Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell may not realize what they've done, but they've tipped their hand. Yes, everyone knows what they are doing anyway, but they have all but opened up the books to let people see the tiny man behind the curtain. So far, the health care debate has been a lot of posturing and complaining about "waste." Well, as someone smarter than me once said, "one man's garbage is another man's treasure."
You see, the two party system is really hiding three or four major factions within this great republic. The health care debate (and other timely debates like the war in Afghanistan) have helped crystallize the differences between these groups. While Gingrich and McConell may not realize what they've done with their call repeal the health care bill (before it is passed), but they have done everyone a huge favor. See, these debates rarely take place in the halls of Congress, but they do take place on the campaign trail and the in the voting booth. It comes at a good time for 2010 and 2012.
The so-called teabagger group represents one group of conservatives. The intellectual wing of that group we may call "classic conservatives." These are basically your social and economic libertarians. They don't want government to do anything but protect us and maybe educate us on a minimal level. They are the Ebenezer Scrooges of American politics. This hit home for me when I saw the George C. Scott version of "A Christmas Carol" over the holidays. Scrooge has an offhand remark about wanting to get rid of the excess population. There is certainly an element of that in the health care debate.
Of course, it would be wrong and foolish to paint every classic conservative as Scrooge. Some mirror the Scrooge after the ghosts visit him. They firmly believe private charities would do a better job than the government of taking care of the poor. The end result is that they favor neither social welfare programs or corporate welfare programs. Business should survive or die on its own just like average ordinary citizens. With the extra tax revenue we save we could buy better health care coverage, take care of our fellow man, and provide for our own retirement.
The next group is the neoconservatives. They are interestingly sounding like budget hawks now even though they don't care for a balanced budget anymore than progressives do. That is to say that both groups do care to a certain extent, but they both have priorities that get in the way. Interestingly enough, this is where the battle is really taking place in Congress and the White House right now. Progressives want to help those that are struggling because they believe that will ultimately help our economy and budget down the road. Neoconservatives want to help business stabilize itself and want to make sure we are successful abroad so that we can get more favorable energy deals (oil) and open up new markets by converting totalitarian regimes in democratic societies.
The final group of people are the so-called blue dog Democrats. They are somehow a cross between progressives and neoconservatives. As Harry Truman once said, "when people have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican they will choose the Republican every time." The more things change the more things remain the same. You have someone like Mary Landrieu who represents the state where my in-laws live. She's trying to balance three different constituencies at once. She has a strong Catholic population opposed to abortion and similarly conservative on other social matters. She has a lot of folks that stand to benefit from programs like the new health care bill, and she has economic conservatives that see people around them living off the government. Instead of standing for what she believes, she chooses to tap dance around all three.
This kind of debate is ultimately good for voters. It shows them where they representatives stand in the debate and allows them to choose accordingly. Otherwise, you have another election with astroturf issues that get people riled up for nothing. It's time that we allow people to choose between three points of view that are all reasonable on their face. While we may have made up our mind here, there are some that have not.
If he had said "the current Republican leadership" or something specific like that, I probably wouldn't have objected so strenuously. I agree that the current GOP leadership is taking advantage of the lowest common denominator because they can't seem to think of anything better to do.
However, I am friends with and have in my family conservatives of conscience and principle. They aren't the only ones out there, either. I get more conservative readers and comments at my Chronicle blog than I do from the liberal side. So much so, that it was the conservatives who told Chronicritic to take a hike the last time he had a meltdown in my comments.
I think we need a strong, coherent, viable counterbalance in this country to the excesses of both parties. We tend to do best when we govern to the center. Claiming that one side of the political spectrum, as wide as it is, has a better grasp of reality than another is needlessly alienating.
I think you are right in that there are crackpot theories on both sides. I just don't remember the Democratic party leadership and idealogues fanning the flames this much. The exception would be the 2000 election and that is a question of semantics. To say the election is tainted is not only reasonable but ver defensible. However, sane people don't argue that Bush itself arranged for it to be stolen. The demagogues have always listed him as the beneficiary of the shenanigans and not the orchestrator of. The fact that it went to the Supreme Court is proof enough that it wasn't a cleanly run election.
