The Poisonous Radicalization of the Republican Party

August 10, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (15)

The death this past weekend of former Oregon Gov. and U.S. Sen. Mark Hatfield, was not just the passing of a good and decent man with a strong sense of Western independence, but a realization that "this ain't your mother's Republican Party anymore!"

Of course, it hasn't been for some time. The era of Senators Hatfield and Mathias and Percy and Baker and Javits and Case and Brooke and Scott and Dirksen and so many others is long gone. The moderates and progressives were drummed out or retired long ago and were replaced with Republican conservatives beginning in the late ‘70s and ‘80s.

Even many of the hard liners who replaced were still pragmatic conservatives who often worked across the aisle. The Bennetts, Hatches, Bonds, Grahams and others are practical, serious conservatives.

But if you look at the collection of candidates for president, if you look at what just happened with the debt limit insanity on the Hill, if you examine the inner workings of the Republican caucus in the House, you begin to wonder whether Washington is governable and whether the radicalization of the Republican Party is responsible for this meltdown. Has the Republican Party become an extreme Nihilist party? [See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

Let's look at the current state of politics within the Republican Party.

The upcoming Iowa straw poll and the debate tomorrow night will further push the already extreme candidates more to the extremes . There are so many potential nominees who have not only gone hard right on the social issues but have decided that they must call for abolishing the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, and even the IRS. They still oppose the TARP program, which kept the world from a depression, and they are proud to reject any form of additional revenue stream by signing inane pledges that handcuff America.

The extreme agenda of cut, cut, cut without regard for the consequences is backed up by statements that even Pell education grants for needy college students are "welfare."  All the sound and fury about the debt did not create a single job or advance economic stability or growth. In fact, the failure of Speaker John Boehner and the Tea Party to agree to efforts by President Obama to reach a $4 trillion grand bargain to right the economic ship was an example of radicals' my-way-or-the-highway approach.

The American people, overwhelmingly, reject this extremism. They are fed up with the lack of progress and the extremism that has become the modern Republican Party. Their anger is across the board but it is more heavily directed towards what has become of the Republican Party—Tea  Party ideologues who lack common sense and have no desire to actually solve problems. In the campaign of 2010 the Tea Party was more or less a Rorschach test, many people saw in it what they wanted. In April 2010, the strong unfavorable was 18 percent; it has risen to around 50 percent. [See a collection of political cartoons on the Tea Party.]

The scary market volatility, the lack of public confidence in the economy, and most important, the many Americans who are suffering the disasters of unemployment and foreclosure should be front and center for Republicans. Instead, we have a "get Obama" frenzy and a pull to the extreme right that precludes progress.

Speaker Boehner, who seemed close to negotiating the grand bargain with the president, was pulled back into the extremist fold. He even said that he got "98 percent of what I wanted" on the debt deal and declared himself happy with it!  If he is happy, there aren't many Americans who are there with him.

There are few Republican leaders who recognize that what they did with this budget deal led to Americans' savings and retirements taking a severe hit, a downgrade from Standard & Poor's that will ripple for years, and a decline in confidence for businesses and consumers. [Check out U.S. News Weekly, now available on iPad.]

The old Republican Party wouldn't have done it; Ronald Reagan wouldn't have done it; even recent conservatives committed to debt reduction and cutting spending wouldn't have done it, if they had the courage to stand up to the radicals within the Party.

The time for the Republicans to rediscover their pragmatic, governing side is now. The time to reject the pledges, the ideological straitjackets, the wave of Tea Party hysteria is now. The public is demanding it and the country needs it. (And just a bit of advice from this Democrat: the overreaching and the extremism won't win you many elections either!)

Tags:
Tea Party,
employment,
debt,
Republican Party,
John Boehner,
deficit and national debt,
2012 presidential election,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (15)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Numbers are government numbers complied by CBO. Is not a "wing nut" group:

“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

___

NO WONDER FEW ARE LIBERALS, most understand and comprehend...

Bill Hedges of MO 8:55PM August 11, 2011

Do you know why (if it's even true - you know how these right-wing nut jobs like to make up statistics) the total percentage of taxes on the very richest rose 4 something percent under "W"? Because they accumulated that much more wealth (actually much, much more!). Quit picking on poor people and making every law to the detriment of everybody who is not already a multi-millionaire! We're very close to saying enough and simply taking to the streets and taking it back (could be exciting!).

Thomas Crickenberger of CO 5:57PM August 11, 2011

obama will receive blame. Democrats controlled Congress until Jan. 2011. Party of NO had little affect on stopping him from having his way before Jan, 2011....

CBO says we can not afford obamacare. Most business will pay dearly.

EPA. Coal plants in areas like mine where coal creates the electricity, around 20 % increase in that cost. EPA has passed or going to pass 100's of regulations. Several laws I looked at could cost over a million manufactoring jobs over time. Some must exists. Most not.

Say those factors and more are cleared up. Obvious Keynesian economics has not worked. Cost per job was high. Because of many factors, beside tax rates and what I have discussed, private money is sitting useless for job creation. We are talking multi- $$$ trillions. For much less than the cost of the stimulus package, we can release this job creation. From the 20's tax cuts to tax cuts of Kennedy through Bush; this kind of stimulus has worked. Increasing government revenue and creating jobs. A few examples:

“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

"The 1993 Clinton Tax Increase Did Not Lead to the Budget Surpluses of the Late 1990s" Newt's tax cuts (+) did.

"Since the Clinton Administration’s own numbers reveal that the 1993 tax increase was a failure, we have to find a different reason to explain why the budget shifted to surplus in the late 1990s."

"Fortunately, there’s no need for an exhaustive investigation. The Historical Tables on OMB’s website reveal that good budget numbers were the result of genuine fiscal restraint. Total government spending increased by an average of just 2.9 percent over a four-year period in the mid-1990s. This is the reason why projections of $200 billion-plus deficits turned into the reality of big budget surpluses."

"Republicans say the credit belongs to the GOP Congress that took charge in early 1995. Democrats say it was because of Bill Clinton. But all that really matters is that the burden of federal spending grew very slowly. Not only was there spending restraint, but Congress and the White House agreed on a fairly substantial tax cut in 1997."

"To sum things up, it turns out that spending restraint and lower taxes are a recipe for good fiscal policy. This second chart (click to enlarge) modifies the first chart, showing actual deficits under this small-government approach compared to the OMB and CBO forecasts of what would have happened under Clinton’s tax-and-spend baseline."

http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2011/02/10/the-1993-clinton-tax-increase-did-not-lead-to-the-budget-surpluses-of-the-late-1990s/

Bill Hedges of MO 4:40AM August 11, 2011

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn

Peter Fenn is a Democratic political strategist and head of Fenn Communications, one of the nation's leading political and public affairs media firms. Fenn Communications has worked in over 300 campaigns, from presidential to mayoral, and has represented a number of Fortune 500 companies. Fenn is also an adjunct professor at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement