More Bodies...

Denial Myth Number Three: "If Only We'd Been Manly Men"

This denial myth is one of Michelle Malkin's favorites, along with the rest of any other denial myths she can think of. Primary reason? Michelle likes to think of herself as being Tuff. Really Tuff. Or has she puts it, "There are no hard women, only soft men..."

So on with the Manly Man Myth…

The crux of this denial biscuit is that if only the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress been sufficiently macho on a handful of issues, we'd still have Denny Hastert, Rick Santorum and George Allen to look up to. This line of reasoning delves deep into the fantasy world of the xenophobes, homophobes and Francophobes populating the Pat Buchanan Wing of the Republican Party. And although I believe it true that Bush and the Republicans have failed largely because they have not measured up to their rhetoric in everything from fiscal policy to foreign policy, this denial myth, for all practical purposes, revolves solely around the intertwined issues of border security and immigration policy.

Malkin and her ilk seem to think that the mid-term elections were lost, in large part, because the Republican chickened out on sending all the wetbacks home. While it is obvious that a substantial portion of the so-called Republican base does not favor any sort of amnesty for the illegal aliens presently within our borders, it is equally obvious that such a position doesn't resonate with the majority of the electorate. So, in essence, ranting on about "if only" in the case of "no amnesty" is the political equivalent of a wet dream. And rather than recognize the fact while in control of Congress and getting the best limited amnesty deal they could to begin the process of incrementally tightening immigration laws and law enforcement, "Conservative" Republicans such as Tom Tancredo decided the adult thing was to sit on their hands and bitch at Bush.

Now I understand immigration policy and illegal immigration is a hot-button issue, but the simple fact of the simple and quite obvious fact of the matter is that "no amnesty" immigration reform is not doable politically at this time - even without getting into the horrendous specifics of the increases in personnel and money the I.N.S. would need to enforce such a policy effectively. This brings us to a salient point in all this: You don't hear Tom Tancredo or Michelle Malkin dwelling on the particulars of what they are proposing, do you? That's in no small part because the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have, in their wisdom, decided that underfunding the I.N.S. was acceptable irrespective of the policy position selected. Hear Tom and Michelle and the rest of the "Conservatives" in Congress demanding tax increases and/or spending cuts to double, or perhaps triple the budget at I.N.S.? Me neither.

What is left unsaid in all this is the simple fact that a substantial portion of the so-called Republican base isn't at all comfortable with the proposed solution that the "no amnesty" folks bring to the debate. If the base was united, Michelle Malkin wouldn't be peddling this line in the first place… Which is a fact, for purposes of promoting this particular denial myth, she chooses to ignore. Beyond that, the inability of the "no amnesty" Republicans to continence any sort of politically realistic compromise that would provide some measure of meaningful reform (and therefore an incremental advance in national security) tends to suggest, at least to me, that there is something on their agenda that goes well beyond the simple notion of "border security". To me, it seems obvious that much of the frustration folks such as Buchanan, Tancredo and Malkin feel at our national inability to effectively engage and destroy Islamic Imperialism (a concept quite loosely defined by them as the complete destruction of Islam and all Muslims) has found out an outlet via the demonizing of all persons and things Hispanic.

Denial Myth Number Four: The Republican Party Sold Out Conservatives

This is one of my personal favorites… Largely because it is so laughably and obviously untrue.

HERE IS REALITY:

If there has been one constant over the past six years, it is that when given the choice between adhering to principle or retaining a share of domestic political power (via "party unity"), Conservatives - both cultural and fiscal - have sold their principles without a second thought. That is the reality of it. Period.

You don't think so?

Where's fiscal reform and a balanced budget? And Social Security reform? And Medicaid and Medicare reform? Or tax reform? Seen any decreasing in government regulation lately? How'd the "Republicans will clean up Congress" thingee work out? Happy with the way Republican eschewed pork-barrel politics? And weakened the hold lobbyists have over the legislative process?

Let's be honest here: A party, in and of itself, will always put its needs first. That isn't anything unique to either the Democratic or Republican version, either. The apparatchiks have the sole objective of capturing and retaining political power. From that, all other things flow. So when you see a party attempting to buy portions of the electorate via pork-barrel spending or servicing special interests, you are getting exactly what you would expect to get. It is not the duty of either party to act selflessly for the greater good. The duty of the party is to act in the best interests of the party. And this is why it has always been up to movements, working outside their respective parties, to agitate for reform - i.e., act selflessly for the greater good.

