At the urging of JekyllnHyde in his(?) excellent diary My God, What A F&#*@ng Mess, I read the entire (long, but worth it) New York magazine article The Lost Party by John Heilemann. I hope you'll take some time to read these works as well, but in case time's short, well, "Lemme 'splain... no, there is too much. Lemme sum up."
Mitt Romney winning the GOP nomination, then losing the general election, could have long-term repercussions that are incredibly beneficial - not just to the American left, but to the overwhelming majority of American citizens. If you've got the time (warning: the body of my article is long), hit the jump and I'll tell you why.
The "modern-day" (term used advisedly) Republican party is spectacularly divided amongst two non-exclusive, but also not necessarily corroborative extremes. On the one hand, what most would consider the "Establishment" - old money corporatists; what have become known in this current political cycle as Romney types. On the other, what I suppose we can call "Charismatic Christians" or "Fundamentalists;" evangelicals, hard-right Catholics, and deep-South Bible-thumpers (note: I am a resident of Nashville, TN - I know whereof I speak). I place those descriptors in quotes because, raised Christian myself and still owing a surprising dedication to that faith, I as a Christian reject utterly the hypocritical and militant theocratic nonsense espoused by these people.
It is too much to hope the two sides would somehow destroy each other in a tragicomic rendition of GOP celebrity deathmatch; but something like that could happen, in a way, and it could benefit... basically everyone. At least, so I believe.
Again, I hope you'll read both the afore-linked articles, as they're both worthwhile reading with many good points. This diary will focus on one, from JekyllnHyde:
A loss by Rick Santorum to President Barack Obama in 2012 might be better than one by Romney to preserve the long-term health of the GOP.
Expanding on this, from the NYM article:
With Obama having looked beatable months ago, a botched bid to oust him—especially if coupled with a failure to take over the Senate—would usher in a full-blown Republican conflagration, followed by an effort to rise from the ashes by doing the opposite of what caused the meltdown of 2012.
What that would mean for the GOP would differ wildly depending on which of the two current front-runners, along with the coalition that elevated him to the nomination, is blamed for the debacle. “If Romney is the nominee and he loses in November, I think we’ll see a resurgence of the charismatic populist right,” says Robert Alan Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and author of a biography of Barry Goldwater. “Not only will [the grassroots wing] say that Romney led Republicans down the road to defeat, but that the whole type of conservatism he represents is doomed.”
...
But if it’s Santorum who is the standard-bearer and then he suffers an epic loss, a different analogy will be apt: Goldwater in 1964. (And, given the degree of the challenges Santorum would face in attracting female voters, epic it might well be.) As Kearns Goodwin points out, the rejection of the Arizona senator’s ideology and policies led the GOP to turn back in 1968 to Nixon, “a much more moderate figure, despite the incredible corruption of his time in office.” For Republicans after 2012, a similar repudiation of the populist, culture-warrior coalition that is fueling Santorum’s surge would open the door to the many talented party leaders—Daniels, Christie, Bush, Ryan, Bobby Jindal—waiting in the wings for 2016, each offering the possibility of refashioning the GOP into a serious and forward-thinking enterprise.
Emphases mine. It's that last bolded part with which I take issue. Mr. Heilemann is a skilled writer and I agree with many of his points, but I don't have the same faith in the GOP that he he seems to.
Simply put, should the Establishment win this "steering debate" within the GOP, I do not think they will refashion the GOP at all. Gov. Chris Christie's knee-jerk slapdown of same-sex marriage recently speaks to this point. These people aren't going to change anything.
It's (grimly) funny that Gov. Romney has progressed as far, and as spectacularly (if not always for good reason) as he has; because he is, in my opinion, completely emblematic of all current Republican politicians. Regardless of which subset - Establishment or Fundamentalist Christian - current GOP officials are part of, they are all weather-vanes; just not for the mainstream America they so loudly claim to represent. To give more credit where it's due, see davidseth's diary Following Knucklehead Smiff And Not His Ventriloquist. Establishment types are standard bearers for the neo-feudalist hyper-rich, while Fundamentalists tote the banner for their base - a base I cannot describe without being so impolite that I hesitate to describe them at all.
