-Caveat Lector- >From Dissent http://www.igc.org/dissent/current/current.html > <Picture> > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- DISSENT / SUMMER 1999/ VOLUME 46, NUMBER 3 > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > > > > > Bankruptcy and Zeal > The Republican Dialectic > > > > > > Sean Wilentz > > > > > > > > > > > Now that the dust has started to settle, it's time to assess why > the congressional Republicans, in the face of overwhelmingly > hostile public opinion, pursue the impeachment of President > Clinton to the bitter end. Overwrought idealism was partly > responsible, as was the intimidation of more moderate members by > the hard-line party leadership, as were the whims of fortune. But > one of the dirty secrets of impeachment may be that the > Republicans had nothing better to do. By setting their sights on > removing an already besmirched Bill Clinton, Republicans > unwittingly exposed their party's intellectual bankruptcy, > especially at the national level. And by pursuing impeachment as > zealously as they did, they compounded that bankruptcy by > alienating millions of voters. > > The turnabout is astonishing. For nearly two decades, Republicans > and their allied think tanks and policy packaging firms had > seemingly swept aside most traces of oppositional thinking. > Dependable liberal battle cries-for state-stimulated full > employment, advancing racial integration, and more-grew fainter > by the year. The very idea of activist government, outside the > realm of foreign affairs, became fatal to the touch. Republican > panaceas, from the supply-side Laffer curve to the "just-say-no" > anti-drug policy, did not exactly work their magic, but neither > did their failure seem to discredit the Republicans' working > assumptions, fiercely libertarian with respect to economic policy > and fiercely moralistic with respect to social policy. "We've > largely won the battle of ideas," Kate O'Beirne, formerly of the > Heritage Foundation, recently boasted. "We are in the > implementation stage right now." Indeed, some commentators claim > that that Republican thinking infected the Democrats as well, > especially inside the Clinton White House-though this reasoning > makes it difficult to understand why so many Republicans, and > virtually all hard-line conservatives, hate Clinton so deeply. > Yet today, poll after poll shows that the public is fed up with > the right-wing moralizers, has no particular interest in tax > cuts, and fears that the Republicans will undermine popular > universal entitlements. > > The Republicans' intellectual crisis cannot be blamed on > complacency. Indeed, faith in what Irving Kristol once referred > to as the inverted Gramscianism of the modern GOP-that is, > control the prevailing view of reality and you control > politics-has only deepened during the Clinton years. According to > a recent report by the left-liberal National Committee for > Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), the nation's twenty leading > conservative policy institutions have more than doubled their > combined budgets since 1992, spending $158 million in 1996 > alone-$20 million more than the Republican Party raised and spent > during that election year in soft-money contributions. The five > best-known institutions on the NCRP's list (the Heritage > Foundation, Hoover Institution, Center for Strategic and > International Studies, American Enterprise Institute, and Free > Congress Research and Education Foundation) accounted for about > half of the total in 1996; the rest was lavished on smaller, > tightly focused groups, each dedicated to advancing core elements > of the conservative agenda. By attracting increased contributions > from the corporate sector, and by tightening their connections > with political operatives (in Washington and the states) as well > as with grassroots activists, this conglomeration of > organizations has turned policy advocacy on the right into > something like a permanent, well-coordinated, national political > campaign. > > Yet in the immediate aftermath of the impeachment struggle, it > looked as if the GOP's research-and-promotion efforts had > succumbed to the law of diminishing returns. The prospects were > especially grim for the party's social-conservative wing. Since > 1978, when the activist Paul Weyrich and his allies invented the > Moral Majority, Republicans had built an invaluable new base > among politicized conservative evangelicals. Even when public > displeasure at the GOP televangelists mounted late in the Reagan > years, and even after the Moral Majority disbanded, a more > secular version of moral majoritarianism gained vast exposure and > considerable momentum, thanks to publicists like William Bennett > and operations like the Free Congress Foundation. In this > version, America's chief problems were moral, not economic or > political; they stemmed from the cultural relativism and > permissiveness imposed by a relatively small but powerful 1960s > left; and they could be measured by the breakdown of fundamental > social institutions, above all the family. > > This is not the occasion to ponder how the twists and turns of > liberal politics gave intellectual hostages to the right-wing > cultural warriors. What is plain is that, although Bennett's > books and others' may still soar to the top of the bestseller > lists, there is now despair on the cultural right, not just about > their political strategy but about their very conception of the > nation. After all their efforts, abortion remains legal and the > National Endowment for the Arts exists. During the presidency of > the despised baby-boomer Clinton, the right wing's key > statistical markers of the nation's cultural breakdown-violent > crime, out-of-wedlock births, divorce, drunk driving, expanding > welfare rolls-not only failed to worsen; they actually improved. > Despite Clinton's gross stupidity with Monica Lewinsky and his > attempts to deceive-which many right-wing commentators reasonably > considered political manna from heaven-a rock-solid majority of > the public remained in the president's corner against his > accusers. And when push came to shove in the impeachment trial, > the cultural right, although capable of overawing the House > Republican caucus, could not make a convincing constitutional > argument that Clinton's misdeeds warranted his removal from > office. > > Some veterans of the lost cause have put on a brave face and > vowed to soldier on. The Reverend Pat Robertson made headlines > late in the impeachment drama when he conceded tactical > defeat-prematurely, in the eyes of some of his followers. Yet > Robertson still insists that if religious voters would rally to > elect "an evangelical, born again president" and a like-minded > Congress, "we could roll back many of the bad things that have > been done in government." The Reverend Jerry Falwell agrees, as > do the Republican presidential hopeful Gary Bauer (who is running > against what he calls "the virtue deficit") and James Dobson of > Focus on the Family. ("Never give in," Dobson has proclaimed, > waxing Churchillian; "never, never, never.") > > Other influential conservatives, however, have admitted to their > confusion after impeachment and have called for, at the very > least, a reappraisal of their culture war assumptions. "A lot of > people are angry that [Clinton] got off," Phyllis Schlafly, head > of the Eagle Forum, remarked last February. "They just don't > understand it. They're shaking their heads: what is the problem?" > Schlafly still believes that a majority of Americans share her > ultraconservative moral values, but criticizes the Republican > Congress for being too "defensive" in vindicating those values-a > most ungrateful complaint, it would seem, coming after > Monicagate. William Bennett, who reads the polls as closely as he > says he reads his Aquinas, is much less confident of public > backing. Shocked at what he has called, with his characteristic > modesty, the first divergence ever between his own point of view > and that of the American majority, Bennett now demands a tragic > consideration of what he has labeled "the death of outrage." > Other cultural warriors have suggested that it may be too late > even for that. In his last-ditch arguments during the Senate > impeachment trial, Representative Henry Hyde sounded an > apocalyptic chord: "I wonder if, after this culture war is over > that we are engaged in," Hyde declared, "an America will survive > that will be worth fighting to defend." With Clinton acquitted, > presumably, the end is ever more nigh. > > Overtaken by failure, some generals in the GOP cultural army have > even called for a dignified surrender, an Appomattox. "I no > longer believe that there is a moral majority," Paul Weyrich, now > head of the Free Congress Foundation, told his fellow > conservative leaders after the impeachment trial. In place of > political action, he counseled "separation" from society by > promoting home schooling, the formation of private courts of > justice, and removing televisions from decent homes. Shortly > thereafter, Cal Thomas (the syndicated columnist and former Moral > Majority spokesman) and the Reverend Ed Dobson (a former Falwell > aide) went even further, claiming in a new book, Blinded by > Might, that the Moral Majority, indeed the entire effort to > elevate moralism through politics, had been wrongheaded from the > start. For Thomas, the problems besetting the religious right > have, in part, to do with their own cultural style. > Conservatives, he has remarked, are "an upset people. We don't > like being happy. We're always looking for an enemy-just as the > left is-to play on people's fears, which increases cynicism." > More to the point, he and Dobson contend that politics was never > their proper arena. "Religious conservatives, no matter how well > organized, can't save America," they write. "Only God can." And > so, they conclude, conservative Christians should go back to > their churches and convert the world the old-fashioned way, one > sinner at a time. > > Insofar as Weyrich, Thomas, and Dobson (Ed, not James) reflect > religious conservative opinion in general-which is not > self-evident-their abdication may mark a resurgence of the > antipolitical stance that had traditionally dominated > conservative American evangelicalism. (In the 1980s, among the > harshest critics of the so-called religious right were the > fundamentalist leaders of institutions such as Bob Jones > University, who insisted that involvement in politics would do > far more damage to the word of God than the word of God could > ever do to redeem politics.) But what is truly striking is how, > along with their more secular and more hopeful erstwhile allies, > the cultural warriors gaze with utter horror on how most > Americans think and live. > > For Weyrich, the "ever-wider sewer" that is America is "caught up > in a collapse of historic proportions, a collapse so great that > it simply overwhelms politics." Likewise for the journalist P.J. > O'Rourke, who is more of a dandy than a doomsday man, the mere > sight of ordinary Americans is nauseating: "masses waddling into > airports, business offices and churches dressed in drooping > sweats or fuschia warm-up suits or mainsail-sized Bermuda shorts, > each with a mobile phone in one ear and a Walkman in the other > and sucking Diet Pepsi through a straw." Add to that the conceit, > heard everywhere in the mainstream as well as the conservative > press during the impeachment hearings, that the booming economy > has corrupted our collective sense of