Acting selflessly, and for the greater good, was the job of the Conservatives and the Conservative Movement, not the Republican Party. This is something Conservatives would rather have you forget. That we now have so-called Conservatives running around claiming the Republican Party sold them out is entirely predictable and entirely untrue: You are not hearing the outrage of betrayal, what you are hearing is the outrage of losing power. Conservatives joined Republicans to gain power, and once at the trough - when it quickly became apparent that Republicans had no interest in anything other than gorging - Conservatives decided to remain at their side, get their share of the soils, and rationalize away the selling of their souls.

The bottom line is this: The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have run up massive budget deficits, thumbed their noses at any and all suggestions of fiscal restraint or reform, and made a laughingstock of the idea that they have anything meaningful to offer to reduce the amount of GDP Washington sucks out of the citizenry. And instead of rising up in revolt five years ago, or four years ago or two years ago, Conservatives sat on their hands and deluded themselves that somehow what was going on under their noses was better for having been done by Republicans rather than Democrats.

I can think of no better example to refute this particular myth than what happened in the governor's race here in Ohio. J. Kenneth Blackwell, one of the Great White (Black?) Hopes of Conservatives and the Conservative Movement, ran for governor and got his fanny handed him on a platter - in no small part because when faced with the choice of running as an anti-establishment Reagan Republican or appeasing a thoroughly bankrupt (and thoroughly corrupt) Ohio Republican Party, Blackwell sold and ran straight into the arms of the Republicans. He did this not because he was compelled to, or because his principles demanded it, but because it was what he thought would help him win the election.

He. Sold. Out. And he wasn't alone, either.

Comments

[elliottg]

As a Kos kid, it's such a pleasure to read an adult Conservative (I thought they had all been herded into camps for reeducation). It's doubly a pleasure to know that you will have years in the wilderness before you can wrest control of the Republican Party back from the hyenas that have siezed power. Trent Lott is minority whip - yee ha!

[pjgoober]

Democrats didn't campaign on comprehensive reform because if they had, they would have lost. In Arizona the Republicans lost ground, but look what initiatives passed there: making English Arizona's official language (74%), denying bail to illegal aliens (78%), barring illegal aliens from winning punitive damages (74%), and denying in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants (72%).

Your thesis that the Republicans sounded to harsh doesn't square with that data. More likely, Democrats often copied Republican retoric against illegal immigration, while saying nary a word about comprehensive reform (or as in the case of some newly elected democrats, completely dissavowing amnesty). Add to this the confusion of Bush's support for comprehensive reform. How many marginally politically aware voters knew if thier Republican candidate differed with Bush on the issue? With all these factors taken together, some voters might be forgiven for thinking a vote against the Republicans was a vote against amnesty, a guest worker program and porous border enforcement. If you think I am full of sh**, go read the percentages by which those initiatives in arizona passed one more time.

[DennisThePeasant]

pjgoober-

See denial myth #2 in the post "Some Bodies".

[Eric Blair]

I'm wondering what its going to take to get any sort of substantial change.

The Kos kiddy above seems blissfully unaware that the Democratic party is going to implode over the next two years, as they fail to solve any problems whatsoever, and the Democratic Presidential primaries are going to be serious entertainment. If he thinks that Lott is a Hyena, what in the world does he think cretins like Pelosi, Murtha, Hastings, Kennedy and Kerry are? Talk about pots and kettles.

Not that I think the Republicans have learned anything.

[dollipartisan]

The only good to come of the elections last Tuesday, is being able to sit on the sidelines and watch the Dems go at it for a while.

It's much more entertaining to be a spectator than a participant in political cannibalism.

[Frank]

The only trustworthy Republicans were the ones that came in on the Contract with America, did the one/two terms they promised they'd do, then left office like they said they would. The powermongers reneged on that one and stayed in, enjoying the corruption of power.

[elliottg]

I love the denial here in the comments. If the Republicans can pull out the Presidency in 2008, it will be a minor miracle, but forget Congress.

