course of the administration had a huge effect on allowing the Republicans to sweep back into power in the House. This disillusionment springs from the perceived disparity in "campaign Obama" and President Obama. Now, anyone who had read his books or looked into his political views during the 2008 primaries would not be surprised by how his presidency has gone; he has largely stuck with a cautious, well-thought out approach that clings to the center and attempts to gain bipartisan consensus on important issues. But voters by and large didn't want a centrist, get-'er-done president. They wanted true "change to believe in", like Obama himself talked about whilst campaigning:



Conservatives might take his "fundamentally transforming the United States" quote in a decidedly darker direction, but many of those rapturous faces on November 4, 2008 hoped and believed in this fundamental transformation. This perception of who they wanted Obama to be and who he has governed as has led to the classic situation of glass half-full/glass half-empty.

The half-full view has a pretty favorable view of the president: he's actually been the most progressive president the country has seen for decades (which says a lot about the political spectrum in the U.S.); Congress has been more productive in 2 years than many other sessions were in entire terms; the stimulus bill and other financial measures halted what could have been a Great Depression-like meltdown; he's been hampered not only by vociferous Republican dissent, but also members of his own party (other liberal presidents like FDR and LBJ had well over 60 Democrats in the Senate to pass legislation, a luxury Obama could have only dreamt of); the Affordable Care Act is a giant step closer to providing if not single-payer then more affordable health care to as many Americans as possible; the financial reform bill will help to prevent future Wall Street excesses from getting out of hand and damaging the economy; Obama is after all, not a wizard, but rather just one part of the three branches of government - he cannot force his will upon the rest of the government to do what he wants.

From this point of view, the Obama presidency has been pretty productive so far, despite some setbacks and downers that are inevitable for any presidency. This perspective on the president is, unfortunately for Obama, in a constant fight for supremacy against the glass half-empty critics on the Left; the half-empties apparently were winning the fight enough for the midterms to be a "shellacking" for Obama and the Democrats.


Those on the Left who truly wanted fundamental change wanted a president who would fight for them, not the plutocrats. They wanted the banks nationalized, a bigger stimulus, single-payer healthcare, gay marriage, end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, an end to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay closed, etc. Instead of breaking up the banks or nationalizing them, Obama's "socialist" policies supported those of George Bush, who essentially threw money at the Big Banks without asking them what they were going to do with it (by comparison, Germany's government - composed of conservatives and neoliberals - enacted a financial rescue package to the left of Obama and the Democrats).

The banks, big business, and Wall Street not only got off with just a slap on the wrist from Obama but he praised their obscenely large salaries and has surrounded himself with the very Wall Street insiders that so many in the public want to see taken down. The Left wanted to see the Democrats and Obama actually take a stand; instead they saw Obama cave in and compromise with Republicans with little or nothing liberal to show for it. Such perceived cave-ins and compromises inflamed resentment and negative sentiment on the Left.

The stimulus was decently-sized, but needed to be much larger; Obama could have fought for a bigger piece of the pie, but instead paraded around the insufficient stimulus as if it would truly cure the country's financial woes. After almost ruining health care reform, the Democrats had to settle for leaving the industry in private hands, thereby ensuring a morally and fiscally irresponsible system could continue. Not even the weak-sauce public-option was that important to the President, apparently.

The financial reform bill did not go nearly far enough in making sure Wall Street's influence on the overall economy would be reduced, letting them off the hook once again. At a time when corporate profits and hedge funds are raking in the dough more than ever, Obama's response was to ensure they keep making millions and billions of dollars while middle-class and poor Americans remain homeless and jobless.

On the civil liberties front, Obama's track record is downright deplorable: Guantanamo Bay remains open, the Patriot Act and its flagrant violations of basic rights, including torture, was continued. Such continuations of Bush-era policies were not what people had in mind when they voted for "Change we can believe in". Obama's lukewarm support for gay rights has become increasingly irritating to those who no longer wish to wait for progress. Many wonder why he does not simply issue an executive order to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell - much like Truman did when he desegregated the Army in 1948.

