But the following comment got me wondering:
"Politically, how successful has the 'non-ugly' right been in the past? How likely is it that it would be more successful now? I would suggest that the popularity of the 'ugly right' is a consequence of the past failures of the 'non-ugly right' to gain any ground against the left."Is this true? Using just my memory (translation: too lazy to research), I'm going to say that non-ugly did work. Reagan didn't call Carter a terrorist and neither did his vice-president. Not even close. Gingrich and the "Contract with America" didn't ramp up the language that much (if I remember correctly). However, there was a strong uptick with Clinton, but then the GOP suffered for it in 1998.
I think the real change came with Bush. He campaigned as a guy who could work in a bipartisan way, and then he reneged big time even though he'd won fewer votes than Gore. Promises about CO2 vanished faster than CO2. The tax cuts weren't an inclusive piece of work.
And he didn't get punished with electoral losses for it, not in 2002 or 2004. So with Rove driving him toward the permanent Republican majority, he had no reason to back down and he basically never did. Neither did the other conservatives in media. Why should Fox News change when they're making so much money? The same for Limbaugh, Levin, or anyone else who was going loud and nasty. Why change if it's working?
Also, you can't just stop talking if you're in politics or the news business. You have to change to something, and that something better be consistent in tone and message. The Tea Party wasn't really a change in tone or message, because their message is "we've got all the answers" and their tone is "you're with us or you're traitors." The only Republican who has found an alternative that works is ... Ron Paul. Is there someone else I'm forgetting? Some non-shrill, non-paranoid GOP message out there?
For the conservative tone to change, someone is going to have to be different and successful, but more mainstream GOP than Paul. That's another good reason to hope Romney fails. He's definitely not that new voice. The vacuum his defeat creates gives the new voice a chance to emerge. It might happen, it might not. Let us pray.
A different animal would be a nice change.
3 comments:
I think part of the problem is that conservatives are in a statistical trap. They have surged in strength over the last twenty years and are now a plurality. But due to internet, conservative media, and recent electoral success it feels to them as if they are a clear majority. Why are they not in power? Why have their wishes on taxes and abortion and whatever else not been enacted? It must be a conspiracy, a plot of the media and the liberals and the foreigners to oppress the clear majority! To make matters worse they are threatened by a perceived tidal wave of demographic change that will take even their majority away from them! It cannot be tolerated. It WILL not be tolerated!!!
Given these perceptions, I don't think any other behavior is possible on their part. I mean that seriously, I don't think social psychology will allow it. The only solution is for them to definitively win, thus bringing reality in line with their perceptions, or definitively lose, hopefully forcing their perceptions to align with reality. I fear the first would be a catastrophe for the country, and the second is not in the cards as long as the economy remains in distress. Much as I hate to say it, the status quo is probably the best we can hope for.
@Anastasios, Sorry for the belated appearance of your comment. It got caught in the spam filter for some unknown reason.
Anastasios has some good points vis-a-vis the far-right's perception of their position in the country. They act like a majority when they are not and never have been, and take every electoral success as an inherent right, and every electoral defeat as a massive fraud.
But I disagree that they are a plurality. They aren't and never were. Occasionally some of their message reaches a larger electoral voting bloc -- like suburbanits -- who vote for "their" candidates on that basis. But's it's all just spin. I agree they have a plurality on message and spin at times, and perhaps even most of the time.
But Obama won with 53+% of the vote. That's a virtual landslide in today's terms, and the Dems had 60 senators for a while at least. If the far right ever gets there -- or even close -- watch out. They will put in place so many rules and restrictions on voting, free expression and government regulations and taxation that they will be sure never to be out of power again. Imagine this: it becomes as difficult for many people to vote is it is to prove to them that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
Post a Comment