1. Iraq is not going to get any better; it's going to get worse.
2. There's a lot of popular low-hanging fruit that will have the Democratic brand on it that the Republicans will be forced to compromise on or vote against. Minimum wage, immigration, fixing Medicare prescription - there's no way that these don't benefit the Democrats in the short term even if the legislation they craft is lousy.
3. The problems with the Republican party did not go away because they lost Congress, but those left in leadership and punditocracy are the same ones and they are not going to step aside just because their ideas are no longer able to carry the day.
4. Bright young talent will gravitate towards the Democrats regardless of ideology. That's the real lesson of Heath Shuler; he could have run as a Republican, but chose to run as a Democrat. Certainly, there was some ideology in that decision, but you're fooling yourself (telling you won't change your mind since the point of this comment is that you're delusional) if calculation of which route got him faster to where he wanted to be didn't come into it. Think about the young bloggers. We got Klein, Kos, Yglesias, Marshall,etc. You have Lashawn Barber, etc. Where's the talented, young Republicans. The best you got is D'souza and he's relatively old and pretty much a hack at this point.
5. The mushy middle is mushy, not fickle. Two years from now will not be enough time for any "throw the bums out" feelings to emerge. Sure, Texas-22 is probably toast, but the other wins this cycle will stay blue for a while. Incumbency rules (unfortunately).

Sit back. Relax. Wait for Republican resurgence. Be disappointed. I love it.

[DennisThePeasant]

More unintentional hilarity... Hearing that Markos, Matt and Josh represent a bright shining intellectual light in the blogosphere.

Other than the fact that Markos can't write a sentence to save his life, Matty's a psuedo-polymath with nothing more than an overdeveloped facility for faking knowledge, and Josh Marshall couldn't negotiate his way around an issue with two hands and a mirror... You're dead on, Elliott.

One of the best laughs I had in 2006 was Josh Marshall's uncovering of George W. Bush's "secret plan" to default on the government's debt so he could destroy Social Security. I used to carry copies of Joshie-Poo's Social Security posts around with me and show them to the accountants, lawyers and businessmen I work and associate with. Always got big laughs...

Be careful about the gloating, Elliott, you might pull a muscle or something!

[elliottg]

Sue me. I'm not a literary critic; after all, I like your stuff, but if you think that the Bush policy wasn't designed to renege on social security then I guess I have to revise my opinion.

[DennisThePeasant]

Revise away.

The whole "Bush plan to destroy Social Security" was the stuff of tinfoil hats and empty heads. And just because some part of the "blogosphere" buys into it doesn't make any less ridiculous to the adults in the room.

Just because I'm irritated with stupidity on the Right doesn't mean that I'm going to give stupidity on the Left a pass.

[elliottg]

Revised. Bush talked about the social security surplus in the trust fund like it was toilet paper rather than real obligations of the government backed by real paper. He then went on to claim he could remove a big chunk of the funding diverting it to private accounts and it would cost nothing. That's BS from an accounting point of view. Lot's of things the federal governement does with accounting are BS, but adults should want the direction to go towards less BS and not more (a la Moynihan).

[wxjames]

You all fool yourselves. First, all voters don't get together the day before election and plan the outcome. It's all random. On election day, many RINOs lost. More conservative candidates were elected in both houses, and in my state, the same result.

Second, Islam intends to destroy civilization. After 2 more years of Islamic slaughter, more fools will become focused on the problem of the survival of civilization. The right wing and the military and those associated with those groups already know these things, and we are preparing to fight and overwhelm Islam, both here and abroad. If you are not with us, go underground, but don't go Eurabian, we may not understand.
For now, Pelosi and the freak show will suffice, but time is running out. Enjoy your importance while you can.

[Michael Robinson]

"Second, Islam intends to destroy civilization."

Heh. And I intend to make Bill Gates my pool-boy. Just wait two years. You'll see.

[dawud]

wxjames, you're exposing our secret plan that 1.2 billion muslims have been working on - we're getting so good at faking passivity (more than a 1 billion of us can do nothing but rail at our governments from behind television sets and cafes, while we consume your western television shows and food) - you call it 'taqiyyah', we call it 'survival'... but yeah, muslims are working to destroy "Western Civilization" [to you, does that mean higher education and indoor plumbing, or Disneyland and MTV?]

Please go watch Glenn Beck defend Western Civilization from muslims from Minnesota: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SfhTZcXWH4

[B. Lamb]

You would like this article.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A422645

"Most Americans would approve the war if they thought they were winning and tolerate corruption if they thought they were prospering. They're neither winning nor prospering; incompetence finally tried their patience."