All that being said, the difference comes in the fact that current Republican leadership either actively believes obvious mistruths or encourages their beliefs among the public. The crackpots on the left remain in isolation.
For every Tea Partier, how many 9/11 Truthers are there? For every Birther, how many people think Bush stole the election from Gore? For all the mistakes of the Republican-dominated Congress under Bush, why can't a Democratic-dominated Congress under Obama do any better?
The fact of the matter is that political thought is more diverse, nuanced, and complicated than the simple "right" vs. "left" divide. All you are doing is building up that false dichotomy with self-congratulatory nonsense like claiming you have a better grasp on reality than "most conservatives."
Well put dude!!!
I thought that went without saying.
well i agree somewhat about this line of reasoning. radical right or left turns me off, period. i've had people on the left call me to "disrupt" insurance offices with the intent of getting arrested! i declined, having never been arrested and having no interest in pointless endeavors. my brother invited me to a bunch of 912 nonsense and also, i decline. i've watched code pink carry signs into the congress, and watched barney frank sternly warn them that if they open their mouths they'll be sent away. then i watched joe wilson shout "you lie" in that very chamber, only to be clapped on the back by his leadership afterwards and hear them say wilson had the "courage" to do what others did not. courage? is that the same courage that a honorably discharged member of the united states military with offspring currently in that same military, under the same oath to respect themselves and commander in chief? i am somewhat of a tree hugger but do not believe chaining yourself to a tree will stop even a branch from getting cut down, that happens at the planning commission meetings which NObody usually attends to protest. tea party people are shameless, self promoters like palin who climb up the ladder on the back of the GOP and then dictate their "purity" tests and other nonsense. like balloon boy they are a hoax, like octomom they will continue to get on fox news because beck, hannity and other lowest common denominator types have a home there. i am sometimes offended by ed schultze who says "righties" and seems very childish in his liberal pursuits, as offensive as o'reilley. sometimes rachel maddow and keith disappoint me because they pick low hanging fruit, but they are intelligent. overall i prefer jon stewart and colbert nation for my inspiration AND news.
You left out your most admirable quality, humility.
I agree with you. But I agree with jk as well. I believe the problem concerning conservative intellectuals "with their endless conspiracies, delusions and indifference to facts and logic" is that they "can't see the trees for the forest".
justin: I agree. People as smart, incisive, and philosophical as you and me are few and far between.
I am particularly looking forward to more meaningful exchanges with you for 2010.
Great post, Scott. The valedictorian of summer school bit was great, I will use it with your permission of course.
I have had opportunity to be in the car in the middle of the day for the past week and have taken to listening to Rush, Sean, Michael, etc. What amazes me is the fear that is instilled by these people and their other callers, and how reasonable people buy into it. I am not interested in having our country run by my next door neighbor, but that seems to be the mood in this country.
jkugler - I appreciate your efforts to be a moderate, whatever that means. But sometimes you are just plain wrong. What is the difference between intellectuals of the right and left? Numbers, for one thing. Conservatives complain endlessly about liberal academia, apparently admitting that educated people tend to be liberals. We need look only at the composition of the teabaggers, with their endless conspiracies, delusions and indifference to facts and logic to understand that the one side of the political spectrum is blessed with more intelligence than the other. I'm not the most brilliant guy in the universe, but am sufficiently educated to understand reality, which places me apart from most conservatives.
Even though many on the right don't like them, people like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are highly educated and very intelligent just as an example. You have to admit that there has been a dumbing down on the right overall. The right has folks like George Will, but those are few and far between. Many of the current demagogues on the right are actually anti-intellectual.
How is that any different than the far left, though? Truly thoughtful intellectuals on either side of the aisle seem to be in short supply these days.