Here is the crux: neither of these subsets, nor their flag-wavers, have any real reason to change modus operandi. The hyper-rich are guaranteed funders and mover-shakers for those who (try to) popularize their self-serving agenda. The Fundamentalist culture-crusaders are utterly reliable door-knockers and vote-getter-outers (sorry, don't know how else to phrase that) for anyone who'll invoke the right catchphrases and code-words. Do you see my point? "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" might be cliché, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect. Recrafting the Republican party means recrafting the Republican base. And at this point, both sides of that base have become so sclerotic in their roles that such reconfiguration would be a years-, if not decades-long process.
Republican "leadership" is not good at waiting that long.
If there is one painfully evident attribute about the current GOP, both sides of it, that is an absolute lust for power. Too dramatic? Sorry if you think so - I don't. In the words of John B. Judis:
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.
Republicans swept not only into Federal leadership positions in 2010, but - far more damagingly, in my opinion - into State houses and Gubernatorial offices by the dozens. The result is most evident in two big ways: the raft... no, not raft, the
supertanker of anti-choice, anti-woman legislation pounded out of those same State houses these last two years, and the consistent diamond-hard assault on public-sector employees from the same source. (Side note: the next time a conservative tells you President Obama's recovery was "jobless" for his entire first term, reply with some variant of: "No. Jobs were created in surprising volume. They were also destroyed, in
appalling volume, on the public sector side, by Republicans." Google for more information.) There certainly was none of the timidity that most people think President Obama's administration showed in its first steps in office. No - since 2010 (or earlier really) there has been a steady and surefooted attack stance from the GOP. And up until fairly recently, the results of that stance were almost unalloyed positives for them.
So you see, I hope, why I believe - and yes, it's just a belief, and I'm not an analyst - but still, I believe that whichever side of the GOP wins this internal debate, that side will immediately press forward rather than in any way trying to backtrack or rework.
What does this have to do with Gov. Romney, rather than Sen. Santorum, getting the nod? Forgive my meanderings - I am becoming an old man, and old men like to hear themselves talk. I have a little more to tell before I launch my conclusion. I'll try to keep it interesting. Take a break if you need one.
Let me, with apologies, requote a previous quote, abridged:
“If Romney is the nominee and he loses in November, I think we’ll see a resurgence of the charismatic populist right,” says Robert Alan Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and author of a biography of Barry Goldwater. “Not only will [the grassroots wing] say that Romney led Republicans down the road to defeat, but that the whole type of conservatism he represents is doomed.”
So we see a scenario for the ascendancy of the culture-crusader Fundamentalists - perhaps better stated as a
greater ascendancy than the one they have to date enjoyed. Would that be a good thing? Not on its surface - more anti-rights, anti-woman legislation? Not good; many painful battles to fight. But there is another dimension here. Grant for a moment that this rise of the pseudo-populist Fundamentalists does indeed involve, as Mr. Heilemann speculates, the
fall of the Establishment. We could not hope said Establishment would just go away - they are far too rich in resources for that. But it (the Establishment side) could be diminished, and to at least some degree exposed by the very protestations of the Fundamentalists, as a group that is thoroughly
non-representative of the interests of majority America. Forgive what seems stating the obvious, fellow Kossacks - I know
you know this. I ask you to understand that far too much of mainstream America
does not know it. A Romney candidacy would be a large part of that exposure. That's one reason I believe it needs to happen - but not the biggest.
I must again refer to the words of another to make my own point:
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 would be
Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, writing to his brother Edgar, circa 1954. No historical scholar myself, I encountered that singular quote in a truly spectacular piece called
Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult. I recommend you read that piece in its entirety also.
Are things beginning to become clear? We all remember the ill-starred Operation Hilarity. No offense Markos, should you read this, but I did not and do not support that course of action, for reasons others have stated with far more eloquence and passion than I could aspire to on my best day. Yet I acknowledge one point of indisputable merit: the more Independents, the more of Middle America, see this craziness of the current GOP, the better, because the more they will thus reject it.
And so, valued readers, we at last approach - drum roll please - The Point.
The Establishment side of the GOP must be humbled - that is paramount. Citizens United must be overturned. Capital Gains must be realistically taxed (since I've mentioned Pres. Lincoln twice now, if indirectly - noting that many Republicans revere Lincoln as the Second Coming, and Pres. Reagan as the Third - remember that in Pres. Lincoln's time, Capital Gains earnings were just money earned. No special benefit - no tax break.) On a larger scale, the filibuster and the Electoral College - for my money, the two most deeply undemocratic institutions of our Federal Government, and both the darlings of the moneyed GOP Establishment, for their obvious direct benefits thereto - must be drastically revised, if not (especially in the latter case) eliminated entirely.
