davywavy | American Republicanism

American Republicanism

One thing which has become abundantly clear over the last few years is the way that, despite holding both the White House and a majority in congress, the American Republican party has lost its way. Back in the Halcyon days of the right, the 1980’s, there was a clear sense of purpose and direction emanating from the White House and its Republican President, Ronald Reagan. These days, despite the brouhaha of the non-war on terror, there’s a feeling of directionlessness emanating from the United States which, as the world’s only superpower, isn’t very comforting for the rest of us. With the decline of the evil empire, the American right doesn’t really seem to feel it has anything left to do and so it casts about aimlessly for shadowy, ill-defined enemies and causes to give it focus and purpose. Whilst 9/11 might have been appalling, in terms of the credible threat to the US it’s as if the Japanese had successfully staged Pearl Harbour and then it had turned out that the entire Imperial Nipponese army comprised of three old men, a boy with a stick and his dog, which makes the whole war on terror a bit of a shadowplay, really.
Additionally, there’s been a marked lack of sympathy coming from the American Right for those who suffered in New Orleans recently. These people were warned to leave and didn’t, is the feeling, so it’s their own fault. They can help themselves, right. Isn’t that the American way? Helping yourself?
Well, no, it isn’t, but more on that in a moment.
There is a sense that George Bush has rather blotted his copybook with his handing of the hurricane aftermath. There’s been a certain amount of happy-to-be-proven-right told-you-so head nodding amongst the anti-Bush crowd. There’s a feeling that perhaps Bush’s ill-handling of the situation may well give the Democrats a shoo-in to the White House next time, so hurrah for that, right?
Well, I’m not so sure. Not because I hold any particular love or respect for Bush, but because the next time round the likelihood is that the two front runners for Presidency will be Hillary Clinton and John McCain, and of those two my hopes are firmly pinned to McCain as a real inheritor of the US and what it should be standing for.
The American Republican Party has traditionally been the cowboy party. It is the political movement which best exemplified the American dream that anyone can do it. It is the party which says that if you can stand upon your own feet then it is your duty to do so. It is the party of the lone stranger who rides into town and cleans up the bad guys.
What American Republicanism has lost sight of is the reason for doing those things: the reason is to help those who cannot do it for themselves.
It is possible to see the heart of American Republicanism in the films of John Wayne; the sheriff who rides into town and sees off the bandits and who does it not because he can, but because he must. Because the people who live in town cannot see off the bandits themselves or, even better, can be inspired to take a stand on their own behalf. If the American Presidency had as it’s motto :”What would the Duke do in this situation?”, then a great many problems would have been averted, because, say what you like about the simplicity of this statement, the Duke never acted unless he had to, and he always acted, ultimately, to help the weak no matter who they were.
Let’s face it, I’d vote for pretty much any politician who used the motto:”What would John Wayne do”, because the answer to that question would never have been “Let the poor drown because they can’t afford a car.”
That’s why the American Right has lost it’s way. It is trying to act like the guy in the White Hat, but it has forgotten the reason that the White Hat guy does things – because he must. Because others cannot do it for themselves. Because although the hero may be just one person, they recognize they are a part of something greater and it is their responsibility to help everyone, even – no, especially the weak. Until the Republican Party remembers this, it will remain a derided shadow of it’s former self.

So why McCain over Clinton? Because McCain, like the better Presidents of the last century, has seen the world and has served in armed conflict abroad. He has seen the effects of warfare first hand and has seen the rest of the world – something both Clinton and Bush Junior both failed to do. Not only this, but he has a purpose – he and Hillary recently both went to Alaska to see the Glaciers melting first hand and both came away horrified by global warming.
It’s this issue which may well define the next American presidency, and who would you rather have fighting global warming? John Wayne or Andrea Dworkin?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes. They have no noblesse oblige.

Good phrase and entirely true. Blair's lack of it is one of his many flaws as a person as well.

If the chips were down, would you still go for McCain?

Well, at least the chip doesn't seem to be on his shoulder.

