The Party of the Stupid
That’s the gist of this Economist article about our dear old, grand old Republican Party:
JOHN STUART MILL once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated high-fliers who have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era. As Lexington sees it, the title of the “stupid party” now belongs to the Tories’ transatlantic cousins, the Republicans.
There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party’s defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.
The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution.
Lowest common denominator, go for the people who are ignorant and proud.
The Republican Party’s divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his “heart” rather than his “head”. He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael “heck-of-a-job” Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes’ favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains. And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree in journalism, and who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about international politics.
Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party’s electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party’s loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda.
Starbuck says that the primary results reveal that the Republicans have shunned the Christianist ultra-right wing of the Republican Party by picking McCain. The problem is that McCain won by default, as the more conservative so-called “values voters” split between Huckabee and Romney (and others). (Also, in my analysis in the post to which he’s referring, I didn’t merely hone in on the Christianists – I also pointedly referred to the anti-intellectual, anti-thought dogma now controlling that party.)
Like I said before, if the GOP continues down that dumb path, Sarah Palin is a lock – she is the uberdumb, the poster child for the uneducated and incurious who spout Hannityesque, Limbaughesque talking points by rote, and consider that all the learnin’ and thinkin’ they need. You betcha.
34 Comments
-
Advertisement
-
Latest
-
Paul Wolf
Latest: Positive News! -
Alan Bedenko
Latest: Not All Information is Good Information -
Sports Road Trip
Latest: Profiling OKC’s Ford Center – USRT roadie Day 2 -
Chris Smith
Latest: Economic Development 2.0 -
Brian Castner
Latest: Al Gore as Skeptic -
Tom Schuh
Latest: Hometown News at Noon: Fri 11/20/09 -
The Goose's Roost
Latest: I Blame the Spotlight Guy -
Christina Abt
Latest: Question of the Day.....Jim Kelly for Coach??? -
BfloBlog
Latest: Kevin Maguire Open Thread: Bruins as Sabres -
Marc Odien
Latest: Calls for Parks Usage Input from Community Groups
-
Advertisement
You need to log in to vote
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
When I read this article last week, my favorite line was where he pointed out that Palin took 5 years to earn a Journalism degree. Many of my classmates held journalism and education students in low esteem based on our experiences with those students. To us, that line is about as a big an insult on someone’s intelligence as you could give. It’s funny to know Lexington has the same opinion.
As to the actual article, I think the most important point he makes is pointing out how this parallels the Liberals from the 1970s in this country. I think it’s just a cyclical thing that happens to the party in power. I think they’re constrained in the ideological cocoon, as he puts it, because they are the party in power. The movement in power can only say little about the pressing problems of the day because they have to be careful. The problems could be seen as their fault or they could be seen as taking on their leadership if they speak honestly and openly about the problems. It’s a kind of catch-22 the party in power finds itself in.
It’s not unique to the Republican Party, but it is a problem they’ll have to get over. I have no doubt the party will recover, just like the Democrats recovered to retake the Congress. There was a time, not so long ago, when the uneducated and lowest common denominators were the bread and butter for the Democrats.
Reagan won by capitalizing on rough times and instilling hope when there seemed to be little. That’s the same way Obama won. Gingrich won back the House by running in every district in the US. That’s the same strategy Obama had. Both parties change and evolve. The Republicans may be in a rut for the moment, wallowing in the gutter, but it wasn’t long ago that the Democrats were and I’m sure they will be again. I’m also sure the Republicans will get out of the gutter, but in time will also be in it again. It’s a back-and-forth, cyclical phenomenon played out in our political history going back to the origins of our system. Have your laughs at our expense for now because soon enough it’ll be our time to laugh again.
Which catagory of voter do you fall into Hank?
I tend to agree with Russell that the cyclical nature of politics and power is fully in play these days. I would suggest, however, that if the faction of the party that would appear to support Palin and perhaps elevate her to a leadership position going forward has its way, the down cycle for the GOP will be w-a-a-a-y longer than normal unless the Dems completely and utterly fall on their collective faces.
Pushing the party even further to the extremes is no recipe for success and, it would appear, that is what will happen if the Palin-ites have their way. If the GOP (my party) is going to look for its Barack Obama, she ain’t it. I’m not sure who is right now, but he or she has to be out there.
That said, condemning someone for taking five years to get a bachelor’s degree seems to be the definition of intellectual elitism. Not that long ago we did the college tour mambo with one of my children and I took part in a fascinating group discussion with the associate director of admissions at Michigan State. He said that the average incoming freshman will change his or her major something like 2.6 times, and that a rapidly growing number of students take longer than four years to get a degree — to the point that they were considering NOT talking about “four-year degrees” in their promotional material. While parents who are paying some or all of the bill may not like it, he said a bachelor’s degree is a bachelor’s degree whether it takes four years or forty.
There are lots of things to throw darts at when it comes to Gov. Palin. That one seems a stretch.
