ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress - Climate Progress
ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Joe Conason: “There is nothing subtle about the Republican approach to frustrating reform, whether in healthcare, banking regulation or climate change.”

The underlying agenda on the Republican side, from the top down, is to frustrate and humiliate the president and the Democratic majority — and to ensure that no legislation passes. They typically begin with a memo from Frank Luntz, outlining rhetorical tricks that will be used to mislead and anger voters, while obscuring the true content of any proposal that Democrats might consider.

Next week, Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman will launch the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill.  Every other Senate Republican but Graham will attempt to kill the bill because their entire strategy is predicated on convincing the public that Obama isn’t a different kind of politician, isn’t a pragmatist who can reach across the aisle.

McConnell told the NY Times last month, “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.”

And so the GOP is quite willing to destroy the Republic to advance their extremist agenda, as long as their shamelessly superior messaging (which is to say, disinforming) means they won’t be punished at the polls and indeed will actually make gains.  A (very) few journalists have woken up to this reality (see Joe Klein on the GOP: “How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists? “¦ How can you maintain the illusion of journalistic impartiality when one of the political parties has jumped the shark?”).

Joe Conason at Salon spells out in detail how this applies to financial reform in his article (quoted above), “Republican senator hints ‘bailout’ charge is false:  The GOP says it opposes ‘perpetual taxpayer bailouts’ in financial reform bill. But then Bob Corker told the truth.”  The analysis is worth reading since it pretty much applies to every major piece of legislation now and for the foreseeable future, including energy and climate.  Conason continues:

Republicans on the relevant committees simulate bargaining over matters of substance with their Democratic counterparts, which is what the civics books tell us they are supposed to do, of course. But when a bill emerges and debate is scheduled to begin, McConnell stalls the process by threatening a filibuster, due to allegedly unacceptable features of the legislation or an alleged refusal by the Democrats to consult with Republicans. His false claims are aimed at a single objective: to justify the filibuster threat.

Now this strategy is easy to implement at almost no political cost, because the public is distracted, confused and distrusting of both political parties as well as the media. The outlines of reality are not as clear-cut as the crisp phrasing of Luntzian propaganda, which relies on tropes of three or four words to crystallize opposition framing.

And old principles that once governed the behavior of Congress, and especially senators, have been discarded. In the Republican bloc, partisan maneuvering trumps personal independence and honor at the command of the leadership.

The latest example is Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a freshman member of the Senate Banking Committee who took over the task of “negotiating” a financial reform bill from the ranking Republican, Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who grew weary of the game. Corker’s conduct exemplifies the Republican strategy (which, in fairness, he may not have fully understood until last week). Having spent months working on the bill with committee chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Corker suddenly found himself vowing to support a filibuster over provisions in the bill that he had helped to write.

Observing Corker’s plight, William Theobald, a political columnist for the Tennessean, described the situation with pithy accuracy:

The issue of how to shut down large financial firms without a taxpayer bailout and without damaging the nation’s economy was precisely the issue Corker had spent the most time negotiating with Dodd.

In the wake of McConnell’s withering attacks on the bill, a distressed Corker took to the Senate floor Wednesday to defend his efforts while trying not to offend GOP leaders.

Knowing that his leader’s complaints about perpetual taxpayer bailouts were wrong — and that McConnell knows it too — Corker tried to be careful. But he could not quite bring himself to endorse the leader’s falsehood. The $50 billion fund created by the Dodd bill to wind down failing firms would be drawn from the banks and financial companies, not from the Treasury. “That’s all industry money,” said the Tennessee senator. “To classify that as a bailout fund, in fairness, is not intellectually pure.”

But Corker did not appear terribly embarrassed by his own contortions. He told Gannett News that he feels “energized” and “liberated.” He can help to write a bill and then sign a letter threatening to filibuster that same bill, while acknowledging that the stated reasons for the filibuster are untrue. Nobody in the national press corps will call him to account for that glaring contradiction. And nobody in the press corps will ask McConnell to explain why the Republican senator with the most expertise on this bill has said, as diplomatically as possible, that McConnell is lying.

