Doin' the GOP Rag

I've written it, Politico is writing it, the Times' Thomas Edsall wrote one this morning--everyone is writing it, already, it's all the craze, and it's the very kind of commentary that will comfort us through the coming post-election withdrawals: What in God's name will the GOP do next?

I once thought a good thrashing would moderate these scroundrels. And, for all I know, I was right. Problem is, the GOP won't receive a good thrashing tomorrow. Sure, Romney will go down and his party in the Senate will endure only as filibustering gloomy Guses; but the GOP House--almost certain to survive virtually unscathed--will remain our national plague. As Edsall asks:

Will it be possible to constrain the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, the wing that has effectively dominated policy making since the 2010 midterm election?

No.

Because it's not just the tea partiers. It's the potential tea partiers waiting in the primary wings. Ideological extremism is now enforced in the House in much the same way that filibusters are in the Senate: merely by threat. You either vote as a tea partier or you vote as a tea partier would, or your miserable little seat (as well as your $174,000 salary and benefits and perks and staff and pension) gets it.

In Politico's rather charming view,

[When] Obama manages to defeat Mitt Romney on Tuesday, the Republican Party will have to go through a painful process of self-examination and internal debate in order to explain what went so badly wrong.

Again, I once thought the party would. Yes indeed. But, there's the absent "thrashing" thing. And there's one other thing, and it's big: hardcore ideologues and depraved gangsters don't "do" self-examination. If they did, they never would have become ideologues or gangsters, and in some cases both: Republican congressmen. 

Comments

[AnneJ]

If it were possible to be more than 100% correct, P.M., then you would be. People who think they know everything never question anything especially themselves even when they lose. Their losses are never their fault, and as I have repeatedly written, I do not want to hear how they ran a presidential candidate that was too moderate. They will never release themselves from their ideological prison because they like it there, the rest of the world is the problem not them. I don't know when it will happen or what it will take, but their bubble is going to burst sooner or later, unfortunately it won't happen tomorrow and who knows how much more pain this country is going to have to go through because of them.

[Turgidson]

It was always my assumption that it would take a particularly gruesome wipeout for the GOP to partake in any reflection. They aren't gonna lose that badly.

They very well may pick up some seats in 2014, when voters that only Obama's team can turn out stay home again. And again, they'll take those election results to mean that the American electorate loves itself some crazy.

Which is why, even though she's not my ideal candidate, I hope Hillary runs in 2016. She has the name, cache, money-raising prowess, and (barring uncle Joe running) presumably would have Team Obama behind her rather than jokers like Mark Penn. She seems, at least right now, uniquely positioned to administer the epic blowout upon the GOP that they need to finally, finally, start moving back toward reason and reality.

Maybe there's another Democratic politician out there who would be that dominant of a candidate, but I just don't see it in the other presumed candidates like Cuomo and O'Malley. Gillibrand is probably too new (though people said that about Obama too). We shall see.

In any event, I'll be glad when this is over. I remain a bit nervous about the GOP's disenfranchisement efforts in Ohio and Florida, but at the same time I believe in OFA to close the deal in spite of the roadblocks.

[Peter G]

So there must be a schism between the ideological wing of the Republican party and the pragmatic wing for whom power has a purpose. They simply do not share the same goals. It should be very entertaining and not a little destructive.

[shsavage]

I'm starting to think that it just isn't possible to swing the 2x4 hard enough to knock in any sense. No disaster, no matter how large, seems to do it. What did the unreconstructed Confederates learn from the Civil War? What did the business wing of the GOP learn from the Great Depression? What have the racists learned from the Civil Rights Movement? What did the political operatives learn from Watergate? Sadly, it seems that facts do not penetrate, logic does not convince, and the only lessons learned from history are the wrong ones.

[Melsouza]

PM, I am really worried about the election as it is unfolding before our very eyes. All this focus on polls, campaigns, and philosophical meanderings into the future of the GOP is missing out on the very disturbing reports that are coming out of Florida, Ohio and other swing states on major voter suppression efforts. There is a concerted plan in place by the GOP and its contours are becoming clear: delay and complicate the vote to such an extent that turnout is significantly depressed, or people are kept from voting. It's happening now. Harassment, intimidation, misinformation, excessive and confusing demands--all are ploys to delay the voting process and as result fewer people will vote. We will see alot of this tomorrow--and this is what worries me. This election could slip away if turnout is significantly depressed because of these measures and I see very few commenters are mentioning.

[Ted Frier]

Go back and read Richard Hofstader's essay from 1964 on the reaction of Barry Goldwater's right wing supporters to his historic, landslide loss. Political pros want to win and so make adjustments after such a loss. But Goldwater's supporters were nearly giddy since never before had their particular brand of reactionary conservatism been proclaimed from so exhaulted a platform.

[japa21]

Ted, I remember Goldwater supporters crying out that 27 million people can't be wrong, totally ignoring the fact that some 47 million people disagreed.