Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult
Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 after 28 years as a
Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the
Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.
Barbara Stanwyck: "We're
Fred MacMurray: "Yeah -
only you're a little more rotten." -"Double Indemnity" (1944)
Those lines of dialogue from a classic film noir sum up the
state of the two political parties in contemporary America. Both parties are
rotten - how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political
system by corporate money on a scale that now requires a presidential candidate
to raise upwards of a billion dollars to be competitive in the general
election? Both parties are captives to corporate loot. The main reason the
Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is
the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer
system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a
craven surrender to Big Pharma.
But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The
Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate
bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP.
To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying
attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt
ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so
full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has
always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago
have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading
presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx,
Louie Gohmert, Allen West.
The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.
It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they
represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional
staff member on Capitol Hill. A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could
see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt
limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87
times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial
fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted,
by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.
The debt ceiling extension is not the only example of this
sort of political terrorism. Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers
and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay
for their own work-related travel - how prudent is that? - in
order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization.
Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and
amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible
actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage,
while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has
nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is
mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For
instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House
Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were
sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course
they might - the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was
"bring it on!"
It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the
Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party
in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or
one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.
This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.
In his "Manual of Parliamentary Practice," Thomas
Jefferson wrote that it is less important that every rule and custom of a
legislature be absolutely justifiable in a theoretical sense, than that they
should be generally acknowledged and honored by all parties. These include
unwritten rules, customs and courtesies that lubricate the legislative
machinery and keep governance a relatively civilized procedure. The US Senate
has more complex procedural rules than any other legislative body in the world;
many of these rules are contradictory, and on any given day, the Senate
parliamentarian may issue a ruling that contradicts earlier rulings on
The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is
collegiality and good faith. During periods of political consensus, for
instance, the World War II and early post-war eras, the Senate was a "high
functioning" institution: filibusters were rare and the body was
legislatively productive. Now, one can no more picture the current Senate
producing the original Medicare Act than the old Supreme Soviet having legislated the Bill of Rights.
Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee
for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is
now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no
wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the
shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of
the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of
totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine
John P. Judis sums up the modern GOP this way:
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has
transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts
the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the
minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the
government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an
earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum
Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard,
federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from
the union over slavery."
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director
told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and
disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its
job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the
American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government,
the party that is programmatically against government would come out the
A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a
psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting
public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information
voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let
alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters'
confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they
are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading
them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties
are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in
its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in
government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that
has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the
problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).
The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since
the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard
news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political
propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any
criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false
evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist
cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says,
"that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would
read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'"
Inside-the-Beltway wise guy Chris Cillizza
merely proves Krugman right in his Washington Post
analysis of "winners and losers" in the debt ceiling impasse. He wrote that the institution of Congress was a big loser in
the fracas, which is, of course, correct, but then he opined: "Lawmakers -
bless their hearts - seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during
this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months)
congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity." Note how the
pundit's ironic deprecation falls like the rain on the just and unjust alike,
on those who precipitated the needless crisis and those who despaired of it. He
seems oblivious that one side - or a sizable faction of one side - has
deliberately attempted to damage the reputation of Congress to achieve its
This constant drizzle of "there the two parties go
again!" stories out of the news bureaus, combined with the hazy confusion
of low-information voters, means that the long-term Republican strategy of
undermining confidence in our democratic institutions has reaped electoral
dividends. The United States has nearly the lowest voter participation among
Western democracies; this, again, is a consequence of the decline of trust in
government institutions - if government is a racket and both parties are the
same, why vote? And if the uninvolved middle declines to vote, it increases the
electoral clout of a minority that is constantly being whipped into a lather by
three hours daily of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. There were only 44 million
Republican voters in the 2010 mid-term elections, but they effectively canceled
the political results of the election of President Obama by 69 million voters.