While it is true that Obama has reduced troop levels in Iraq, 50,000 soldiers still remain as occupiers in a foreign country while 30,000 additional troops were sent to continue the occupation of another foreign country - costing precious lives and dollars in the process.

To top off the right-wing health care reform, right-wing stimulus, right-wing violations of civil liberties, and right-wing financial reform, Obama basically told the Left "shut up and take what we give you". No wonder many liberals were unmotivated to vote in the midterms - Obama had turned out to be much more like Mitt Romney than Dennis Kucinich.

Where does the truth lie among all these views, opinions, and condemnations of President Obama? Things are certainly not so black, white, and gray like the Left, the Right, and the middle seem to think.

Republican obstructionism cannot be overstated - the filibuster has been used by Republicans more in the last 2 years than in the entire nineteenth century -, meaning that a simple majority is no longer enough to pass legislation. And the president can only sign the bills that come before him; while the House has passed an array of progressive legislation, this has often been watered-down or rejected by the Senate. Clearly, the president would prefer to have passed a more comprehensive climate-change bill, a bigger stimulus, or let tax cuts for the rich expire. In his opinion, the votes weren't there and these were the best options he could come up with. Unfortunately for Obama, the Democrats' failure to break Senate filibusters is frustrating to many voters who view them as being more weak-kneed than they might actually be. This in turn reflects badly upon the president, who must shoulder much of this criticism. Not to mention the vitriol being spewed about the President from the Right - it's quite breathtaking in its hysterics and predictions of doom. Perhaps the reason the Right's criticism has been so vicious is because of Obama's success - conservatives would absolutely love it if one of their candidates had been a media darling like Obama was in 2008.

The president seems to think that a lot of the criticism coming his way is because he hasn't enacted enough change in a quick enough fashion. But partisan supporters aren't idiots or overly optimistic. They realize that politics is politics and they won't get everything they want right away and in exactly the way they want it to. No doubt conservatives were annoyed with Bush for not being able to make abortions illegal or privatize social security. No, the problem many disappointed Obama supporters have with the president is not that he hasn't enacted change fast enough, but that he hasn't even really attempted to be the president he persuaded people he would be.

The President showed an embrace of the kind of leftist-populism motivating progressives when running in 2008, but has since showed a sort of apprehension or even disdain for actually governing from the center-left. Perhaps afraid of the political/social ramifications of enacting truly progressive legislation too rapidly, Obama has often said that he is looking farther down the road with his policies than many are seeing. This trepidation for more leftist policies seems to be borne from a desire to win over moderates and gain some support from the Right, which is slightly naive in that he has stuck with trying to be bipartisan after it had become abundantly clear to everyone that there was no interest on the other side of the aisle. There are, however, examples of politicians steering to the left and achieving success, which gives credence to the notion of a different tack for the administration.

Obama's enthusiasm gap stems from the changed perception of him as bringing change to being a "business-as-usual" guy. If voters had wanted someone who could be a good politician, beat the Republicans at their own game, and knuckle-down to get things done, surely they would have voted for Hillary Clinton. But voters wanted radical transformation, not business as usual.

To think that one man could change an entire faulty, broken system is ridiculous - the problem lies rather in that Obama hasn't looked like he wants to change the system. If the president had railed against Big Banks and Wall Street, advocated for a much larger stimulus and outlined a comprehensive plan, clearly calling for single-payer health care but had then been stymied in Congress, he could rightfully say to voters "I'm trying my best here to get the things done that this country truly needs, to truly help change our nation for the better. But these other guys don't want that; they want business as usual. If you want to see true change, vote against them and vote for change in 2010." In such a scenario, even if Obama loses, he wins. Instead, he began bargaining in the middle, hoping for bipartisanship and then paraded around such little victories as though they were V-E Day, while also castigating the Left for wanting a bit more than standard Democratic politicos. Such a maneuver has clearly failed to motivate or inspire those who voted en masse for Obama.

