Republicans – Page 4

The ‘S’ word

The Republicans need to find themselves a calendar. After all, it is not the 1930s or the 1960s, Communism is dead and the deregulation mania of the last 30 years has proven not to be worth the cost of an espresso at Starbucks.

And yet, the GOP continues to run against historical boogeymen that most people have little memory of. From Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), in response to an alternative budget being crafted by the Democrats, we get this:

“With this budget, the president and the Democratic majority are attempting, very quickly and rather openly, nothing less than the third and great final wave of government expansion, building on the Great Society and the New Deal.” He referred to the programs of Democratic presidents Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s and Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s.

So, let me get this straight: Republicans are still runnRunning against the New Deal? I mean, FDR has been dead nearly 65 years. LBJ — the man who won a huge re-election victory on the strength of public support for the Great Society — is dead about 37 years.

The problem is not the New Deal or the Great Society. It is the legacy of the last eight years.

And yet, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindahl, touted as a future Republican presidential candidate, offers this:

“We believe that an endless series of government expansions, bailouts, stimulus packages and bloated budgets will take our country down the very path that European socialism has already stumbled. And we believe that is a dangerous path that would harm the very promise of America.”

And there are these comments, thoughtfully collected by Bill Moyers on his PBS show, Bill Moyers’ Journal on Friday. As Moyers said, “Newt Gingrich, reincarnated once again as himself, sounds as if Obama ate his Contract with America for lunch and coughed it up as ‘European Socialism.'” Gingrich, of course, is not talking about the return of “those great American radicals Eugene V. Debs or Norman Thomas.” It is “Stalin, Marx and Lenin (who) have risen from the grave, stalking our highest officials” — at least according to the GOP and conservative TV.

JIM CRAMER: We’re in real trouble. We’re in real trouble between what is happening in the world economy and our president, who seems to be taking his cues from. Guess who he is taking his cues from? No, not Mao! Not Pancho Villa, although I had lunch with him today. No he’s taking cues from Lenin! And I don’t mean the all we need is love Lenin. I talking about we will take every last dime you have Cramericans Lenin!

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Liberal democrats and the drive-by media are speeding down the highway, implementing Socialism as fast as they can.

FOX & FRIENDS: Some economists say the stimulus plan that President Obama just put into law moves us closer to Socialism.

FOX COMMENTATOR: One small step for fixing the economy or one giant leap towards Socialism in the United States?

PAT BUCHANAN: That is Socialism pure and simple.

Huh?

Moyers used these comments to lead into a segment with Mike Davis, the great socialist historian, who pretty much debunked the entire socialism meme as utter nonsense — Moyers called it “partisan poppycock,” and a word that “lost its meaning long ago.” Davis, in the interview, offers a rather compelling notion of what a vibrant socialism — or at least socialist movement — might create in the United States. He said that

the role of the Left or the Left that needs to exist in this country is not to be to come up with a utopian blueprints and how we’re going to run an entirely alternative society, much less to express nostalgia about authoritative bureaucratic societies, you know, like the Soviet Union or China. It’s really to try and articulate the common sense of the labor movement and social struggles on the ground. So, for instance, you know, where you have the complete collapse of the financial system and where the remedies proposed are above all privileged the creditors and the very people responsible for that, it’s a straightforward enough proposition to say, “Hey, you know, if we’re going to own the banking system, why not make the decisions and make them in alliance with social policy that ensures that housing’s affordable, that school loans are affordable, that small business gets credit?” You know, why not turn the banking system into a public utility? Now, that doesn’t have to be in any sense an anti-capitalist demand. But it’s a radical demand that asks fundamental question about the institution and who holds the economic power. You know, why isn’t the federal government taking a more direct role in decision making?

He cited the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation — which was created to “buy up the abandoned apartments and homes and then (sell) them at fire sale to private interests.”

For a year or two it had the means of resolving much of the housing crisis, you know, in the United States. Why shouldn’t the federal government basically turn that housing stock, into a solution for people’s housing needs? Sell them directly to homeowners at discounts you know, rent them out? In other words, the role of the Left is to ask the deeper questions about who has power, how institutions work, and propose alternatives that seem more common sensical in terms of the direct interest of, you know, of satisfying human needs and equality in this society.

While the Obama administration is pushing what is for the most part a progressive agenda — investing in human needs, modernizing, reforming health care, dealing with climate change — he has not raised fundamental questions about power relations. In fact, on the financial crisis, his ultimate goal is to salvage the status quo, to maintain Wall Street power but to regulate it.

If he succeeds in everything he sets out to do, the lives of average Americans will be better and our politics will be more civil, but the basic power structure that has ruled America will remain unchanged.