I had a sudden Will Rogers moment; ie, I never metaphor I didn't like:)
On the contrary, IMO the average thinking-challenged persons are looking out for their interests regardless of who else has to pay for it. Because of the lack of education on issues, they are self-inflicted victims of Ponzi not realizing that they are at the bottom of the pyramid.
Causation is another whole topic.
For the cause of Happy New Year, let us hope that Obama has something up his sleeve.
"...being a "intellectual conservative" is like being the valedictorian at summer school."
Bonus points to Scott for making me laugh out loud.
Happy New Year to all. My New Year's wish is that we finally get the president we elected.
arte wrote: If voters understood and acted upon their own self interests, I suspect we'd have much more agreement about our national priorities and policies.
------------------
There it is. Our BIGGEST problem in a nut shell. IMO a good 45% of the voters in this country get their "political views" from some pundit. THey don't do any independent thinking or research.
What the hell, my got screwed up. Dammit.
Thus the need for quotes around "historian." Heck, I was practically a history major considering the state of Texas required I had enough hours to have a bachelors to teach it. I would consider him more intellectual than most in that party. Understand, outside of a few notable exceptions, being a "intellectual conservative" is like being the valedictorian at summer school.
Newt is an historian? He received his Ph.D. in Modern European History from Tulane University in New Orleans in 1971. His dissertation topic was Belgian Education policy in Africa. So I guess, in some limited fashion, he is a student of history. Just not ours. He refers to himself, honestly, as a "conservative intellectual". (Maybe my momma raised me differently, but I was taught never to brag on myself.)
artemusg wrote:"BTW, I see that the National Tea Party is charging $349 to hear First Teabagger Sarah Palin give the keynote address at their first national convention in February"
It's all about the money with the TeaBagger & Palin organizers. This is the biggest scam of the year and the common baggers aren't smart enough figure it out. Reminds me of the Jim & Tammy Baker fraud.
That's because Gingrich is a "historian" and I am a "political scientist." in all seriousness, when one must tailor their theories to match their ideology they won't look like they have a grasp of what is going on. As a political scientist I am fascinated by the tea party movement. Unfortunately, what began Asa movement with a very appealing message has been taken over by a band of opportunists that played on the lack of sophistication of a majority of people that have attended these things. JKugler's experience of the economic speaker getting a cold response shows you what I mean. An economic protest group doesn't want to hear from a libertarian? They've turned it into an anti-Obama group and that's just sad.
BTW, I see that the National Tea Party is charging $349 to hear First Teabagger Sarah Palin give the keynote address at their first national convention in February. $349. Wow. They'll waste that kind of money to hear a crazy person speak, but object to paying their fair share of taxes. Wonder if Sparkle has her ticket yet?
Scott - great analysis. Seems to me you have a better grasp of our political divide than any commentator I have heard on TV, and most certainly a better understanding than does Newt Gingrich.
Though lots of people say they agree with the teabaggers, I suspect they wouldn't like our society if government (that's us) stopped spending our money on things that positively affect our lives, such as Medicare. And, as much as they bitch about corporate bailouts, I suspect teabaggers and the Ron Paul supporters would find a complete world-wide economic collapse pretty unpleasant.
If voters understood and acted upon their own self interests, I suspect we'd have much more agreement about our national priorities and policies.
Good point Justin and I think we are seeing a split in that group based on that schism. I think the teabagger movement largely is shunning intellectuals which is another problem. We need an intellectual discussion between progressives, neoconservatives, and libertarians. When you look at the foundation of the teabagger movement it is based on anger over excessive government spending. Of course, I might be introducing logic into a situation where it does not belong.
I consider myself largely libertarian, but I don't think the Tea Party crowd really represents that segment. I saw a lot of social conservatism expressed at the Tea Party I went to here in Houston and very little enthusiasm for the one speaker that had been educated in the Austrian School of economics.
I guess the Christianic must have gone down with an iceberg as well, eh?
Excellent article again, Scott. Did I read that you are endorsing a national third party movement?