Motivation was always going to be difficult to maintain after the euphoria that greeted Barack Obama's presidential election. The disillusionment that has gradually increased from Obama supporters is perhaps slightly unfair, as the president is simply being the kind of politician he's always been. It is, however, his fault for embracing progressive rhetoric to get elected and then dropping the brand when he entered the White House.

While some of his policies aren't as strong or effective as they could be - the Bush-era continuation of civil liberties violations is scandalous - much good has come from his presidency. Though one step forward instead of three or five is a small step, it is a step nonetheless. The alternative is and will remain unthinkable and unforgivable. Much of politics is about perception. Obama needs to persuade those who most want to believe in him that it is worth doing so.

The 2010 Midterm Elections: An Analysis

Just two years after sweeping to power and gaining control of the Presidency and Congress, the Democrats lost a massive amount of seats in the House and Senate, as well as several state governorships, during the 2010 midterm elections in a stunning resurgence for the Republican party. Is this turnaround the "will of the people", a strong rebuke of the "liberal policies" of President Obama and the Democrats, as many Republicans are wont to say? Well, that depends. It depends on how many people voted, who voted, and why they voted for whom they did.


According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are roughly 210 million or so eligible voters in the United States. In 2008, 63% or 131,000,000 voted in the Presidential election. The 2010 midterms saw this number fall to just 89 million, which translates to about 40% voter turnout. This kind of lower turnout is normal for midterm elections, but nevertheless it means that a substantial amount of citizens stayed at home, either those who voted in 2008 and those who did not.

Does a 40% minority of eligible voters represent the "will of the American people"? No, not really. Not at all, actually, when one examines a bit further who of this 40% voted.

According to exit polls, embarrassingly low amounts of young people and minorities exercised their democratic rights this past November. Millions of Obama supporters, who had helped elect him in 2008, stayed home. 29 million or so, to give an estimate. On top of that, 13% of people who had voted for Obama in 2008 switched sides and voted Republican in 2010. As well, the people who did vote tended much more strongly to be middle-aged or senior citizens, white, and conservative or at least Republican-leaning. Many self-proclaimed moderates also favored the Republicans more so than Democrats.

This older, more homogeneous, more Republican demographic that turned out returned to the Republicans previously conservative strongholds that had swung to Obama and the Democrats in 2008, as well springing a few surprises on established Democratic incumbents, like in Illinois and Wisconsin. Indeed, the more fiscally conservative and moderate Blue Dogs lost half of their seats to Republicans in districts that had gone to the Democrats in the previous election.


The reasons for why so many Obama supporters and Democratic voters either didn't show up or voted Republican can be discussed in a separate article. The main question is what the most important issue was to those who bothered voting, and the answer is overwhelmingly because of the poor state of the economy. It's clear that few Americans have much faith, if any, in Congress and that President Obama's fiscal policies have not done enough to spur economic growth. Despite some neo-conservative claims that voters were rejecting the Democrats' and Obama's liberalism, the fact is that most people didn't consider the President's policies when deciding for whom to vote. 63% of voters said the economy was the most important issue to them, and those who said so voted 54% to 43% for the Republicans.

So moderate voters went more for Republicans to see if they could fix the economy any better than the Democrats had for the past 2 years (no doubt unaware, unwilling to recognize, or uncaring that the Republicans had in the most dickish fashion possible blocked and obstructed any and every form of economic assistance put forth by the Democrats). Republican voters unsurprisingly voted for Republicans, which combined with the moderate voters' economic concerns and liberal disillusionment with President Obama and the Democrats to hand the GOP a huge political win.


Pretty straightforward, really. The 2010 midterms seemed to be more a fragmented, haphazard display of the American two-party system, albeit accidentally. Of course, there are also the plutocratic reasons for the GOP victory: Some voters might have thought evil things about government, health care, Obama, the deficit, etc. But in American politics, money talks and money largely went with the Republican party; conservative organizations outspent liberal ones 2-1, and large special-interest industries bankrolled Republican campaigns. This was the most expensive midterm election ever, with over $4 billion spent; is it surprising that special-interests, corporations, and Big Money industries spent large amounts of cash on politicians who were far to the right of the President's mildly liberal rhetoric of reform?