I think a more serious issue for the Republicans is the failure to maintain the Church and State seperation which has been a key part of the US political system. Unlike in the UK, where the established Church is a rather powerless, somewhat anachronistic vestigial organisation, the US Churches are rather more active, and by allowing them to dictate much policy the Republican party has lost, imho, a degree of authority. Which does indeed seem strange to say, given the unprecedented control of both Houses and the Presidency.

You can't govern if people can see the strings too clearly.

Unlike in the UK, where the established Church is a rather powerless, somewhat anachronistic vestigial organisation
Qualify : In a _political_ sense. Not trying to be offensive (unusually).

Incidentally, I'd like to leap in with one comment: I'm mostly appalled by the rubber-stamping of the House of Representatives...they appear to have little oppositional, let alone debative strength in the legislative process in this Bush era.

I still think it's too soon for a female presidential contender. If given the opportunity to pick a white man in a blue suit with a nice red tie, Americans will go for him over some lesbian legged female any day.

These days, despite the brouhaha of the non-war on terror, there’s a feeling of directionlessness emanating from the United States which, as the world’s only superpower, isn’t very comforting for the rest of us.

The Republican party has been even further factionalized with the very croney-esque nomination of Harriet Mears for the Supreme Court post recently vacated by O'Connor. She has no judicial experience and has been the Bush family lawyer since she became a born again Christian. Plus, she received her law degree from a Methodist university that's probably barely accredited. Even the Republicans are spitting out their whiskey over her.

I think a split has been a long time in coming. The Republicans went from a very socially liberal place to a very morally conservative one. I think that didn't actually happen until Reagan? (Can't remember when the real shift happened.) He unified an ailing Republican party after cracks over Nixon and a rather tepid presidency under Carter. A lot of Republicans are recognizing that the moral standpoint as defined under Reagan is going to continually alienate the new economic and voting force in the US. I wouldn't be surprised of George W isn't the last truely outwardly morally conservative president we have.

(Jumping in) - I don't know how much of this Republican disagreement is serious and Party-damaging, and how much of it is a vaccination from future indiscipline - especially with the upcoming 2006 Congressional elections.

Part of the problem, however, is that social mobility has diminished significantly since the time of the New Deal's demise, which rather gives the lie to the American Dream. Only by significant public investment in education (and public health, which barely exists in the States) can true social mobility for all be achieved.

I liked this essay. Thank you so much for posting it. I'd never have thought of the Republican party that way.

It's a pleasure - feel free to pimp me :D

Over the years, I've tended to vote either Democrat or Libertarian mostly due to the (mostly implied) Cronie-ism between "Big Business" and the Republican parties. However, I do realize that this isn't always the case, and with McCain I'll make an exception.

Everything that comes out of his mouth, both in press conferences, and on C-SPAN (Which I normally only catch when repeated on the news or Daily Show) has a base sensibility to it, something that I don't get from most other politicians. Kerry and Dean both had a bit of that, too. But from W, Hillary, and especially Rumsfeld and Condi Rice, I see nothing but grease and overly-carefully crafted wordplays. (If only W could pronounce those carefully crafted words.)

(Jumping In) - Oh, he does pronounce those carefully crafted words, with a fair amount of deliberate torture ... it serves his political tactics, and connects him with the 'common man.' Of course, that too is coming unstuck.

I don't know if I can agree with much of this. Of course I'm on the left side of the democratic party on most issues.

In terms of your metaphor, the republican party isn't about a man riding into town to clean up the bad guys. The republican party of the present would leave the town alone, because it's their own fault that there are bad guys in their town. Right now the party leadership is screwed (have you read about the Jack Abramoff scandal? or Valerie Plame?) and amoral.

I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton. She's done a decent job of constructing an independent life after spending 20 years as a political wife, but some of her politics worry me. My favorite candidate right now is Russ Feingold, senator from Wisconsin, who was the only person to vote against the Patriot Act. Although since it's two years before people will declare, it's moot.

