There’s a terrific diary on the Rec List, by Dartagnan, about fans of the GOP being “set up” by the GOP-adjacent (call it “conservative” or “right-wing” or whatever) media to, essentially, die to own the libs.
This bit, in particular, may be the best part:
Modern “conservatism,” what we understand as the “right,” with its torch-bearer, the “Republican Party,” does not thrive in this country based on its inherent ideas or philosophy … because, frankly, their ideas are largely repugnant to most Americans. That is why they rely on inflaming division and prejudices in their base, while seeking to suppress the votes of as many non-Republicans as possible. Their “ideas,” to the extent they have any, are toxic and unpopular.
This echoes much of what I’ve written in the past in my seemingly never-ending series on the topic of Why People Vote Republican, even though — or because — Republicans can’t govern. Recent weeks have given me the fodder for a new entry in the series, as yet another high-level disaster has befallen the nation during, and in many ways because of, a Republican administration.
Within the past few weeks, at least two people (one friend and one acquaintance) who either voted for Trump, or are Republican voters/fans who didn’t but “understand why people did,” have told me the same thing: That they, or that people who voted for Trump (or who vote Republican generally), did so because they thought he would be, quote, “good for capitalism.”
Of course, in each case the conversation didn’t go very far from there, as I pressed each one on exactly what the phrase “good for capitalism” meant in a practical sense. Neither one had a good answer, except to claim that by comparison Democrats are “bad for capitalism” because they “want socialism” instead, or “don’t believe in capitalism,” or because Republicans “are capitalists” and Democrats aren’t.
Cutting through rhetorical bullshit like this, in conversation as opposed to in writing, is harder than it seems. That’s especially so when one’s counterpart is throwing around words like “capitalism” and “socialism” that, even to him/her, don’t really mean anything. When I hear things like this I always ask questions to try to walk the person through his/her thinking, make them think about what these things really mean, and they almost never have any coherent answers. Here again, in both cases, the other person couldn’t answer the question as to exactly what a President can do (or what they imagine him doing) administratively that is “good for capitalism,” and instead threw out rhetorical tropes about Democrats being socialistic socialists who only want socialism.
In each case, I think I made a little headway. In one, I managed to articulate what I often say about “socialism” being a meaningless scare-word that, when Republicans use it, means “holding the corporations and industries that own the GOP, accountable for the harm they cause.” In other words, “good for capitalism” means “not making or enforcing laws or regulations that would protect the health, safety and well-being of workers, consumers, and the environment, from corporate and industrial predation,” i.e., from “capitalism.” My counterpart couldn’t disagree with that, party because (s)he couldn’t come up with a better, more accurate, or more trenchant, explanation.
In the other, I told my counterpart that in reality, “everyone is a capitalist,” and (s)he disagreed; but before (s)he could get the words “Bernie Sanders” out I said something else that I often say, which is that no matter who wins the next election Disney, Coca-Cola and the NFL aren’t going anywhere, and no one thinks the government ought to be operating theme parks, making soda, or staging football games. Again, my counterpart couldn’t disagree, and couldn’t go anywhere from there. Nor did (s)he have an answer for how (s)he could walk into a grocery store, see 218 varieties of olive oil, and be afraid that electing a Democratic president would change that.
And that’s without even reaching the question of whether being “good for capitalism,” whatever anyone thinks that means, is (a.) good for everyone, (b.) good for the country, or (c.) good for them personally. Again, it’s very hard to deny that what is “good for capitalism” is bad for public health, bad for public safety, bad for workers, bad for consumers, bad for the environment, and so forth. The first decades after the Industrial Revolution proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Maybe part of the problem is that there aren’t enough people left alive who actually remember what pre-New Deal “capitalism” was actually like, and have substituted a fantasy version of that as their personal political objective.
GOP fans/voters/enablers obviously assume that being “good for capitalism” is good, period, regardless of what they think “good for capitalism” actually means. Just as obvious is the fact that they can’t translate the vague, rhetorical idea of being “good for capitalism” into actual, let alone realistic, practical or workable, public policy. And, of course, there’s the endless frustration over here at those who vote for that party because they think it’s “good for capitalism” where what’s “good for capitalism” is actually bad for them.
Twice in my adult lifetime, the presidency has switched from Democratic to Republican. Both times, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote. Both times, the Democratic candidate ran a lackluster campaign while the media gave the Republican candidate relatively deferential treatment. Both times, the country was in pretty good shape and the general political perception was, “Well, there’s really no difference between the candidates,” and “Both Sides® are Just As Bad™.”
Both times, having seen and paid attention to that party’s actual governing record since 1981, I feared that a massive disaster would befall the country as a direct or indirect result of that Republican win.
Both times, I was right.
Both times, we saw what happens when we “elect” a President who is clearly unprepared, unqualified for, and perhaps not even terribly interested in, the actual job, because some of us imagine that he’ll somehow be “good for capitalism.” Or that other well-worn bullshit rhetorical nugget, that “government should be run like a business,” which no one can explain or justify either.
Well, now we know — again — what happens when government is “run like a business,” by a “businessman” whose voters thought he’d be “good for capitalism.” We didn’t learn our lesson the last two times. I suspect we won’t have learned it the next time we have to choose between a candidate who’s supposedly “good for capitalism” and one who’s good for everyone and everything else.