Send in the Clueless

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There are two crucial things you need to understand about the current state of American politics. First, given the still dire economic situation, 2012 should be a year of Republican triumph. Second, the G.O.P. may nonetheless snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — because Herman Cain was not an accident.

Think about what it takes to be a viable Republican candidate today. You have to denounce Big Government and high taxes without alienating the older voters who were the key to G.O.P. victories last year — and who, even as they declare their hatred of government, will balk at any hint of cuts to Social Security and Medicare (death panels!).

And you also have to denounce President Obama, who enacted a Republican-designed health reform and killed Osama bin Laden, as a radical socialist who is undermining American security.

So what kind of politician can meet these basic G.O.P. requirements? There are only two ways to make the cut: to be totally cynical or to be totally clueless.

Mitt Romney embodies the first option. He’s not a stupid man; he knows perfectly well, to take a not incidental example, that the Obama health reform is identical in all important respects to the reform he himself introduced in Massachusetts — but that doesn’t stop him from denouncing the Obama plan as a vast government takeover that is nothing like what he did. He presumably knows how to read a budget, which means that he must know that defense spending has continue to rise under the current administration, but this doesn’t stop him from pledging to reverse Mr. Obama’s “massive defense cuts.”

Mr. Romney’s strategy, in short, is to pretend that he shares the ignorance and misconceptions of the Republican base. He isn’t a stupid man — but he seems to play one on TV.

Unfortunately from his point of view, however, his acting skills leave something to be desired, and his insincerity shines through. So the base still hungers for someone who really, truly believes what every candidate for the party’s nomination must pretend to believe. Yet as I said, the only way to actually believe the modern G.O.P. catechism is to be completely clueless.

And that’s why the Republican primary has taken the form it has, in which a candidate nobody likes and nobody trusts has faced a series of clueless challengers, each of whom has briefly soared before imploding under the pressure of his or her own cluelessness. Think in particular of Rick Perry, a conservative true believer who seemingly had everything it took to clinch the nomination — until he opened his mouth.

So will Newt Gingrich suffer the same fate? Not necessarily.

Many observers seem surprised that Mr. Gingrich’s, well, colorful personal history isn’t causing him more problems, but they shouldn’t be. If hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, conservatives often seem inclined to accept that tribute, voting for candidates who publicly espouse conservative moral principles whatever their personal behavior. Did I mention that David Vitter is still in the Senate?

And Mr. Gingrich has some advantages none of the previous challengers had. He is by no means the deep thinker he imagines himself to be, but he’s a glib speaker, even when he has no idea what he’s talking about. And my sense is that he’s also very good at doublethink — that even when he knows what he’s saying isn’t true, he manages to believe it while he’s saying it. So he may not implode like his predecessors.

The larger point, however, is that whoever finally gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate. And these flaws won’t be an accident, the result of bad luck regarding who chose to make a run this time around; the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process.

Of course, given the terrible economic picture and the tendency of voters to blame whoever holds the White House for bad times, even a deeply flawed G.O.P. nominee might very well win the presidency. But then what?

The Washington Post quotes an unnamed Republican adviser who compared what happened to Mr. Cain, when he suddenly found himself leading in the polls, to the proverbial tale of the dog who had better not catch that car he’s chasing. “Something great and awful happened, the dog caught the car. And of course, dogs don’t know how to drive cars. So he had no idea what to do with it.”

The same metaphor, it seems to me, might apply to the G.O.P. pursuit of the White House next year. If the dog actually catches the car — the actual job of running the U.S. government — it will have no idea what to do, because the realities of government in the 21st century bear no resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must pretend to believe. And what will happen then?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html?_r=1

[Darnell 8,479]

Ron Paul FTW !!!

[james&olya 1,121]

Ron Paul FTW !!!

Ron Paul and his libertarian supporters are an interesting 3rd category. They probably have no chance of electoral success in a presidential race. While nobody really knows what the full range of eventual consequences of adopting his libertarian proposals would be, it is highly likely that it would be far more dystopian than utopian for the vast majority. I really doubt that very many of his supporters have even begun to consider what actual consequences in their own lives would derive from a wholesale adoption of the ideology of libertarianism.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ron Paul and his libertarian supporters are an interesting 3rd category. They probably have no chance of electoral success in a presidential race. While nobody really knows what the full range of eventual consequences of adopting his libertarian proposals would be, it is highly likely that it would be far more dystopian than utopian for the vast majority. I really doubt that very many of his supporters have even begun to consider what actual consequences in their own lives would derive from a wholesale adoption of the ideology of libertarianism.

Ron Paul is running #2 in Iowa, and has organization working for him. Newt Gingrich is running #1 and no organization, because many of the hardcore folks on the right really hate the guy. Romney is too liberal for Iowa. There exists a strong possibility that Ron Paul could come away from Iowa with either the #1 or #2 ticket to New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Romney ends up in the "Also Ran" list.