McCain, however, is not a good candidate. He campaigned for Bush after being attacked by him in some of the dirtiest primaries in recent history. He's awfully old to be running for president in 2008, and he's been divorced. His current wife is surrounded by rumors of prescription drug abuse. On some issues, the ones that he gets a lot of press for, he's moderate and reasonable, and I can agree with him. On other stuff, though, he's way out there. (not that I can remember examples right now, of course.)

(jumping in)

McCain's support of Bush after being attacked by him is smart politics on his part ... he must observe Party Loyalty - that way he can cast himself the uniter at some point in future ... a point that may soon arrive.

and that's a reason to support him? that he'll sacrifice principle and himself to party loyalty? his reputation is built on being a maverick that defies the party.

Not a reason to support per se ... but the point is that his actions are not at obvious face value, necessarily.

As for his reputation - that is well & good so long as it is within the context of a healthy party ... no good if he provokes another Bull-Moose, for example.

I'm not sure his baggage wouldn't outweigh the decent parts of his reputation.

Personally, I don't think the republican party is particularly healthy right now (with one of the major leaders indicted, the president's aides testifying before a grand jury about possible treason, and a party operative being investigated for, among other things, bilking native american tribes, the people of guam, and being involved in a mob-style murder in florida). But I also don't think McCain would be able to pull the party together. Not that I would particularly mind.

Both Parties have skeletons in their closets, and there certainly is some satisfaction in seeing the Republican's filth rising to the public phototrophic layer.

The problem is, whatever the Republican's problems, I don't see Democrats gaining any ground on it. Sadly, the situation is structured that the near-50% opposition of popular will, will not make the difference. It is an interruption in the other plus-50's support for their guy that will make any difference. Thus far, near-2000 dead soldiers, grand jury investigations, bilked natives and protectorates have not proven enough to do much to change that fundamental support. There is rauckous dismay, perhaps, but nothing that would lead them to vote Democrat ... and there is no H Ross Perot in 2006 or 2008 that we can see yet.

My tuppence on particular points you make:

Let’s face it, I’d vote for pretty much any politician who used the motto:”What would John Wayne do”, because the answer to that question would never have been “Let the darkies drown because they can’t afford a car.”

Perhaps, but John Wayne in Green Beret mode would certainly suggest the Darkies are good enough to be his unit's mascot whilst the Real White Men Fight To Free the Darkies (From Themselves). ;-) :-/

These days, despite the brouhaha of the non-war on terror, there’s a feeling of directionlessness emanating from the United States which, as the world’s only superpower, isn’t very comforting for the rest of us.

Well, there's definitely a war on, some of the killed are terrorists, and many more are innocent civilians - but more on that later.* Also, I won't think people should feel particularly badly about a rudderless superpower - so long as this energizes people to make their own way (another Republican concept, writ global) - after all, I think it would be a wonderful world to live in that had no more superpowers, but instead had cooperative parity. A massive challenge, but I'd like to think the era of competitive parity a la 1880-1945 is over.

With the decline of the evil empire, the American right doesn’t really seem to feel it has anything left to do and so it casts about aimlessly for shadowy, ill-defined enemies and causes to give it focus and purpose.

Admittedly, it does appear the Republicans are in the same position of insufficient imagination as the Democrats were/are - they want a Cold War II, since they understand that - and were busy trying to cast Chinese, Koreans, or Al Qaeda for the role. Likewise, their social policies are anti-FDR/anti-liberalism reactionary, and not particularly visionary or futurist (consider the stem cell research ban, for example). Also, those things they do set up as visionary steps for Great America to achieve, like the new Apollo-on-steroids mission is so very much like the 50 year old man's first compensatory sportscar - echoes of a youth they can never recapture.

The point is: America, the rhetorical land of dreams & possibility, is being ruled by parties without dreams or visions. Moreover, the strengths in Republican marketing of what little they do have to offer is coming badly unstuck by frank stark reality (fiscal madness, war dead, disaster relief, etc.).