This tactic of inducing public distrust of government is not
only cynical, it is schizophrenic. For people who profess to revere the
Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal
government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that
document. This is not to say that there is not some theoretical limit to the size
or intrusiveness of government; I would be the first to say there are such
limits, both fiscal and Constitutional. But most Republican officeholders seem
strangely uninterested in the effective repeal of Fourth Amendment protections
by the Patriot Act, the weakening of habeas corpus and self-incrimination
protections in the public hysteria following 9/11 or the unpalatable fact that
the United States has the largest incarcerated population of any country on
earth. If anything, they would probably opt for more incarcerated persons, as
imprisonment is a profit center for the prison privatization industry, which is
itself a growth center for political contributions to these same politicians.
Instead, they prefer to rail against those government programs that actually
help people. And when a program is too popular to attack directly, like
Medicare or Social Security, they prefer to undermine it by feigning an
agonized concern about the deficit. That concern, as we shall see, is largely
Undermining Americans' belief in their own institutions of
self-government remains a prime GOP electoral strategy. But if this technique
falls short of producing Karl Rove's dream of 30 years of unchallengeable
one-party rule (as all such techniques always fall short of achieving the angry
and embittered true believer's New Jerusalem), there are other even less savory
techniques upon which to fall back. Ever since Republicans captured the
majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have
systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID
requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while
simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in
Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of
operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration
periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university
This legislative assault is moving in a diametrically
opposed direction to 200 years of American history, when the arrow of progress
pointed toward more political participation by more citizens. Republicans are
among the most shrill in self-righteously lecturing
other countries about the wonders of democracy; exporting democracy (albeit at
the barrel of a gun) to the Middle East was a signature policy of the Bush administration.
But domestically, they don't want those people voting.
You can probably guess who those people are. Above
all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the
people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants.
Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals.
Basically, anyone who doesn't look, think, or talk like the GOP base. This must
account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of
President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy
that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black.
Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some
"other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice
aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may
change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a
scapegoat to hate and fear.
It is not clear to me how many GOP officeholders believe
this reactionary and paranoid claptrap. I would bet that most do not. But they
cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information
political base with a nod and a wink. During the disgraceful circus of the
"birther" issue, Republican politicians
subtly stoked the fires of paranoia by being suggestively equivocal - "I
take the president at his word" - while never unambiguously slapping down
the myth. John Huntsman was the first major GOP figure forthrightly to refute
the birther calumny - albeit after release of
the birth certificate.
I do not mean to place too much emphasis on racial animus in
the GOP. While it surely exists, it is also a fact that Republicans think that
no Democratic president could conceivably be legitimate. Republicans also
regarded Bill Clinton as somehow, in some manner, twice fraudulently elected
(well do I remember the elaborate conspiracy theories that Republicans traded
among themselves). Had it been Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, who
had been elected in 2008, I am certain we would now be hearing, in lieu of the birther myths, conspiracy theories about Vince Foster's
The reader may think that I am attributing Svengali-like
powers to GOP operatives able to manipulate a zombie base to do their bidding.
It is more complicated than that. Historical circumstances produced the raw
material: the deindustrialization and financialization
of America since about 1970 has spawned an increasingly downscale white middle
class - without job security (or even without jobs), with pensions and health
benefits evaporating and with their principal asset deflating in the collapse
of the housing bubble. Their fears are not imaginary; their standard of living
What do the Democrats offer these people? Essentially
nothing. Democratic Leadership Council-style "centrist"
Democrats were among the biggest promoters of disastrous trade deals in the
1990s that outsourced jobs abroad: NAFTA, World Trade Organization, permanent
most-favored-nation status for China. At the same time, the identity
politics/lifestyle wing of the Democratic Party was seen as a too illegal immigrant-friendly
by downscaled and outsourced whites.
While Democrats temporized, or even dismissed the fears of
the white working class as racist or nativist, Republicans went to work. To be
sure, the business wing of the Republican Party consists of the most energetic
outsourcers, wage cutters and hirers of sub-minimum wage immigrant labor to be
found anywhere on the globe. But the faux-populist wing of the party, knowing
the mental compartmentalization that occurs in most low-information voters,
played on the fears of that same white working class to focus their anger on
scapegoats that do no damage to corporations' bottom lines: instead of raising
the minimum wage, let's build a wall on the Southern border (then hire a
defense contractor to incompetently manage it). Instead of predatory bankers,
it's evil Muslims. Or evil gays. Or
How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats
ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their
initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder
the pejorative "Obamacare" won out.
Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you?
Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to
be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that
You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy
when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. "Entitlement" has
a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is "entitled"
selfishly claims something he doesn't really deserve. Why not call them
"earned benefits," which is what they are because we all contribute
payroll taxes to fund them? That would never occur to the Democrats.
Republicans don't make that mistake; they are relentlessly on message: it is
never the "estate tax," it is the "death tax." Heaven
forbid that the Walton family should give up one penny of its $86-billion
fortune. All of that lucre is necessary to ensure that unions be kept out of
Wal-Mart, that women employees not be promoted and that politicians be kept on
a short leash.
It was not always thus. It would have been hard to find an
uneducated farmer during the depression of the 1890s who
did not have a very accurate idea about exactly which economic interests were
shafting him. An unemployed worker in a breadline in 1932 would have felt
little gratitude to the Rockefellers or the Mellons.
But that is not the case in the present economic crisis. After a riot of
unbridled greed such as the world has not seen since the conquistadors' looting
expeditions and after an unprecedented broad and rapid transfer of wealth
upward by Wall Street and its corporate satellites, where is the popular anger
directed, at least as depicted in the media? At "Washington spending" - which has increased primarily to provide
unemployment compensation, food stamps and Medicaid to those economically
damaged by the previous decade's corporate saturnalia. Or the popular rage is
harmlessly diverted against pseudo-issues: death panels, birtherism,
gay marriage, abortion, and so on, none of which stands to dent the corporate
bottom line in the slightest.
Thus far, I have concentrated on Republican tactics, rather
than Republican beliefs, but the tactics themselves are important indicators of
an absolutist, authoritarian mindset that is increasingly hostile to the
democratic values of reason, compromise and conciliation. Rather, this mindset
seeks polarizing division (Karl Rove has been very explicit that this is his
principal campaign strategy), conflict and the crushing of opposition.
As for what they really believe, the Republican Party of
2011 believes in three principal tenets I have laid out below. The rest of
their platform one may safely dismiss as window dressing:
1. The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich
contributors. The party has built a whole catechism on the protection and
further enrichment of America's plutocracy. Their caterwauling about deficit
and debt is so much eyewash to con the public. Whatever else President Obama
has accomplished (and many of his purported accomplishments are highly
suspect), his $4-trillion deficit reduction package did perform the useful
service of smoking out Republican hypocrisy. The GOP refused, because it could
not abide so much as a one-tenth of one percent increase on the tax rates of
the Walton family or the Koch brothers, much less a repeal of the carried
interest rule that permits billionaire hedge fund managers to pay income tax at
a lower effective rate than cops or nurses. Republicans finally settled on a
deal that had far less deficit reduction - and even less spending reduction! - than Obama's offer, because of their iron resolution to
protect at all costs our society's overclass.
Republicans have attempted to camouflage their amorous
solicitude for billionaires with a fog of misleading rhetoric. John Boehner is
fond of saying, "we won't raise anyone's taxes," as if the take-home
pay of an Olive Garden waitress were inextricably bound up with whether Warren
Buffett pays his capital gains as ordinary income or at a lower rate. Another
chestnut is that millionaires and billionaires are "job creators." US
corporations have just had their most profitable quarters in history; Apple,
for one, is sitting on $76 billion in cash, more than the GDP of most
countries. So, where are the jobs?
Another smokescreen is the "small business" meme,
since standing up for Mom's and Pop's corner store is politically more
attractive than to be seen shilling for a megacorporation. Raising taxes on the
wealthy will kill small business' ability to hire; that is the GOP dirge every
time Bernie Sanders or some Democrat offers an amendment to increase taxes on
incomes above $1 million. But the number of small businesses that have a net
annual income over a million dollars is de minimis,
if not by definition impossible (as they would no longer be small businesses).
And as data from the Center for Economic and Policy Research have shown, small
businesses account for only 7.2 percent of total US employment, a significantly
smaller share of total employment than in most Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries.
