Vitriol

Commenter "l" (it's a lower-case "L") notes that I've become more vitriolic toward the Republican party. This is a good point, and quite right. Although I've always been very liberal on most issues, I've also always tried to be sympathetic to conservative ides and viewpoints and voters, since it is my fundamental belief that half of America (give or take) can't be evil, or stupid, or totally fooled. We elected Reagan; we elected Gingrich; and we probably elected Bush at least once. Conservatism therefore can't all be horsedung, and I've always tried to find what's valuable and good in it.

So why all the Republican-bashing now, you ask?

It is time for a rant. It is time for an even-handed, painstaking rant that lays out the case for a lot of conclusions that most liberal bloggers reached many years ago. I had better explain the root of my vitriol.

First, the 2008 election made me realize something that perhaps I'd been to naive to realize in the past - i.e., how much of Republican support is based on racism. When Paul Krugman came out in 2004 and 2005 and started writing "Republican victories are all because of racism," I at first scoffed. But then I found out about Nixon's "Southern Strategy," and about Lee Atwater. I thought about how the crime issue in the 80s was really about fear of blacks. How the "drug war" was about fear of blacks. How opposition to welfare in the 80s and 90s was about not wanting money to go to blacks. And slowly, I began to realize that Krugman wasn't out of his tree.

Democrats asked for years: if there are so few rich Americans, and so many middle-class Americans, why would middle-class Americans vote for Republican politicians who promised to help the rich? Did we really believe in trickle-down economics? Do most middle-class Americans really hope to get rich someday? Those, to me, were all unconvincing explanations; look how quick we've been to embrace government activism in these times of trouble. The appeal of "small government" was always a mystery. And the question of why conservatives seemed to love big government on social issues but hate it on economic issues was another mystery.

Racism provides the answer to both mysteries. It was the U.S. federal government that sent troops to de-segregate Southern schools. It was the federal government that took money from whites and gave it to blacks via welfare and other anti-poverty programs. It is federal education policy that threatens to give equal amounts of money to our re-segregated white and black public schools. One answer to "why are so many Americans for small government" is: many white Americans, largely in the South, do not want to pay for public goods that benefit black Americans.

That isn't the only reason American conservatism does what it does and stands for what it stands for, but it exists. Don't believe me? Then why did Obama get only 14% of the white vote in Louisiana, a state Clinton won? Why did Obama get fewer votes than Kerry in Tennessee and Arkansas and Kentucky and southwestern Pennsylvania, while getting more pretty much everyhere else? Why did Obama win whites outside the South but only get 40% of the overall white vote? What explains 2008 Republican campaign stunts like this and this?

And why did Chip Saltsman, candidate for RNC chair (until he withdrew today), get so many kudos for handing out "Barack the Magic Negro" CDs?

It is because Republican racism is deep and entrenched and still very central to both Republican electoral strategy and to key elements of the conservative policy mix. It is not the only thing that animates American conservatism. It might not even be the most important thing. I'm not sure if it's more or less important than it was in previous decades. But it is there, and it is a big deal, and if you insist on putting your head in the sand and saying it isn't there, well, what can I say to a person with an onion for a head?

But racism is not the only reason for my newfound vitriol toward the GOP. The behavior of Republican politicians during the past decade has been inexcusably anti-patriotic. To impeach Clinton as a political gimmick during the 90s was bad, but we were riding high and could afford a media circus or two. But in the current age of geopolitical and economic instability, sacrificing the good of the country to score pointless points against "the other side" is anti-America. Note the lack of an "n" at the end of that term. The opposition party is NOT "the other side."

To use terrorism as an issue to whip the Democrats in 2002, when Democrats had declared that there was "no air, no light" between the two parties after 9/11, was despicable. To use anti-terrorism laws to keep tabs on liberal activists was despicable. I am not 100% sure that putting the Democrats in a weak political position was a major reason Bush invaded Iraq, but if it was, that would be despicable too. And to trumpet America's unprecedented use of torture as a glowing achievement, simply because it drives Democrats up the wall, is despicable.

And conservative rhetoric, in recent years, has included less and less promotion of conservative ideas, and more and more demonizing and bashing of liberals. I'm not going to include examples - there are far too many - I'm just going to point out that this happened even while conservatves controlled all branches of government bak in 2005. In other words, even as a majority, conservative activists and politicians seemed more interested in crushing the minority once-and-for-all than in promoting any policies or ideas of their own.

One finds it harder and harder to escape the conclusion that the Republicans view the Democrats, and liberals, as Public Enemy #1 - not al Qaeda, not the economic crisis, not Putin or the Chinese - but their own countrymen. And with Obama appointing Republicans to key cabinet positions, and compromising to get Republican votes for his stimulus package even though it doesn't need themto pass, one finds it increasingly difficult to escape the conclusion that Democrats do not see Republicans as Public Enemy #1. In other words, the situation is not symmetric. The parties are not equal and opposite in their actions. Being balanced is no longer being fair. It is no longer legitimate to say "a pox on both houses." "Everybody's doin' it" is no longer an excuse.

The Republicans have let partisanship eclipse their patriotism, and the Democrats have not. That is the second reason I am angry.

(These two flaws in the Republican party, I should mention, are not necessarily independent. It may be that some white conservatives would rather see this nation destroyed or brought low than share it with black and Hispanic people. I hope that is not a common sentiment.)

The shame of it all is that there are good conservative ideas, and some conservatives address issues that most liberals ignore. What are those ideas and issues? Opinions will differ, obviously - I'd say they include family breakdown, gun rights, corporate tax reduction, and tort and tax code reform - but the specifics don't matter. What matters is that a country can no more exist without both a liberal and a conservative movement than a person can walk with one leg. I firmly believe that we need good conservatives, and we need a strong, broad-based Republican party. A party that relies for its sustenance on the mutated ghost of unreconstructed Southern racism will not cut it. A party that exists not to promote conservatism but to slay liberalism will not cut it.

Note that I'm not very vitriolic toward al Qaeda, or Putin. Those are just bad guys, and one way or another they must be stopped; haranguing them is pointless. There will be other bad guys when they are gone. I am angry at Republicans, and at conservatives, because I expect better - I demand better - from my fellow Americans. I hold my countrymen to a higher standard. And America's conservatives have been letting me down. A little vitriol is in order.