And so this is how a livable climate ends, not with a bang, not with a whimper, but trampled to death by a herd of elephants.

11 Responses to Joe Conason: “There is nothing subtle about the Republican approach to frustrating reform, whether in healthcare, banking regulation or climate change.”

  1. sod says:

    very much off-topic, but Tom Fuller has just made a comparison with your blog on the air vent, Joe.

    his findings show, that your blog is nearly as good as Climate dDepot run by Morano. congratulations!

    noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/the-climate-ecosystem-part-ii/#comment-25901

    [JR: Yes, well Morano is only impressive in that he is probably paid better than any other blogger, but he doesn't actually do very much blogging. That may say more about his funders than him, though. He almost exclusively links to other pieces and/or distorts what they say. Morano doesn't have anywhere near my total readership though, since in addition to the people who actually visit my website (that Alexa tries to count), I have a subscriber-driven strategy. Morano gets attention not because he has a lot of readers or a lot of substance, but because he is simply better at self-promotion than most.

    But the overall analysis is inane, especially the part about policy.]

  2. catman306 says:

    “Nihilistic”: that about sums it up.

    See for yourself:

    http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:nihilist&ei=DBrOS8zOBo7s9gT3zeWrDw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE

    Use a word three times…

    only 855,000 google hits. It must be a suppressed idea with so few hits. It needs to be unsuppressed.

  3. Carter says:

    It’s appalling. What will become of this country?

  4. oxnardprof says:

    Words fail me. This post expresses why I feel futility in my advocacy for doing something about climate change. Whan a major part puts the interests of the party above those of the nation and the people, to such a blatant extent, I am at a loss to respond. What is more, it seems the press cannot find a way to express the danger of this tactic to the public and the right-wing media is complicit, focusing so closely on political advantage, they lose sight of a larger picture.

    Thanks for the presentation.

  5. burk says:

    None of this would make a bit of difference if they didn’t have the unconstitutional filibuster. It is time to nuke it out of existence.

    [JR: Extra-constitutional.]

  6. The fillibuster is not “unconstitutional,” as the constitution expressly grants each house the right to establish its own parliamentary procedures (Article 1, section 5, paragraph 2).

    That being said, the Senate certainly has the power to unmake the fillibuster that it made in the first place.

  7. David B. Benson says:

    What burk jsut wrote.

  8. Wes Rolley says:

    The solution might be to hire Dr. Frank Luntz. He has worked for Democrats before … e.g. Harold Ford, Jr.’s Keynote speech at 2000 Dem. nominating convention.

    I thought Luntz was a climate change believer… was I wrong?

  9. SecularAnimist says:

    As in the health care reform “debate”, the Republicans are playing “bad cop” and the Democrats are playing “good cop”. Together they will browbeat the American people into accepting the “deal” that the corporate oligarchy is willing to offer. In the case of the climate/energy bill, it appears increasingly likely that the “deal” will closely resemble the McCain/Palin 2008 “energy plan”, with no effective limits on emissions, inadequate support for renewable energy, expanded offshore oil drilling, and vast public resources squandered on the “clean coal” hoax and the nuclear power boondoggle.

    To look at what the science tells us we need to do and when we need to do it, and then to look at what is “politically possible”, is to despair.

    Because to accept the limits of what is “politically possible” is to accept the absence of a future.

  10. James says:

    “And so this is how a livable climate ends, not with a bang, not with a whimper, but trampled to death by a herd of elephants.”

    If the only GOP senator that comes over for the Climate Bill is Senator Graham (which he co-authored) – its over folks.

    Joe, do you think the GOP is going to be able to do this to the Climate Energy bill (i.e. keep all their members except Graham from voting for it)?

    What you wrote there is giving me the impression you think this is the likely outcome. Is that what you think?

    [JR: It is the conventional wisdom that this is the likely outcome. I actually think Obama can get the bill if he truly wants it, but time is most certainly running out.]

  11. Fred Teal says:

    With regard to sound bites, I suggest:

    People that can’t handle change had better find another planet.