Likewise, Republicans have assiduously spread the myth that
Americans are conspicuously overtaxed. But compared to other OECD countries,
the effective rates of US taxation are among the lowest. In particular, they
point to the top corporate income rate of 35 percent as being confiscatory
Bolshevism. But again, the effective rate is much lower. Did GE pay 35 percent
on 2010 profits of $14 billion? No, it paid zero.
When pressed, Republicans make up misleading statistics to
"prove" that the America's fiscal burden is being borne by the rich
and the rest of us are just freeloaders who don't appreciate that fact.
"Half of Americans don't pay taxes" is a perennial meme. But what
they leave out is that that statement refers to federal income taxes.
There are millions of people who don't pay income taxes, but do contribute
payroll taxes - among the most regressive forms of taxation. But according to
GOP fiscal theology, payroll taxes don't count. Somehow, they have convinced
themselves that since payroll taxes go into trust funds, they're not real
taxes. Likewise, state and local sales taxes apparently don't count, although
their effect on a poor person buying necessities like foodstuffs is far more
regressive than on a millionaire.
All of these half truths and
outright lies have seeped into popular culture via the corporate-owned business
press. Just listen to CNBC for a few hours and you will hear most of them in
one form or another. More important politically, Republicans' myths about
taxation have been internalized by millions of economically downscale
"values voters," who may have been attracted to the GOP for other
reasons (which I will explain later), but who now accept this misinformation as
And when misinformation isn't enough to sustain popular
support for the GOP's agenda, concealment is needed. One fairly innocuous
provision in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill requires public companies to
make a more transparent disclosure of CEO compensation, including bonuses. Note
that it would not limit the compensation, only require full disclosure.
Republicans are hell-bent on repealing this provision. Of course; it would not
serve Wall Street interests if the public took an unhealthy interest in the
disparity of their own incomes as against that of a bank CEO. As Spencer Bachus, the Republican chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee, says, "In Washington, the view is that the banks are
to be regulated and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to
serve the banks."
2. They worship at the altar of Mars. While the
me-too Democrats have set a horrible example of keeping up with the Joneses
with respect to waging wars, they can never match GOP stalwarts such as John
McCain or Lindsey Graham in their sheer, libidinous enthusiasm for invading
other countries. McCain wanted to mix it up with Russia - a nuclear-armed state
- during the latter's conflict with Georgia in 2008 (remember? - "we are
all Georgians now," a slogan that did not, fortunately, catch on), while
Graham has been persistently agitating for attacks on Iran and intervention in
Syria. And these are not fringe elements of the party; they are the leading
"defense experts," who always get tapped for the Sunday talk shows.
About a month before Republicans began holding a gun to the head of the credit
markets to get trillions of dollars of cuts, these
same Republicans passed a defense appropriations bill that increased
spending by $17 billion over the prior year's defense appropriation. To borrow
Chris Hedges' formulation, war is the force that gives meaning to their
A cynic might conclude that this militaristic enthusiasm is
no more complicated than the fact that Pentagon contractors spread a lot of
bribery money around Capitol Hill. That is true, but there is more to it than
that. It is not necessarily even the fact that members of Congress feel they
are protecting constituents' jobs. The wildly uneven concentration of defense
contracts and military bases nationally means that some areas, like Washington,
DC, and San Diego, are heavily dependent on Department of Defense (DOD)
spending. But there are many more areas of the country whose net balance is
negative: the citizenry pays more in taxes to support the Pentagon than it
receives back in local contracts.
And the economic justification for Pentagon spending is even
more fallacious when one considers that the $700 billion annual DOD budget
creates comparatively few jobs. The days of Rosie the Riveter are long gone;
most weapons projects now require very little touch labor. Instead, a
disproportionate share is siphoned off into high-cost research and development
(from which the civilian economy benefits little); exorbitant management
expenditures, overhead and out-and-out padding; and, of course, the money that
flows back into the coffers of political campaigns. A million dollars
appropriated for highway construction would create two to three times as many
jobs as a million dollars appropriated for Pentagon weapons procurement, so the
jobs argument is ultimately specious.