A representative democracy should reflect the wants, needs, and opinions of the populace; American democracy increasingly is representative of only a small portion of population, either through plutocracy or voter apathy as a indirect result of plutocracy. The will of conservatives is certainly clear now; they demonstrated that simply by showing up at the polls, something that liberals and Democrats did not nearly do enough of to hold back the Right. Conservatives clearly want less government spending, lower taxes, a repeal of healthcare, blah, blah, blah. But what does the rest of the country want? What do the vast majority of Americans want? Not what the GOP is selling, that's for sure.

What does this mean for the future? The Republicans can no longer simply oppose any and everything the Democrats propose for the purpose of painting the President a failure...or maybe they can. They may try to throw some meat to their base and repeal health care, but that is extremely unlikely to pass. They may end up compromising with Democrats on certain issues, and be obstructionist and irresponsibly selfish on other subjects, which very well could end in a suspension of the government. Such a fiasco would unquestionably harm the country, but this is what people voted for and what they may receive.

At a time of deep economic crisis, the United States requires leadership, responsibility, cool heads, and sensibility. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the people will get this with the incoming group of Republicans, but time will only tell.

Americans are Idiots

A new poll has come out that says the following:

"Americans trust Democrats more to handle the country's problems, they think Democrats represent their values better, they think Democrats are more concerned with the needs of people like them, and they think Democrats deserve to be reelected at a higher rate than Republicans."

Americans also blame Bush and the Republicans for the economic crisis more than Obama and the Democrats.


Despite this, Americans still say they'll vote for Republicans in the upcoming elections in November.

Oh, and the amount of people who wrongfully believe Obama is a Muslim (like it would be a bad thing, anyway) has increased.

Looks like that stereotype of Americans isn't going away any time soon.

Right America has Gone Wrong

Edmund Burke, considered to be one of the founders of modern conservatism, lived in a time when rampant liberalism in Europe was causing thousands of deaths and misery, as the French Revolution became violent and unpredictable. Burke saw what could happen were the pursuit of liberty to be carried too far, too fast, as the French situation turned into an untamed spiral of executions, accusations, and eventually, tyranny. Burke's solution to this was not simply to revert back to the old system of the ancien regime, as it was obvious that that era was gone, and it was long overdue, seeing as how it was untenable in the first place. He thought that, to have an orderly and democratic society, the French needed to reform their social system, but not in a radical way; only through logically looking at what would work and what would not, by making compromises with those from the aristocracy and those from the lower classes, would France become a stable, just society which was for the benefit of all, without falling into chaos and despair. So it was that France broke away from the tyranny of Napoleon and became a constitutional monarchy, albeit briefly.
Fast-forward to the 21st century and Burke's classical conservatism is nowhere to be found among the Right in the United States. American conservatism has become so twisted, convoluted, and diverted that its pale shell only represents a shadow of what it says it does.

American conservatives say they believe in individual liberty, but that doesn't seem to extend to illegal immigrants, minorities, women, or Muslims.

American conservatives say they believe in fiscal responsibility, yet the most recent Republican president contributed more to the United States debt in only 8 years than any previous officeholder, while prominent Republicans today are adamant in extending tax cuts that would be the most egregiously irresponsible fiscal policy the government could enact, not to mention it that it would be going against what the vast majority of Americans want. Republican fiscal policies have also done the most in the past 30 years to run up the national debt.

American conservatives believe in small government, yet the most recent Republican president massively expanded the size of the U.S. government.

American conservatives hold the Constitution holy, yet they only seem to regard it as such when it benefits themselves, and not others. Complaints that President Obama is stepping all over the Constitution conveniently forget the myriad of ways President Bush actually did.

American conservatives don't want the government interfering in their lives, unless it concerns women's bodies or gay citizens' right to marry.

Edmund Burke's philosophy of liberal conservatism, which supported reform and adaptation to changing situations, would be labeled by today's American conservatives as dangerous and threatening American society.