Thanks BP. That Picture Caption made me laugh out loud in class and have all 59 of my classmates and the professor stop and look at me.
Thanks.
Pirate, I won’t deny it was intellectual elitism. There’s a whole lot of that in graduate school, especially in a department that’s listed in the top 10 for its area. The profs are even worse. It’s the ivory tower at its best, but it’s still funny.
Re: Palin’s 5 year degree, yeah, maybe it was that long because she changed majors. If so, then good for her for seeking out what she wanted. But if she didn’t, then why is it “elitism” for one to point out that she was sub-par? If competent students can finish in four years, and she took five, can we not conclude that she was less-than-competent?
@Russell -
“There was a time, not so long ago, when the uneducated and lowest common denominators were the bread and butter for the Democrats.”
Care to elaborate? Do you mean the era of the Dixiecrats – most of whom became Republicans during and after the Civil Rights Movement?
Humanist, look at voter studies since the New Deal. For the majority of that time, the lower one’s income and the less a voter’s education, the more likely they were to vote for the Democrat. Those had been the strongest predictors of one’s voting behavior for decades–less income = Democrat, more income = Republican; less education = Democrat, more education = Republican. That began to shift in the 1990s. You can look at the Michigan voter studies for plenty of data on this, but there are plenty of books and articles written on the subject as well.
@ Russell – you said “lowest common demoninators” voted for Democrats…now, you’re changing it to lower income voters. Are you equating “lower income” with “lowest common denominator”?
Come to think of it….what the hell did you mean by “lowest common denominators”?
Humanist, I know you want to argue with me just for the sake of arguing with me, no matter what I say. Perhaps you should go back and read the post. BP used the term “lowest common denominator” after two paragraphs from the article, one of which spoke of income and the other of education. I simply responded to him in his terminology. If you don’t like it, you’ll have to take it up with him.
Yeah, I defined “lowest common denominator” as “ignorant and proud”. That’s the sum total of what I meant using those words.
We will see how smart you geniuses look after eight years of unfettered radical liberal policy.
Nobody is smarter than the marketplace and smart people know that.
Bloviator are we going to feel like you feel now after 8 years of republicans?
The GOP is indeed brain-dead but did you ever read Obama’s stump speech? A bunch of meaningless slogans completely dissociated from his warmed-over Great Society proposals.
@Bloviator – thank you for assuming Obama will win re-election and the Dems will hold both houses for the next few election cycles, but it will take more than 8 years to repair the damage inflicted by 8 years of the Bush regime and (mostly) Republican abuse, corruption and malfeasance while controlling Congress.
“Radical liberal policy” it won’t be, but even that would be better than incompetent, asleep-at-the-wheel conservative “leadership”.
Ok, BP, but the context and location of the interjection seemed to imply much more than just “proud” and “ignorant”. Following Lexington’s examples with your statement sure sounds like income and education were involved, but since this is about someone picking a fight with me, you must deny it. I understand.
Humanist,
You might be right because Obama is simply hiring everybody from the Clinton administration. They are right-wingers compared to his old crowd.
Is bringing back the Clinton administration the Washington change that he was referring to?
@Ruseell – while you’re waiting for the whaaaambulance, please understand that you were the one who said “the uneducated and lowest common denominators were the bread and butter for the Democrats”….you were clearly referencing Pundit’s OP where he plainly defined “lowest common denominator” as the “ignorant and proud”, buttressed with the next quotes from the article on the GOP’s “divorce from the intelligentsia” and references to Bush, “Heckuva Job” Mike Brown and, of course, the Queen Buffoon herself, Gov. Palin.
Hiring everyone from the Clinton Administration? Well, that is the Republican talking point of the week that has trickled down from the tone setters of Messrs. Hannity and Limbaugh.
Why wouldn’t Obama surround himself with experienced people that know how to work the halls of power? What’s so terrible about that? Also, “hiring” and “everyone” is too sweeping for this discussion. He has only formally appointed a few positions and they are well regarded political professionals that he is hiring to help accomplish his agenda. Clinton made the mistake of hiring neophytes in most critical positions and wasted way too much time getting his transition in order. It nearly destroyed his first term. I’d say Obama learning from that mistake makes him a smart politician.
@Bloviator – you would rather he select William Ayers as Chief of Staff? Jeremiah Wright as Senior Adviser? Chuck D. as WH Spokesman? Actually, that last one wouldn’t be a bad idea…
Let’s be frank….you would not be satisfied by anyone Obama selects in his cabinet, so, to his credit, he’s not listening to the ankle-biting critics…he’s going about selecting the best people for the positions that will serve his administration and the country with honor and distinction. If they have D.C. experience, all the better to advise him on the treachery and land mines that lay ahead.