Take away the cash nexus and there still remains a
psychological predisposition toward war and militarism on the part of the GOP. This
undoubtedly arises from a neurotic need to demonstrate toughness and dovetails
perfectly with the belligerent tough-guy pose one constantly hears on
right-wing talk radio. Militarism springs from the same psychological deficit
that requires an endless series of enemies, both foreign and domestic.
The results of the last decade of unbridled militarism and
the Democrats' cowardly refusal to reverse it,
have been disastrous both strategically and fiscally. It has made the United
States less prosperous, less secure and less free. Unfortunately, the
militarism and the promiscuous intervention it gives rise to are only likely to
abate when the Treasury is exhausted, just as it happened to the Dutch Republic
and the British Empire.
3. Give me that old time religion. Pandering to
fundamentalism is a full-time vocation in the GOP. Beginning in the 1970s,
religious cranks ceased simply to be a minor public nuisance in this country
and grew into the major element of the Republican rank and file. Pat
Robertson's strong showing in the 1988 Iowa Caucus signaled the gradual merger
of politics and religion in the party. The results are all around us: if the
American people poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or
Canadians on questions of evolution versus creationism, scriptural inerrancy,
the existence of angels and demons, and so forth, that result is due to the
rise of the religious right, its insertion into the public sphere by the
Republican Party and the consequent normalizing of formerly reactionary or
quaint beliefs. Also around us is a prevailing anti-intellectualism and
hostility to science; it is this group that defines "low-information
voter" - or, perhaps, "misinformation voter."
The Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, there is
now a de facto religious test for the presidency: major candidates are
encouraged (or coerced) to "share their feelings" about their
"faith" in a revelatory speech; or, some televangelist like Rick
Warren dragoons the candidates (as he did with Obama and McCain in 2008) to
debate the finer points of Christology, with Warren himself, of course, as the
arbiter. Politicized religion is also the sheet anchor of the culture wars. But
how did the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs - economic royalism, militarism and
culture wars cum fundamentalism - come completely to displace an erstwhile
civilized Eisenhower Republicanism?
It is my view that the rise of politicized religious
fundamentalism (which is a subset of the decline of rational problem solving in
America) may have been the key ingredient of the takeover of the Republican
Party. For politicized religion provides a substrate of
beliefs that rationalizes - at least in the minds of followers - all three of
the GOP's main tenets.
Televangelists have long espoused the
health-and-wealth/name-it-and-claim it gospel. If you are wealthy, it is a sign
of God's favor. If not, too bad! But don't forget to tithe in any case. This
rationale may explain why some economically downscale whites defend the
prerogatives of billionaires.
The GOP's fascination with war is also connected with the
fundamentalist mindset. The Old Testament abounds in tales of slaughter - God
ordering the killing of the Midianite male infants
and enslavement of the balance of the population, the divinely-inspired
genocide of the Canaanites, the slaying of various miscreants with the jawbone
of an ass - and since American religious fundamentalist seem to prefer the Old
Testament to the New (particularly that portion of the New Testament known as
the Sermon on the Mount), it is but a short step to approving war as a divinely
inspired mission. This sort of thinking has led, inexorably, to such phenomena
as Jerry Falwell once writing that God
It is the apocalyptic frame of reference of fundamentalists,
their belief in an imminent Armageddon, that psychologically conditions them to
steer this country into conflict, not only on foreign fields (some evangelicals
thought Saddam was the Antichrist and therefore a suitable target for cruise missiles),
but also in the realm of domestic political controversy. It is hardly
surprising that the most adamant proponent of the view that there was no debt
ceiling problem was Michele Bachmann, the darling of the fundamentalist right.
What does it matter, anyway, if the country defaults? - we
shall presently abide in the bosom of the Lord.
Some liberal writers have opined that the different
socio-economic perspectives separating the "business" wing of the GOP
and the religious right make it an unstable coalition that could crack. I am
not so sure. There is no fundamental disagreement on which direction the two
factions want to take the country, merely how far in that direction they want
to take it. The plutocrats would drag us back to the Gilded Age, the theocrats
to the Salem witch trials. In any case, those consummate plutocrats, the Koch
brothers, are pumping large sums of money into Michele Bachman's presidential
campaign, so one ought not make too much of a potential plutocrat-theocrat
Thus, the modern GOP; it hardly seems conceivable that a
Republican could have written the following:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social
security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among
them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil
millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.
