General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGOP Operative Who Left the Cult ... and WHY we have to VOTE
Mike Lofgren was a Republican staffer for 30 years. He quit after the GOP held our coutry and the world economy hostage over the artificial "debt crisis" when they threatened to default on the national debt by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. He wrote the article linked below in Sept 2011 but it is very relevant to why we have to GOTV, and in my opinion it is a very insightful analysis of today's Republican Party:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult
A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).
The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says, "that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'"
Inside-the-Beltway wise guy Chris Cillizza merely proves Krugman right in his Washington Post analysis of "winners and losers" in the debt ceiling impasse. He wrote that the institution of Congress was a big loser in the fracas, which is, of course, correct, but then he opined: "Lawmakers - bless their hearts - seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months) congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity." Note how the pundit's ironic deprecation falls like the rain on the just and unjust alike, on those who precipitated the needless crisis and those who despaired of it. He seems oblivious that one side - or a sizable faction of one side - has deliberately attempted to damage the reputation of Congress to achieve its political objectives.
No matter how disgusted you may be with a Democratic Party that has often failed to stand up for progressive values, it is critically important to keep the Republicans from controlling Congress. If we do not exercise our right to vote because we're fed up with both parties, we will have fulfilled the strategy of the Republican Party to sever the link between The People and their own government.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Martin Eden
(12,867 posts)... then you have limited your ability to defeat them.
SalviaBlue
(2,916 posts)Autumn
(45,088 posts)I hope he doesn't become a Democrat although I won't mind if he votes for a Democrat.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)already IS Republican-lite. It's where the moderate Republicans were in the pre-Reagan/religulously insane/Ayn Rand era of the 1960s and 1970s. Tricky Dick proposed something very like the ACA in the early 1970s.
Autumn
(45,088 posts)Sometimes I think it should be burnt down, no other way to clean out the elephant shit. This republican party makes me miss Richard Nixon
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)grew up hating the ground the old crook walked on as an article of faith - is that his vendettas were personal and not systemic, as are those of today's Repuke politicians. Nixon didn't "hate the government" or think it was the "problem". The ol' Trickster just wanted to use the government to settle personal scores and advance his own interests and reputation as a "statesman." Everything with Nixon was intensely personal.
The weird shift in the American zeitgeist is captured beautifully in Rick Perlstein's recent book "The Invisible Bridge - the fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan." Perlstein weaves together political and cultural history and superb political history into a compulsively readable book, which I am about 80% through. I recommend it highly and I lived through that period as a politically interested teenager/early 20s guy.
When the history of the late 20th century is written dispassionately in another 30-50 years, assuming a comet or climate change doesn't wipe out civilization first, Reagan will be seen as the most destructive president in US history. He was a perfect creature of his time, riding the rising wave of willful ignorance, bald-faced stupidity, and the greed of the 1% because he embodied those qualities perfectly. I used to say that it would take two generations to undo the damage Reagan did to this country. Then came Chimpy and Darth. I'd say four or five generations is now an optimistic guess assuming it is possible at all. I increasingly doubt that it is.
Martin Eden
(12,867 posts)Thanks hifiguy, for bringing to my attention "The Invisible Bridge." My google search landed on the New Yorker review (linked below) which summarizes all 3 of Perlstein's books about the rise of American conservatism, with "Bridge" being the 3rd in the trilogy.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/11/uses-division
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Excellent overview of Perlstein's books. The guy is a phenomenal writer. Nixonland is also a must-read.
villager
(26,001 posts)And that's increasingly a problem...
Martin Eden
(12,867 posts)And as far as I know, he has no intention to run for office or to form a political organization.
This is not about Mike Lofgren. It's about the ideas he articulated in the linked article. Do you think his analysis was inaccurate, and if so please specify.
Autumn
(45,088 posts)I agree with this part old the article, Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten." -"Double Indemnity" (1944)
The Democratic party has been pulled so far to the right they are now almost what used to be a normal republican party.
Yeah I would rather have the right leaning Democratic Party in charge than the bat shit insane party.
calimary
(81,267 posts)We've got a tough fight ahead, folks.