The GOP's spiral of Big Lies

American Prospect's Paul Waldman joins the progressively palsied chorus of 'Big Lie'-watchers:

I cannot recall a single presidential campaign ad in the history of American politics that lied more blatantly than [Romney's welfare ad].... [T]hey decided that they don't even have to pretend to be telling the truth anymore.

For sure, this Romney obscenity isn't his first. For at least a year he's been prattling with virtual impunity about President Obama's shameful apologies to the world and about Obama's unprecedented debt and his zero job creation and his "massive defense cuts"--and if I itemized every lie the campaign would be over before I was finished. So I'll stop. Besides, a recreation of Romney's propagandistic crimes is a needless exercise; anyone reading this site already knows them, and even Romney's base accepts that he's a degenerate liar, which of course engenders what little love they do have for him.

It also nearly goes without saying that Romney's rolling deployment of the Big Lie is scarcely anything new in politics. If one is made of sturdy enough stuff, one may choose to recall the GOP's 2010 congressional assault, which wallowed in the counterfeit hysteria of "death panels"; or the 2008 Palinesque Obama-as-terrorist maneuver; or, regressing a bit farther, W., Dick & Co.'s "mushroom clouds"; or one could roam still farther back, from the National Sozialistische Partei's innovative work in ruthless propaganda to the profitably brutal Crusades. All were founded on hideous, and quite big, lies.

What is new in this presidential cycle, however, is the growing number of heretofore unflappable observers who seem shaken by the Romney campaign's brazen contempt for even half- or quarter-truths, let alone whole truths. Waldman's piece reminded me, for example, of an E.J. Dionne appearance earlier this week on MSNBC, in which the mild-mannered scholar of gentle remarks and reserved judgment readily conceded that Romney has indeed lowered political rhetoric to not merely squalid, but "new" depths.

I mentioned Romney's "virtual impunity." That, I have no doubt, will end on the evening of November 6th. My confidence extends only to the wreckage of Romney's presidential aspirations, however. Through the boundless assist of this ghastly Supreme Court, our potential congressional mob of 2013 is looking more wicked every day. 

And in the event of that downballot Triumph of Wickedness--gleaming aside its top-of-the-ticket destruction--what will the GOP's hardcore base and strategists and wannabes and moneymen conclude? You got it. That Romney failed to lie enough; that his Big Lies, as Big Lies go, were somewhat admirable, however total victory in the total war of presidential politics clearly requires even Bigger Lies--and if they don't work, yet bigger ones.

Hence another four years of competent, productive, two-party governance will be squandered in sacrifice to the GOP's death spiral--a suicide by its own wretched filth and monstrous lies. 

Comments

[Peter G]

I have often wondered why, when the Surrogate Campaign Unabashed Deceivers that Mitt deploys talk of Obama's failed economic policies, the Campaign does not reply with the obvious truth: since 2010 the economic policies put forward by the House are entirely Republican. Obama's policies would work given the chance. The only conclusion I can imagine is that the obvious solution to this problem requires not only Obama's re-election but also the defeat of a lot of Republican congressman. And that, as you point out, is probably unattainable. To go down this campaign path virtually admits that Obama's re-election is going to produce four more years of gridlock. And I don't think they want that to become too clear to the voting public. Else that voting public might decide that four years of Republican rule is better than four more years of stagnation. Really the best that can be done here probably is for Obama to be re-elected and hold down the fort (including SCOTUS appointments) and mitigate damage while the Republicans finish their death spiral. Which can't come too soon. If Romney can't get elected, and I agree he probably can't, then the internal civil war in the Republican party is going to accelerate to pure madness.

[melsouza]

P.M. I still have faith that if Obama's margin of victory is big enough, he will carry the Senate with him and, in the best case, regain the House, or, in the worst case, considerably diminish the Tea Party's hold. Democrats are aware that the Senate and House are equally important and are investing considerable resources in these. I doubt that a decisive Obama victory will accompany a full-fledged Republican Congress.

[japa21]

I am reasonably optimistic about regaining the House and keeping the Senate.

First of all, the talk of Republican obstructionism intentionally stalling the recovery is gaining ground. It has even poked its head out of the ground in some of the media.

Secondly, Obama is well aware of the need for Dems to win the down ticket elections in order for anything to get done. I think part of the reason for the early, hard and sustained attacks on Romney are to put Romney in a can't win position.

In addition it is forcing the base to push Romney to go even more Right into the land of the crazies and to basically plead for their continued support during the convention. Anything at the convention that is perceived to be less than full wingnut will hurt Romney.

Anything that is prominent at the convention that is perceived as full wingnut hurts all the Republicans.

So after the convention, with Romney basically neutralized, the attacks will be on Republican policies in general and the sabotaging, etc that they have done the last two years.

Watch for Obama to appear in a lot of joint rallies with a lot of Congressional candidates. As hi approval goes up, they won't be afraid to be associated with him like they were in 2010 (which was the biggest mistake many of them made). Additionally, more and more people are becoming more knowledgable about ACA, which will make Republican talk about repeal become a negative for them, rather than a positive.