There is a most interesting paradox at the heart of the modern-day Republican party. On one hand, it is a party whose policies are not merely wrong-headed, not merely ill-advised, but simply outright dangerous. Their tax-cutting mania knows no bounds, and their love of military solutions to diplomatic problems is equally as vigorous. To a far lesser extent, their social policy is dangerous, but this is largely a ruse. The elitist Republicans have no interest in banning abortion. In fact, they have a very strong motive to keep it going on indefinitely, so as to be able to keep writing books about The Party Of Death (itself an eponomyous book by Ramesh Ponnuru). The Republican elites don't want abortion banned--they want their abortions just like the liberals do! Why else do you think that George W. Bush tried to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court? Because of her eminent legal mind? No. Stacking the court with conservatives would eventually mean that abortion would be banned, and losing one's mealticket issue would be disastrous. As a White, Protestant woman lacking judicial experience, Miers fit the profile of a would-be abortion supporter to a tee. One senses that Bush realized that putting the court so close to overturning Roe would have been bad for his party politically (even though Roe is no longer a binding precedent--in reality, the relevant precedent is Planned Parenthood v. Casey), and so he figured that the fundies would be happy with Roberts and Bush wasn't going to run for another term, so why not pick a friend and a moderate that would probably wind up on the liberal wing? As it turned out, the fundies weren't just satisfied with Roberts on the Court. Still, Bush's thinking was sound, for one of the very few times in his presidency. In any event, Bush will be gone soon, and the leading Republicans contending to replace him all seem to be true believers in banning abortion. Not necessarily that they believe abortion is bad, but the religious right simply is not going to take excuses any more. And one needs to appeal to one's base, no?
In fact, the entire apparatus of the Republican party these days seems to be to adopt infinitely unwise policies to appeal to the stable of loonies they call their "base" (never has a more appropriate term been used to describe a concept), wait for the Democrats to block them, and then demonize said Democrats for ruining the economy/letting promiscuity run wild/coddling dictators. One might fairly point out that they themselves did nothing to improve the situation when they were in power, and indeed the Republican platform of security abroad and at home, traditional moral values, and economic prosperity has produced the exact opposite effect in every department. We have never felt less safe. Morality has not improved over the past quarter-century--if anything, it has degraded. And we are now teetering on the brink of a recession which will no doubt be attributed to Bill Clinton somehow, as though it had nothing to do with poor planning and policy for the past seven years and was merely the product of good planning and policy from eight years ago. Anyone who thinks that the Republican Party can deliver on their central promises at this point in history ought to have his (or her) head examined. What do you call it when you do the same things over and over again, expecting a different response? What is it? Ah, yes. Insanity. It wasn't always like this, even in recent history. It used to be that John McCain would try to take some sort of leadership role in the proceedings and try to avoid the hypocrisy. He does not anymore, which is too bad, although it does make the "bad guys" easier to spot since one of the few "good guys" on the other side has switched sides.
So, their politics are irresponsible. But the most interesting thing about the current GOP coalition isn't their rapacious greed or their solipsistic, insane notions of geopolitics or economics or any of the others--it's that the people who are part of the party really ought to know better. That is the paradox. One would expect that business leaders, for example, can spot the essential flaw in supply-side economics. They obviously don't believe it on the merits because they do not put it into practice themselves. As soon as I see businessmen chopping their prices big-time in an effort to make more money, I'll begin to accept this business as sincere.
What brings this up is this post from Kevin Drum, which talks about Rudy Giuliani's multitrillion dollar tax cut. His desperation is unbecoming to a man seeking the nation's highest office. It is downright pathetic. The people can sense these kinds of things. Giuliani seemed like such a promising candidate, too: he could have been the GOP's new Eisenhower, preaching moderation and cooperation with the Democrats. His background would have suggested that approach, and God knows that it's a popular one these days. Republicans were more than willing to overlook the social issues because they thought Rudy a sure winner against Hillary Clinton, their version of evil incarnate. Giuliani had the celebrity and the popularity among Republicans to pull it off, and he would have been a sure winner if he had. Better to be in office with an apostate than out of office with a true believer, no?
Instead, Giuliani tacked violently and so hard to the right when he didn't even have to. One must only assume his natural impulses took him there. Why else would a pro-choice frontrunner announce that he would appoint anti-choice judges to the Court? He was leading handily at that point, and everybody (okay, I) knew that Gov. Romney would never win the nomination. Why else would he position himself as the hawk of all hawks in the race? This was never his weakness. Why would he move on so many issues that the conservative Republicans didn't really seem to care that much about at the time, when electability was the key issue? One suspects, behind the Brooklyn sneers and the tough guy braggadocio, that the man is unable to just sit still and just sail ahead. The Giuliani of 2006 would have made a formidable opponent. Rudy Giuliani's most formidable opponent at this point is himself, and he is losing. Again, he cannot sit still and let the Republicans fight it out among themselves, which was his very own strategy in the first place. He feels it slipping away, even though everything is going according to his own plan, and he's plugging holes in his sinking ship more furiously than did he ever with his enormous selection of mistr--well, you get the idea. Perhaps he realized that the putting all of one's eggs in a single basket is not a good strategy, although even a first-grader might have told him that.
I used to believe that the worst thing that could happen in a presidential election was that you might not win. I hadn't considered losing your massive popularity and respect, having every sordid corner of your life aired out, letting your reputation be forever tarnished, and leaving everyone with the impression of you as a dangerous, lunatic nutbag an option. And yet it is. Thank you, Rudy, for reminding me that occasionally in this life bad things do happen to bad people.