moral virtue, and you have > the sort of condemnation of America that one has gotten used to > hearing mainly from young suburban malcontents and Left Bank > leftists. Ronald Reagan's sunny "It's Morning in America" has > given way to fear and loathing on the right. > > > > > > The spitefulness of the cultural right is matched by the > increasingly far-fetched ideas proffered by the other major wing > of the Republican party, the economic conservatives. With > American capitalism booming, the Dow bouncing well above 10,000, > unemployment down, the federal budget in surplus, and the welfare > bogeyman seemingly scotched-all under a Democratic > administration-it is hard for the economic conservatives to gain > much political traction. About all they are left with, in the > realm of ideas, are proposals for tax cuts. These ideas, however, > are far less attractive than they once were, given the public > perception of looming crises in Social Security and Medicare. And > the proposals themselves, although neatly packaged as economic > lifesavers for the average American, are more obviously than ever > windfalls for the rich. > > Part of the economic conservatives' packaging involves > overstating the federal tax burden currently borne by > middle-class families. In her response to the president's State > of the Union address last January, for example, Congresswoman > Jennifer Dunn stated that a typical two-earner household pays > nearly 40 percent of its income in taxes, a figure extrapolated > from computations that more than 25 percent of that income goes > to federal taxes-"the highest percentage of income ever paid in > taxes by American families." Yet as Iris J. Lav has reported for > the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, these findings are > based on arbitrary statistical methods that, among other things, > set median two-earner family income at nearly $55,000-far above > the Congressional Budget Office's median figure of $39,000. Using > the CBO's methods, the actual average family federal tax burden > comes to 18.9 percent in 1999, substantially less than > Congresswoman Dunn suggests. Moreover, CBO figures show that the > portion of income paid in federal taxes by families in the > middle-income levels in 1999 will be slightly lower than the same > figure for 1977. To be sure, it appears that the federal > government has been collecting more taxes in recent years, as a > percentage of the gross domestic product. But those increases are > due largely to an extraordinary rise in capital gains income > received by wealthier Americans as the stock market has boomed. > The tax burdens of most Americans have been unaffected. > > Dunn's inflated figures, however, served a larger purpose, which > was to win support for congressional Republican leaders' first > grand new proposal of the post-impeachment era-an > across-the-board 10 percent cut in tax rates. By referring to the > plan simply as a 10 percent tax cut (an elision dutifully > repeated in the press), Republicans made it sound as if all > Americans would benefit equally. But it took little economic > expertise to see that, under our system, a cut in tax rates is > far more regressive than a simple cut in taxes. Soon after the > Republicans announced their plan, Citizens for Tax Justice > reported that more than 60 percent of the benefits would go to > the ten percent of taxpayers with the highest incomes. On > average, the tax reduction for the lower 60 percent of all > taxpayers-those with incomes below $38,000-would amount to $99. A > large portion of low- and moderate-income families would receive > no cut at all. By contrast, the top 10 percent of the income > distribution would get, on average, nearly $4,000 a year, while > the top 1 percent would get, on average, more than $20,000 per > year. The inequities were so blatant that the Democrats did not > need to put up much of a fight: faced with grumbling from their > moderate members, the Republican leaders shelved their grand new > proposal shortly after they announced it. > > The death of the GOP 10 percent plan did not, to be sure, mark > the utter extinction of Republican thinking. Remarkably, though, > what remains consists chiefly of ideologically charged reworkings > of Democratic proposals or rehashes of familiar Republican ideas. > The White House proposes to set aside $1.8 trillion over the next > decade to strengthen Social Security, while investing a portion > of the surplus in the stock market; the Republicans come up with > their own plan, setting aside roughly the same amount of money > but creating private investment accounts within the retirement > system. The White House proposes to increase spending on defense > and education; so do the Republicans, though they would channel > much more to defense and much less to education. If all else > fails, the GOP still has some old chestnuts in its pantry, > including tort reform, school vouchers, and renewed attacks on > affirmative action. Yet although the Democrats may be vulnerable > here and there on these matters, it is hard to believe that the > Republicans can successfully jerry-build an entire electoral > program out of them, as they did in 1994. And at least some of > the old reliable Republican ideas-opposing gun control, for > example-may now cost more political support than they gain. > > > > > > Embittered about America, reduced to promoting regressive tax > cuts as their big new idea, the Republicans are suffering from > the political fragmentation that normally accompanies > intellectual exhaustion. The fragmentation is nothing new. For > some years, more moderate northeastern Republicans have been > trying to distance themselves from the cultural die-hards. > Shortly after the Senate acquitted Clinton, several of these > moderates, most notably New York's Governor George Pataki, tried > to round up support around the country for taking the party in a > less moralistic direction. But those efforts achieved little more > than to show how the party divisions had deepened during the > impeachment drive. The GOP's early lineup of presidential > hopefuls is indicative of the party's plight. The cultural > conservatives have fielded Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes; Congressman > John Kasich has jumped in as an updated Reaganomist; Lamar > Alexander has centered his campaign on the "character" issue; Dan > Quayle is hoping his graying temples will lend his candidacy > credibility; Pat Buchanan is once more agitating the "lock and > load" constituency; and Steve Forbes, having learned a few > lessons from his failed bid in 1996, has enthusiastically courted > the religious right while pushing his own regressive economic > panacea, the flat tax-thereby combining two streams of thought > that have nearly dried up. > > No wonder the Republican Establishment is looking elsewhere for a > candidate-above all, to reliable members of the Establishment > family who are unburdened with much intellectual baggage of any > kind. It is a remarkable fact that in every presidential year > save one since 1952, the Republican national ticket has included > either a Nixon, a Dole, or a Bush. Looking to 2000, Republicans > get to choose between yet another Bush and yet another Dole (and, > quite possibly, get a Bush-Dole ticket)-a son and a wife, neither > identified in the national mind with anything more profound than > their congenial personalities and family crests. > > All of which might point to deep and lasting trouble ahead for > the GOP were the Democrats and their liberal allies in better > intellectual shape than they are. To be sure, impeachment and its > aftermath has created far more authentic solidarity in Democratic > ranks than has been seen in many years. Vice President Al Gore > will face no serious challenge from his left for his party's > nomination, and unless he stumbles badly, or unless the Kosovo > mess becomes an unmitigated political disaster, he ought to gain > the nod over Bill Bradley with a minimum of the traditional > Democratic blood-letting. Lingering fury at the Republicans over > impeachment, and promises for a more focused campaign to take > back the House, look like they will galvanize recently listless > Democratic constituencies to donate heavily and get out the vote. > Yet it remains far easier to say what the Democrats stand against > than what they stand for. The much-lamented tendency of liberal > and left philanthropies to spread their funding thin, along with > the lack of anything resembling a robust and well-coordinated > party intelligentsia, connected with the party's base, still > places the Democrats at an enormous disadvantage when it comes to > shaping public perceptions. Efforts in that direction, under the > broad heading of "the Third Way," have been sporadic and > ambiguous, sometimes registering with the public as old-fashioned > moderate Republicanism, sometimes as revamped social democracy, > and sometimes as a renunciation of any ideas or goals beyond > small-bore policy initiatives. > > > > > > The worst thing that the Democrats could decide, under these > circumstances, is that ideas don't really matter in politics. All > that has happened in national affairs over the last thirty years > proves just the opposite. The Republicans may be exhausted-but > until now their inverted Gramscianism has proven enormously > effective in shaping the terms of public debate. Bill Clinton has > outmaneuvered them-but Democrats in general cannot count on fancy > political footwork and co-optation to fulfill the function of a > political creed. If the Republicans are intellectually bankrupt, > the Democrats have barely begun to invest in their intellectual > future, even though they have managed to gain a popular majority > in a national election only once in the last thirty-five years. > Unless the Democrats start making those investments, the > Republicans' current intellectual breakdown may well prove a > squandered opportunity. > > Still, there is something comforting in the fact that all the > money in the world doesn't seem to be able to guarantee credible > political thinking. After all these years, behind the veneer of > Reagan's uplifting patriotism and (for a time) Gingrich's > "opportunity society" bombast, modern Republicanism turns out to > be little more than a set of intellectual atavisms, intolerance > linked with attempts to further enrich the already rich. And all > of the GOP's would-be kings, and all of their horses and all of > their men, seem, for once, clueless. > > > > > > > > > > Sean Wilentz teaches history at Princeton University. > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > > > > > Copyright 1999 by the Foundation for the Study of Independent > Social Ideas, Inc. Readers may redistribute this article to other > individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text, all > HTML codes, and this notice remain intact and unaltered in any > way. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed > for compensation of any kind without prior written permission > from the author. If you have any questions about permissions, > please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED], or write to Dissent, 521 > Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700, New York, NY 10017. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- home | current issue | archive | order back issues | > subscribe | feedback > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- <Picture> > > > > A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." --Buddha + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
