Krugman meditates on "the modern Republican Party," the party that holds "disdain for workers" and "contempt for the masses" and regards "the rest of us unworthy of even a pretense of respect." The rap is that the Republican Party "has become a party of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy" (my italics), however Krugman's condemnation is a rather weak one, unless becoming in politics encompasses century-long spans.
What, after all, of the Gilded Age, of the Harding-Coolidge era, and of the contemporary, bipartisan orgy of corporate cash? Or, going the other direction, if plutocratic incest is a modern transgression, then "modern" must be redefined as reaching back to the Age of Homer.
In the GOP there is something more pernicious--and more pervasive--at work; something, it seems, that far surpasses the customary narrow-mindedness and insularity and arrogance of wealth. And that something, I think, lies in the unrestricted use of "contempt." Hardcore Republicans have simply come to possess a contempt for everyone and everything unRepublican.
Pinpointing Republican contempt's year of gestation is always tricky, but 1933 is as good and valid as any. This was the year that America fundamentally rewrote its social contract--the year in which dispossessed Americans demanded that power in its material manifestations flow down as well as up--and the Republican ethos has never forgiven America. In one form or another, through one minor or major faction or another, the GOP has worked to turn back the clock ever since.
To Republicans, Washington D.C. is ancient Rome--wicked and sprawling and traitorous to its simple origins--and they're the persecuted and singularly virtuous Christians. (Franklin D. Roosevelt, needless to say, was brutal Caesar, whose legacy has been a long line of yet more brutal Caesars.)
In short, Republicanism has morphed from a political philosophy to an intense theology of the pure. Politics may be the art of negotiation, but Piety is the fortress of uncompromising devotion--to the Cause (which itself can morph from day to day, depending on what the heretics are up to). Those who adhere not to the Cause are, by definition, impure. And for the impure, Republicans hold nothing but contempt--because Republicans aren't so much political as they are profoundly, tribally theological.
It's their City on the Hill, and by God they'll have it. The rest can just go to hell.
You have put this nicely into historical perspective. The damage control parties sent to save the sinking Romney campaign can do little. And the others are trying to salvage downticket races by averring that the secret Romney tapes have never reflected the Republican attitude to the "takers" which is merely that of tough love designed to spur them to greater economic glory. Me, I like to point out whenever possible, that of your two candidates, only one chose to give back to his community early in his career by becoming a community organizer and working to help those very people who needed help most. There is no tax deduction for being a community organizer. And yet, every man and woman in the Republican Party derided and mocked Obama for his choice. Every single one who ever got in front of a camera or a word in print. There's no spectrum in the ideology of the Republican party when it comes to hating the less fortunate or anyone who tries to help them.
Posted by: Peter G | September 21, 2012 at 09:42 AM
The anti-New Deal faction has been around as long as the New Deal as, if not longer, but I don't think they were really embraced by the GOP until the 1960's. This gave them the opening to take over the party and now they have. Only now after kicking almost everyone else out are non-Republicans and the remnants of the original party figuring out what's happened.
Posted by: mdblanche | September 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM
You know, contempt is not all bad! That's one of the reasons why I read your blog, PM. You are very good at contempt . . . for Republicans! And, sadly, sometimes for those on your side. A sense of fairness, I guess, is to be blamed. No one is perfect.
Posted by: Jim Milstein | September 21, 2012 at 01:15 PM
"There's no spectrum in the ideology of the Republican party when it comes to hating the less fortunate or anyone who tries to "
Because they can't imagine wanting to do such a thing, anyone who tries to help the less fortunate is obviously a phony -- into it only for what they can get out of it. Because that's the only reason that makes sense to them.
And the "less fortunate" aren't actually less fortunate, they're deadbeats trying to con the system.
Posted by: Beauzeaux | September 21, 2012 at 09:33 PM