Gov. Romney's nomination would be a step on the road to the accomplishment of these things, certainly. But I believe there is a more important shorter-term goal.
I previously stated my categorical rejection of what passes today for mainstream Christianity. I believe there are many more like me - people who went to Sunday school every week from before they can consciously remember (as a babe in arms), all the way up to around their teens. In all those "classes," I did not once hear that I should deny the civil and human rights of LGBT people, nor any minority; be it religious, gender-oriented, or ethnic. In all those "classes," I did not once hear that abortion was an evil of Biblical proportions. I heard a lot, on the other hand, about tolerance; about love, about understanding, about acceptance. About caring for other people, the ultimate Christlike behavior.
I believe - and think, based on some evidence - that views like mine are far more mainstream than far-right Republicans want to acknowledge or deal with. I believe that, shown the current behavior of the "Christian" far-right - which I can only describe as radical extremism - people with more moderate views would draw back in horror, as well they should. And I believe that Gov. Romney's victory over Sen. Santorum for the Republican nomination would, as predicted by Mr. Heilemann, usher in a wave of Fundamentalist extremism the likes of which would stagger even those of us who have grown jaded towards their current antics.
And that is exactly what needs to happen. (Yes, readers, The Point rears its throbbing head at last.) The Presidential-candidate nominating contest, while hardly "nothing," is not nearly as widely-followed as one might think. Much of my wife's family votes true-red Republican, and I'd lay long odds that not one of them has watched a single one of this cycle's laughably numerous, luridly repellent debates. NOT ONE.
The way to get the "Christian" far right further into the public eye is to let them twist on the hook. To let them believe that the only way they'll win any nomination for any public office is to be even more extreme and intractable than they have been - a benchmark that has gone far past ludicrous at this point. Let them have their circus; let them go even bigger than they have. And let more people see just how fucking scary that is.
Yes, that would involve painful fights. Yes, that would mandate even more grassroots effort than the left (in no insignificant part due to this site - thanks Markos) has mustered to date. And yes, that would involve all too many people, I daresay virtually everyone reading this diary, having to experience even more outrage at the audacity of the Fundamentalists. But so too would the vast swath of less-informed Independent voters. So too might even some who have been indoctrinated (and make no mistake, that is exactly what it is) in the vitriolic ethos of the far right, but who have not yet given their hearts fully to it.
And that, fellow Kossacks, is a worthy end.
The atrocities of the religious far-right must be made publicly visible - no, publicly unavoidable. The cataclysmic hypocrisy of their endlessly cynical pseudo-moralization must be exposed for what it is to the eyes of Middle America. The disaffection of so many voters, the willingness to believe that "Our country can survive no matter who's in office," must be shattered on the unforgiving stone of painful reality.
Yes, it's important that Romney go down. And - I firmly believe - he will go down, even if there are significant bumps in the economical road between now and November. But it is, in my opinion, far more important that the culture-warriors go down - and down for a ten-count. Pres. Reagan did much to open the door for the religious right by courting their support. That door needed to be shut years ago.
If forcing these people to go totally frothing-mouthed crazy in front of 100 million US voters is the WD-40 for those hinges, then I say it needs to happen.
I took too much of your time to say all this; it's a character flaw I hope you will forgive. I am also very aware that the assumptions in my piece, however derived they might be from those of Mr. Heilemann and others, stray rather far from the fine edge of Occam's Razor. Yet still I believe this scenario and its repercussions to be highly plausible, and their eventual outcome highly favorable.
Our nation was founded as secular. It has devolved into something else, something - pained as I am to impugn our country - quite lesser. We who know this may see it as our duty to propound that knowledge. I say to you we are less equal to the task than the architects of it. We say the Fundamentalists are crazy, and we smear mud on ourselves (or make it easier for others to do so). Let them show beyond all doubt that they are crazy, and we need say nothing, except maybe that we told people so.
If you made it this far, thank you sincerely for reading, and please offer counterpoint. These are just my views, however passionately held. I am aware that I have thrown many rocks at the religious far-right; I'm afraid I have one more: that unlike most of them, I am capable of this.