True conservatism would not advocate for the repeal of amendments to the Constitution because of an unproven fear of "anchor" or "terror" babies. True conservatism would champion illegal immigrant's basic, inherent rights as human beings, not demonize them and call for their expulsion.

True conservatism would decry the government mandating that women were not allowed to have the choice of what to do with their body.

True conservatism would try with all its might to get the country back on its feet during an excruciating recession, because the nation comes before the party. True conservatism would compromise on issues that the vast majority of Americans find essential, not obfuscate and obstruct them.

True conservatism would change and adapt its policies and ideology as society changed around them - refusing to acknowledge the failure of tax cuts to the top 1% of the American population and remaining steadfastly exlcusionary against minorities such as Hispanics and Homosexuals being just a few examples of how far off the deep end the Right has gone in the United States. Conservatism is only enhancing its rapid descent into obscurity in the U.S. the more it embraces exclusionary tactics at the expense of inclusionary ones.

American conservatives could be making very sound, logical, reasonable arguments against the current Democratic administration, as well as arguing for different approaches to the variety of societal problems now facing the United States. Yet, no matter what they may say, there always seems to be an infusion of racial or fear-mongering aspects into the discourse. Whether it's the variety of ways the Right has vilified, lied about, maligned, and slandered the first African-American president, the virulent anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic rhetoric being spewed about, or just good old-fashioned Southern Strategy dog whistles, the Right appears to be incapable of making valid arguments about any topic without resorting to some sort of stereotype, prejudice, or race-baiting, whether consciously or not.

Arguments can be made against the President without comparing him to Adolf Hitler

Making matters even more intense is the conservative media, that being Fox News and the Right Wing blogosphere. Seeing as how the rest of the news has a "liberal media bias", conservatives are forced to rely upon Fox News, who give them what they want. Except, it is increasingly difficult for Fox News to keep up the masquerade of being a news network, as their portrayal of "facts" and stories inevitably don't hold up to scrutiny. Instead, if one were to watch only Fox News, a narrative of paranoia, apocryphal doomsday scenarios in which the overwhelming emotion induced is the fear that America is being destroyed by a secret socialist fascist communist capitalism-hating black man with a foreign name, claims that are laughable at best. The Right Wing media has become so radicalized as to be utterly hilarious to non-biased viewers, or it would be funny if it weren't also incredibly frightening. Even history has begun to be re-written.

This isn't to say that liberals and moderates don't also spread rumors or lie about their politic opponents, or that the so-called "liberal" media don't also get some facts wrong from time to time. They just in no way compare to the blatant narrative story-telling political machine at Fox News.

American conservatives hold as a tenet of their ideology family values, yet many high-profile Republicans have engaged in decidedly un-family-like practices.

American conservatives want to hold politicians and media members responsible for their actions, yet when Andrew Breitbart posted an obviously edited and truncated video showing (what else?) a black woman sounding racist against whites, there were no consequences for him. When Dan Rather made a mistake in reporting about George Bush's military service record, he lost his job.

The fundamental principles upon which the country was founded, such as separation of church and state, have been disregarded. The conservative enthusiasm for winning the "war on terror" is only going to take a step backward the more radicalized American conservatives shout their objections to a community center being built several blocks away from the site of Ground Zero.

Modern American conservatism has become incredibly hypocritical, and there is nothing stopping it from continuing in this vein. There are no mainstream Republican voices calling out for moderation, logical reform, or questioning the Right Wing media. There are no adaptations, no new ideas. The fact that Republican discourse has been forced to debate superficial issues, and not concrete policy, is a stark symbol of the degradation the movement has endured for the past several decades.

The Right has gone wrong, and by becoming so radicalized, they have sounded their own death-knell. If the spiral of hysteria on the Right does not come to an abrupt halt in the near future, the Republican party and the conservative movement as we know it will die, slowly, perhaps, but surely. American politics and American society need and deserve better than what they've been getting. Only time will tell, but as it is, things don't seem to be changing any time soon.