That’s why I agree with Davis when he says that

We need more protests. We need more noise in the street. At the end of the day, political parties and political leaderships tend to legislate what social movements and social voices have already achieved in the factories or the streets or, you know, in the Civil Rights demonstration.

We need a “radical critique” and a political and economic “imagination that goes beyond selfishness and principles of competition.” And we need people who are willing to stand up and loudly offer it.

The GOP’s hypocritical oath

You have to love this: Congressional Republicans — all but three of whom voted against the stimulus and nearly all of whom have signaled that they have no intention of going along with the Obama administration on its economic plans — are criticizing the president’s apparent willingness to use “budget reconciliation” to avoid a filibuster on his health and energy plans.

Reconciliation may not be the best approach, but the president cannot continue to seek bipartisan support from a political party that refuses to play ball unless it can pick the ball and set the rules.

Hypocritical oaths

I’m kind of glad that Charles Krauthammer — GOP and Bush apologist — wrote this column. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree — I agree with the basic sentiment that we need to be very careful about a sense of entitlement in government, but not with its use to tar all political scions. Rather, I am glad he put it into words so that his and the GOP’s hypocrisy is on record.

The vanishing Republicans of South Brunswick

I’ve heard some rumors that there are Republicans living in South Brunswick.

Yes, according to these rumors, there are actual, died-in-the-wool members of the Grand Old Party going about their business, meeting at Pierre’s and going through the electoral motions.

I want to believe these rumors. After all, it is important that there be at least two function and viable parties pushing their agendas and making their cases to voters. But I’ve found little evidence that these rumors are true.

I have talked with people who call themselves Republicans. I’ve seen them around town at various functions, received letters and witnessed them speaking at council meetings.

But there are no Republicans sitting on the Township Council. Democrats control nearly every board and commission in South Brunswick. Maybe Republicans are like those night creatures in the movies, able to survive under only the most constrained of circumstances. Maybe they are allergic to the light, or voters are allergic to their entreaties.

It has been eight years since a Republican was elected to the Township Council and another six since a Republican not named Ted Van Hessen was elected. That’s a long time in the wilderness.

And it’s not like it has been close. Consider this year’s results:

Incumbent Democrats on the Township Council won a resounding victory in Tuesday’s election, defeating their Republican challengers by an almost 2-to-1 margin at the polls.

Council members Carol Barrett, Joe Camarota and Charles Carley were all re-elected to the three, four-year seats on the ballot this year. They defeated first-time Republican candidates John O’Sullivan and Steve Walrond.

Ms. Barrett, of Mahogany Court, was the top vote earner in the election, garnering 9,914 votes. Mr. Camarota received 9,781 votes, followed by Mr. Carley who received 9,765 votes.

Mr. O’Sullivan led the Republican ticket with 5,363 votes, followed by Mr. Walrond who received 5,231 votes.

The 2006 results were similar:

The Democratic incumbents, Mayor Frank Gambatese and Councilman Chris Killmurray, won in all 30 township voting districts, earning new four-year terms on the council. Three Democratic seats will be up in 2008.

Mayor Gambatese received 58.3 percent of the vote with 5,529. His opponent, Republican Lynda Woods Cleary, received 29.6 of the votes with 2,660. In addition, 12.1 percent or 1,084 write-in ballots were cast, of which at least 1,000 were for former Mayor Debra Johnson, said Township Clerk Barbar Nyitrai.

Mr. Killmurray received 64.4 percent of votes cast for council with 5,574. His opponent, Republican Nannette Craig, received 35.6 percent or 3,086 votes.

These are some lopsided results, which is why I have to wonder whether the existence of a local Republican Party is more than a rumor.

I am at a loss as to how the Republicans can turn this around, how they can remake themselves so they offer a reasonable alternative, an opposing voice at a time of Democratic control. This year’s candidates, for instance, were the best the party has had to offer in years and still they barely registered. Part of it was a lack of message — it’s not enough to say a different voice is needed. You still have to explain what that voice would say and how it might have an impact on council business. That was never offered.

But still, it is difficult for me to understand how candidates for Township Council can manage to get so few votes in a year of record turnout. It just boggles my mind.

One party, two party, three paries, ha

Juan Cole explains the hypocrisy at work in the latest Republican campaign meme — that we have to elected Republicans to the White House or the Senate to prevent one-party rule.

Moreover. the Republicans did have one-party rule in 2000-2006 and really did have all three branches of government under their control. Can anyone think of any major Republican leader in that period who argued that it was a bad thing and who urged voters to cast ballots for Democrats in order to restore some checks and balances?

On the contrary, the Republicans seriously considered abolishing the Senatorial tradition of requiring 60 for the passage of especially important measures such as confirming justices. They wanted to be more, not less, powerful, to exercise the prerogatives of one-party rule without let or hindrance.