Their number is negligible and they are stupid." (That
was President Eisenhower, writing to his brother Edgar in 1954.)
It is this broad and ever-widening gulf between the
traditional Republicanism of an Eisenhower and the quasi-totalitarian cult of a
Michele Bachmann that impelled my departure from Capitol Hill. It is not in my
pragmatic nature to make a heroic gesture of self-immolation, or to make lurid
revelations of personal martyrdom in the manner of David Brock. And I will leave a more detailed dissection of
failed Republican economic policies to my fellow apostate Bruce Bartlett.
I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of
Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies
that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the
feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop
them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted
private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of
outsourcing, union busting and "shareholder value," the GOP now
thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and
benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of
scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer
to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.
If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn
Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I
am here to disabuse you of your naiveté.
They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve
the government of revenue that they will be "forced" to make
"hard choices" - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax
cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked.
During the week that this piece was written, the debt
ceiling fiasco reached its conclusion. The economy was already weak, but the
GOP's disgraceful game of chicken roiled the markets even further. Foreigners
could hardly believe it: Americans' own crazy political actions were
destabilizing the safe-haven status of the dollar. Accordingly, during that
same week, over one trillion dollars worth of assets
evaporated on financial markets. Russia and China have stepped up their
advocating that the dollar be replaced as the global reserve currency - a move
as consequential and disastrous for US interests as any that can be imagined.
If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is
successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy
disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America's
status as the world's leading power.
 I am not exaggerating for effect. A
law passed in 2010 by the Arizona legislature mandating arrest and incarceration
of suspected illegal aliens was actually drafted by the American Legislative
Exchange Council, a conservative business front group that drafts
"model" legislation on behalf of its corporate sponsors. The draft
legislation in question was written for the private prison lobby, which sensed
a growth opportunity in imprisoning more people.
 I am not a supporter of Obama
and object to a number of his foreign and domestic policies. But when he took
office amid the greatest financial collapse in 80 years, I wanted him to
succeed, so that the country I served did not fail. But already in 2009, Mitch
McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, declared that his greatest legislative
priority was - jobs for Americans? Rescuing the financial system? Solving the
housing collapse? - no, none of those things. His top
priority was to ensure that Obama should be a one-term president. Evidently
Senator McConnell hates Obama more than he loves his country. Note that the
mainstream media have lately been hailing McConnell as "the adult in the
room," presumably because he is less visibly unstable than the Tea Party
 This is not a venue for immigrant
bashing. It remains a fact that outsourcing jobs overseas, while insourcing
sub-minimum wage immigrant labor, will exert downward pressure on US wages. The
consequence will be popular anger, and failure to address that anger will
result in a downward wage spiral and a breech of the
social compact, not to mention a rise in nativism and other reactionary
impulses. It does no good to claim that these economic consequences are an
inevitable result of globalization; Germany has somehow managed to maintain a
high-wage economy and a vigorous industrial base.
 The cowardice is not merely political.
During the past ten years, I have observed that Democrats are actually growing
afraid of Republicans. In a quirky and flawed, but insightful, little book,
"Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred," John Lukacs concludes that the left fears, the right hates.
 The GOP cult of Ayn
Rand is both revealing and mystifying. On the one hand, Rand's tough guy,
every-man-for-himself posturing is a natural fit because it puts a
philosophical gloss on the latent sociopathy so
prevalent among the hard right. On the other, Rand exclaimed at every
opportunity that she was a militant atheist who felt nothing but contempt for
Christianity. Apparently, the ignorance of most fundamentalist "values
voters" means that GOP candidates who enthuse over Rand at the same time
they thump their Bibles never have to explain this stark contradiction. And I
imagine a Democratic officeholder would have a harder time explaining why he
named his offspring "Marx" than a GOP incumbent would in
rationalizing naming his kid "Rand."
Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 after 28 years as a
Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the
Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.
Original Truthout Article
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Martin County Democratic Executive Committee has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Martin County Democratic Executive Committee endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)