Humanist, yes, that’s my point. I was saying that it’s a cyclical thing where apparently after some time the party in power seems to resort to appealing to the lowest common denominator, because they are constrained by their position. It sounded like BP was making that point about the current state of the Republican party. I was pointing out that Lexington, in a paragraph BP left out, states that the left in the US also did that. Taking that into consideration, I’m saying that yes, that’s the current state of the Republican party. In the not so distant past it was the state of the Democratic party. I’m sure if you go further back you’ll see this pattern continue where that tactic is employed by the party in power at some point. I’m also sure we’ll see it switch into the future.
If Obama picked Chuck D for any office, I’d vote for him in 2012.
And if he selected Jello Biafra for one, I’d work on the campaign….
@Russell – OK…I understand your point. No need for further escalation.
There seems to be a coming ‘throwdown’ between the faction which thinks the ‘Christianist ultra-right wing’ brand is fine, and more moderate republicans who believe the brand is outdated. The schism needs to be healed and everyone needs to be on the same page before they can move forward.
One big problem is that during the Bush years, Rove was able to put together a ‘Bill James Abstract’ – type profile on voters and determined that the GOP only needed to appeal to a narrow slice of voters to tip the balance their way. They didn’t factor in that changing circumstances would de-level the playing field and make their playbook irrelevant (Sorry for the excess sports imagry).
I think Palin is physically too far away in Alaska, and too divisive a figure even even within the GOP to make a play to lead the pary in 4 years. I expect the powers behind the scenes to pool their resources behind one guy (or gal) far in advance of 2012.
“experienced” doesn’t entail “Ex-Clinton Admin,” broseph, and it most certainly doesn’t mean Rham-fucking-Emmanuel. Do you really think Clinton’s “mistake” was because of not hiring ex-Carter Admin people?
I think this “Cabinet of Rivals/Lincoln” narrative is, at least, melodramatic. Possibly offensive to history.
Good, finally.
@Russell – can’t wait for your next “Jonny” Powers slam…all in the service of mature discourse, of course.
LOL
You just couldn’t leave at us finally coming to some kind of understanding on an issue, could you?
@Russell – the only understanding I have with you is that I understand that you throw out insults with the best of them, but if anyone calls you out on your bullshit, you whine like a 2 year old who got his lollipop taken away.
What does that have to do with anything posted here?
LOL when people criticize Obama for selecting experienced candidates for admin posts. Sure beats out who Bush hiring, like the The head of the Arabian Horse Association of America to be in charge of FEMA.
@ dave in rocha — “Re: Palin’s 5 year degree, yeah, maybe it was that long because she changed majors. If so, then good for her for seeking out what she wanted. But if she didn’t, then why is it “elitism” for one to point out that she was sub-par? If competent students can finish in four years, and she took five, can we not conclude that she was less-than-competent?”
Um, yes, you can not conclude that. Without knowing all the circumstances as to why it took her five years to get her degree, I don’t think it is fair to conclude she is less-than-competent. Besides, isn’t it the degree itself that signifies some level of competence, and not the amount of time it took to get it? If so, does that mean my spouse, who took classes part-time while raising our children and ultimately got her degree, is less competent than a full-time student? I dare you to say that to her face.
Look, I believe Palin is a disaster waiting to happen, for lots of reasons. Disparaging her for taking a little longer than normal (whatever that might be)to get her degree without knowing the reasons seems like a dopey thing to do.
1. It’s arbitrary punditry, or in some cases sour grapes, to say who won “by default”. Whenever there’s any race in either party with so many candidates, pundits and losers can and do make that argument after the fact.
2. BP did a little flip-flopping switheroo there. In that previous post to which I commented (and presumably in his Fredonia talk), he first described Romney as a candidate other than Cristianist and other than anti-intellectual. “… I added that it was up to the Republican Party to decide whether it was going to back to what it had stood for pre-Bush II, or whether it was going to continue down the spending, big government, Christianist, anti-intellectual, anti-thought ways of the present. If they go for the former, then someone like Romney or some other person with conservative credentials will be the standard-bearer….”
Now in this post trying to refute my insights about actual numbers, he groups Romney in with Huckabee. How conveeen-ient, as the Church Lady would say. BP, in what major issues is Romney more of a Christianist than McCain, or more of an anti-intellectual than McCain? Certrainly the leading anti-intellectual Christainist, Mike Huckabee, disagreed with you assessment since he repeatedly has said he considers Romney much worse than McCain.
BTW, Limbaugh didn’t endorse anyone in the primary, but was quite hostile against Cristianist Huckabee and very favorable about the guy you implicitly praised in your previous post, Romney. The other candidate Limbaugh was vary favorable toward is certainly on the intellectual-secular side of the fence as well, Fred Thompson. I’ve never heard anyone describe Thompson as a darling of the Christianist faction.
These threads are getting painful.
Sarah Palin is incompetent. Do we need to work so hard to search for data points in support?
And, honestly, does anyone nit-picking at Obama’s personnel selections have a social life? Seriously, the good news about following the Worst President in American History is that we have regression toward the mean working in our favor.