To whatever degree the Akin debacle redounds to President Obama's advantage and accrues to Mitt Romney's demise, I will still have one major regret: the anticipated debate--the "What kind of nation do we want?" debate, which I very much believe Obama would win decisively--will once again not be had.
It is, of course, not just Todd Akin. After this clown, there will be another, and that clown's similarly stupid comment will again focus the nation on what has become the GOP's chronic clownishness. The only deficit we're not running in this nation is that of GOP pols' ineffable penchant for saying incredibly stupid things.
"[T]he brouhaha shifts the national discussion to divisive social issues that could repel swing voters rather than economic issues that could attract them in a climate of high unemployment and stumbling recovery," GOP officials told CNN "on condition of not being identified." That's great, as far as I'm concerned. Except that it's not.
Should Akin-like absurdities continue to derail this presidential campaign, and Obama advances to that aforementioned decisive victory, you know what to expect. On Wednesday morning, November 7th, the pseudoconservative fiscal flakes and supply-siding troglodytes will start haunting the airwaves with their fantasies and fairy tales of a Ryanesque-Randian utopia denied. Because, they'll say, they were denied a proper hearing; the social-issue troglodytes got theirs instead.
And off we'll go, another four years of that crap.
Obama-Biden could put them away and shut this nonsense down. We could have it out, now, and for the next two-and-a-half months. Do we want a brutalizing nation in which well-fed dogs eat the hungry dogs? Or do we prefer a civilized society of individual aspirations nurtured in community care?
I'm confident of the collective verdict. Regrettably, it likely won't go to trial. Not this year.
To me, these are not subjective social issues, whether a woman has the unencumbered right to an abortion.
And this *is* a discussion about what kind of country we want to be, if not the exact conversation you were expecting.
Do we want to be a country that treats women like second class citizens who have no authority over their own bodies, a country where rape is spread across a spectrum that starts at one end with "She asked for it," a country where magical-thinking cretins like Todd Akin and Paul Ryan can tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body?
Posted by: You Don't Say | August 22, 2012 at 03:34 PM
My sense is that the Club For Growth crowd will make it a referendum about Reaganism with Obama countering with trickle-down snake oil. This effectively pushes the Religious Right/Culture Warriors under the bus, leaving the Club For Growth fully in charge. The current kerfluffle aside, the Culture War is over and has long since served its purpose. It was always just a means to an end.
During the Iran-Contra hearings, George Schultz made an insightful comment. He said something like, "In this town, arguments are never won, only continued. Even if the CFG crowd loses the argument during this cycle, they will have seized the basis for all future aregument and elections.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | August 22, 2012 at 03:44 PM
Worry not. We were never going to have an honest discussion along the lines you crave. Just look at what the Granny Starver has been saying since he got picked. He's holding himself and Mitt out as being the True Protectors of Medicare, rather than that foreign guy Obama who's robbing Medicare so that he can lavish unearned rewards on lazy poor/minority people.
I was hopeful, for about 3 hours, that the Ryan pick meant we really would have an ideological battle royale with Obama's pragmatic center-left view on one side, and Ryan's vision of a Galtian utopia on the other. Ryan had previously seemed so sure that his ideas were fantastic and all he needed was a megaphone to explain why. Alas, either he chickened out or Romney told him to stick to the list of approved lies at all costs. It became clear on announcement day that we're not gonna get the grand debate. Because the GOP and the Romney campaign know they'd lose that war and lose it big. So they're lying. They're trying to position themselves to the LEFT of Obama on Medicare. No, seriously.
Then, should they win, they'll take us into the Ayn Rand policy abyss, claiming that the election gave them a mandate. Conveniently forgetting that they did all that they could to avoid actually campaigning on those policies in an honest way.
So at this point, if Akinapalooza helps tip the balance away from the GOP, I'll take it. We were never gonna get the full repudiation of their demented economic beliefs that we deserve.
Posted by: Turgidson | August 22, 2012 at 04:54 PM
I really enjoy reading this blog. The comments are a big added plus. If for nothing else it convinces that there is intelligent life out there.
Posted by: Peter G | August 22, 2012 at 06:33 PM
PM, didn't you just answer your own question: "What kind of nation do we want?"
A nation run by a party of clowns or a party of adults.
I think that's a debate worth having before having any other debates.
Posted by: MinneapolisPipe | August 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM
That's a beautiful turn of phrase, "A civilized society of individual aspirations nurtured in community care." I want that and I think most Americans--Even conservatives!--want it too. Unfortunately, debates about these kinds of things tend to go in a very predictable way.
When I talk to conservatives about anything from general social policy to specific economic issues, I get them to agree fairly easily. But the moment any of these issues start to be discussed in the society at large, everything changes. Suddenly, these reasonable people are so pumped full of Fox News talking points, they can no longer see straight, much less listen to facts or follow logic.
At the same time, the great center of the country becomes utterly confused by the MSM's he said/she said, false equivalence coverage.
And this is why we can't have nice things.
Posted by: Frankly Curious | August 23, 2012 at 03:02 AM
You are to be commended, PM, for the most excellent use of "et al." Such niceties are sadly lacking in today's degraded discourse.
Posted by: Jim Milstein | August 23, 2012 at 09:04 AM