Of course, Iowa doesn't pick a lot of Presidents...

[slim 1,530]

I really doubt that very many of his supporters have even begun to consider what actual consequences in their own lives would derive from a wholesale adoption of the ideology of libertarianism.

While I can't speak for all of them, here's what I've come up with.

My life wouldn't change at all. However, I'd pay less than 1/2 the taxes I pay now because federal income tax would be all but cut out. In a few years our lives would be impacted by a stronger dollar and all the price changes and purchasing power that comes with it.

It will also be nice to travel the world and visit with people who don't view us with animosity and distrust.

In short... life will improve.

[^_^ 5,021]

It will also be nice to travel the world and visit with people who don't view us with animosity and distrust.

In short... life will improve.

What, you think the Military-Industrial Complex will just quietly go away?

[The_Dude 1,142]

While I can't speak for all of them, here's what I've come up with.

My life wouldn't change at all. However, I'd pay less than 1/2 the taxes I pay now because federal income tax would be all but cut out. In a few years our lives would be impacted by a stronger dollar and all the price changes and purchasing power that comes with it.

It will also be nice to travel the world and visit with people who don't view us with animosity and distrust.

In short... life will improve.

I think you are confusing Ron Paul with Gandalf here. He can't just wave a wand and make the IRS go away.........

[Darnell 8,479]

Yay Ron Paul !!! Ron Paul FTW !

[Captain Oates 911]

While I can't speak for all of them, here's what I've come up with.

My life wouldn't change at all. However, I'd pay less than 1/2 the taxes I pay now because federal income tax would be all but cut out. In a few years our lives would be impacted by a stronger dollar and all the price changes and purchasing power that comes with it.

It will also be nice to travel the world and visit with people who don't view us with animosity and distrust.

In short... life will improve.

My wife had a hard time when we lived in the U.K.

The word seems to have got out around the world that the US is going round the world killing and torturing like a drunken man coming home and going round the house slapping his kids

That, plus all the religious bigotry (god loves us better than he loves you) and the "we are better than you, we are exceptional" seems to have poisoned the world against the US

Now that the US population is experiencing an economy and life like other parts of the world, I think good will come out of it and the lack of money to go on killing sprees will bring the US back into the fold of wanting to be one of equals, rather than being the biggest bully on the block.

I used to tell people that Americans are not so bad when you get to know them and they share the same problems in reality and its their government and politicians that are the problem - but it's certainly the case that W alienated the whole world and set the US back 100 years in how it is perceived. It got so bad that Americans were saying they were Irish or Canadian. Now we have the prospect of the world going forward with enlightened social policies while the US is going backwards with banning abortion, children up chimneys, no gay marriage, no health care, dismantle unions, close schools etc etc - this is a totally opposite direction to the rest of the world.

I like Ron Paul, who wouldn't, but his policies are sinister when they are inspected close up. For instance, his libertarianism includes the right of restaurant owners to ban black people because the owner is a free man and it's his restaurant.

Those days are past and gone and will never return. The simplicity of the message is as attractive as 9-9-9 but the truth is that life isn't simple and cant be made so

I would like the US to be respected again, if only so my wife can feel comfortable traveling the world without people's lips curling as soon as she speaks. W is 85% the cause of that, and the back to the bad old days tea party are the rest of it

[james&olya 1,121]

While I can't speak for all of them, here's what I've come up with.

My life wouldn't change at all. However, I'd pay less than 1/2 the taxes I pay now because federal income tax would be all but cut out. In a few years our lives would be impacted by a stronger dollar and all the price changes and purchasing power that comes with it.

It will also be nice to travel the world and visit with people who don't view us with animosity and distrust.

In short... life will improve.

You see what you want to see! What do you think the consequences will be on society primarily and secondarily to you when there is no longer any government regulation on corporate honesty and responsibility? No bothersome regulation of safety of food and drugs, no regulations on vehicle safety, airline safety, professional licensing, truth in advertising, restrictions on air and water pollution, etc, etc. No public education, no public roads and highways. EVERYTHING is privatised, corporations and the very wealthy control virtually everything eventually!

Think it through. The ideology is more than a little bit flawed if you want to adopt it wholesale!

In the history of the world you can see that power abhors a vacuum. If government (hopefully of, by, and for the people) does not exercise regulatory power, it will instead be controlled by persons, corporations, and entities not answering to the average citizen. Getting government 'out of the way' is a euphemism for corporations to be able to do what they please without answering to the general population. Libertarianism is an extreme philosophy. The 'benefits' that some people see ignore the realities of human nature just as the proponents of communism ignored them in other ways. The blend of capitalism and socialism in a democratic society is what produced the 'American Dream' and the huge middle class that seems to have peaked in the 50's and 60's. Demonizing government is a tool being utilized by those who do not have democratic ideals and who see the potential for power and control exercised by corporations and the wealthy.