There’s a feeling that perhaps Bush’s ill-handling of the situation may well give the Democrats a shoo-in to the White House next time, so hurrah for that, right?

That's already come unstuck. But in the absence of a strong Democrat opposition, it does appear the Republicans are imploding.

*As you alluded to with a Imperial Nipponese Army of 3 old guys, a dog and a stick ... but considering that many thousands have died in terrorist strikes, they are a veritable threat. The problem is, clearly carrier strike forces with the latest stealth planes and multi-million dollar munitions are entirely the wrong/mismatched tool against a threat that weaponizes civilian transport with as little as knives.

Until the Republican Party remembers this, it will remain a derided shadow of it’s former self.

Besides internal bickering and lack of vision, I can't say I'm seeing much derision per se...at least within the US, and from within conservative ranks.

McCain vs. Clinton: speaking for myself, I have numerous problems with McCain's policies - he is after all right of centre. However, I do appreciate his pragmatism, his willingness to compromise, his belief in the institutions of government, and his overall intelligence. He has done very few things stupidly. Clinton, besides her clear ambition, and her ability to play to the winds of popularity, doesn't exhibit much more at this point in her political career. I also don't particularly want Clinton to win the Democrat seat if it means it will unify the Right - which is mostly likely will. I would add that it's an open question about whether a Bush-dominated Republican Party will ever let McCain have a shot at the Presidency.

It’s this issue which may well define the next American presidency, and who would you rather have fighting global warming? John Wayne or Andrea Dworkin?

Hmmm...shambling Zombie John Wayne or Rape Victim vs. Global Warming? What a choice...the Zombie might have the supernatural endurance, but RV would be most vigorous in her opposition to the Menace. :-)

Going to have to disagree rather strongly with you on this one. Being a registered Libertarian myself, I look at both sides as having something good to offer, but for the common man, the Republican party stopped having anything decent years ago. People will often point to how faithfully the R's support business with tax cuts and incentives, all the while forgetting that when the suppression of wages goes on for too long (as it has), the economy stagnates while inflation continues to increase. Profitting business at the expense of the workforce (the force that actually drives the economy) is short-sighted and only benefits rich cronies.

Plus, their inability to remove their noses from the keisters of the Christian Coalition makes me their enemy almost automatically.

Finally, a word about McCain... sure, he talks a really tough game when it comes to cheating in baseball, wanting to reform campaign finance and saying kittens are cute. On softball issues, he's great. Thing is, back in 2000 the Bush campaigns slandered McCain up one side of the Eastern seaboard and down the other, saying that while he was a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton for 4 1/2 years, he betrayed his country and gave information to the NVA. Never a peep from old Johnnie. Which leads one to conclude:

1) He did it and can't deny it because it would be a lie, or

2) He didn't do it and is a chickenshit gutless stuffed suit for not drilling the man making the accusations in the nose with his fist or, at the very least, saying "It's not true and I defy anybody to try and prove it, because it's NOT TRUE."

Neither option is very appealing. Still enjoy reading you, but this time we're on opposite sides of the fence.

Do you remember when Tom Selleck denied being gay, which, until then, no one had seriously entertained? Should've kept his fool mouth shut. I mean, he was Magnum, right?

By this measure, responding to any criticism in some way lends it credibility, (as, by responding to your post, I acknowledge your point merits discussion)which probably wasn't what he wanted to achieve. By maintaining a dignified silence does he not allow attention to be focussed upon the lack of any justification whatsoever for the allegations?

No. He doesn't. It's very easy to deny something categorically; by the same token, it's suicidal to allow someone to have their character be attacked and not respond if it is indeed untrue. John Kerry found this out the hard way with group of Republican-funded liars, the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth." It should be more like, *not* responding to a criticism implies complete credibility.

Unless, of course, it comes from "anonymous sources" which are... well, much like this one.

Read the essay 'On Calumnies' in Macchiavellis' Discourses, you may find it illuminating.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

American Republicanism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Bah, we don't want women.

Re: Bah, we don't want women.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Interesting + my tuppence

An obvious choice...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject