Must-Read Tell All: “Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult”

TruthOut has published an amazing tell all by a former GOP Congressional staffer, Mike Lofgren.  The piece, “Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult,” is reprinted below in its entirety.  It opens:

Barbara Stanwyck: “We’re both rotten!”

Fred MacMurray: “Yeah — only you’re a little more rotten.” — “Double Indemnity” (1944)

Those lines of dialogue from a classic film noir sum up the state of the two political parties in contemporary America. Both parties are rotten — how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political system by corporate money on a scale that now requires a presidential candidate to raise upwards of a billion dollars to be competitive in the general election?  Both parties are captives to corporate loot.

…. To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics.

Lofgren retired in June 17 after 28 years as a Congressional staffer. He served for 16 years as a professional staff member on the GOP side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.

James Fallows, the great columnist for The Atlantic, explains, “Lofgren’s name is barely known to the general public, but among people who have covered or worked in the national-security field, he is a familiar and highly esteemed figure.”

Most of Lofgren’s analysis won’t come as a surprise to most Climate Progress readers, but it is still a must-read for its bluntness and its source.  Read it and weep … for the nation and the world.

by Mike Lofgren

… Both parties are captives to corporate loot. The main reason the Democrats’ health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats’ rank capitulation to corporate interests – no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma.

But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP.

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional staff member on Capitol Hill. A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.

The debt ceiling extension is not the only example of this sort of political terrorism. Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel – how prudent is that? – in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization.

Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course they might – the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was “bring it on!”

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.

In his “Manual of Parliamentary Practice,” Thomas Jefferson wrote that it is less important that every rule and custom of a legislature be absolutely justifiable in a theoretical sense, than that they should be generally acknowledged and honored by all parties. These include unwritten rules, customs and courtesies that lubricate the legislative machinery and keep governance a relatively civilized procedure. The US Senate has more complex procedural rules than any other legislative body in the world; many of these rules are contradictory, and on any given day, the Senate parliamentarian may issue a ruling that contradicts earlier rulings on analogous cases.

The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is collegiality and good faith. During periods of political consensus, for instance, the World War II and early post-war eras, the Senate was a “high functioning” institution: filibusters were rare and the body was legislatively productive. Now, one can no more picture the current Senate producing the original Medicare Act than the old Supreme Soviet having legislated the Bill of Rights.

Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.

John P. Judis sums up the modern GOP this way:

“Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today’s Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery.”

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters’ confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,” and that “government is no good,” further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses” and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.” This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s – a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn (“Government is the problem,” declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable “hard news” segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the “respectable” media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the “centrist cop-out.” “I joked long ago,” he says, “that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read ‘Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'”

Inside-the-Beltway wise guy Chris Cillizza merely proves Krugman right in his Washington Post analysis of “winners and losers” in the debt ceiling impasse. He wrote that the institution of Congress was a big loser in the fracas, which is, of course, correct, but then he opined: “Lawmakers – bless their hearts – seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months) congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity.” Note how the pundit’s ironic deprecation falls like the rain on the just and unjust alike, on those who precipitated the needless crisis and those who despaired of it. He seems oblivious that one side – or a sizable faction of one side – has deliberately attempted to damage the reputation of Congress to achieve its political objectives.

This constant drizzle of “there the two parties go again!” stories out of the news bureaus, combined with the hazy confusion of low-information voters, means that the long-term Republican strategy of undermining confidence in our democratic institutions has reaped electoral dividends. The United States has nearly the lowest voter participation among Western democracies; this, again, is a consequence of the decline of trust in government institutions – if government is a racket and both parties are the same, why vote? And if the uninvolved middle declines to vote, it increases the electoral clout of a minority that is constantly being whipped into a lather by three hours daily of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. There were only 44 million Republican voters in the 2010 mid-term elections, but they effectively canceled the political results of the election of President Obama by 69 million voters.

This tactic of inducing public distrust of government is not only cynical, it is schizophrenic. For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document. This is not to say that there is not some theoretical limit to the size or intrusiveness of government; I would be the first to say there are such limits, both fiscal and Constitutional. But most Republican officeholders seem strangely uninterested in the effective repeal of Fourth Amendment protections by the Patriot Act, the weakening of habeas corpus and self-incrimination protections in the public hysteria following 9/11 or the unpalatable fact that the United States has the largest incarcerated population of any country on earth. If anything, they would probably opt for more incarcerated persons, as imprisonment is a profit center for the prison privatization industry, which is itself a growth center for political contributions to these same politicians.[1] Instead, they prefer to rail against those government programs that actually help people. And when a program is too popular to attack directly, like Medicare or Social Security, they prefer to undermine it by feigning an agonized concern about the deficit. That concern, as we shall see, is largely fictitious.

Undermining Americans’ belief in their own institutions of self-government remains a prime GOP electoral strategy. But if this technique falls short of producing Karl Rove’s dream of 30 years of unchallengeable one-party rule (as all such techniques always fall short of achieving the angry and embittered true believer’s New Jerusalem), there are other even less savory techniques upon which to fall back. Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students.

This legislative assault is moving in a diametrically opposed direction to 200 years of American history, when the arrow of progress pointed toward more political participation by more citizens. Republicans are among the most shrill in self-righteously lecturing other countries about the wonders of democracy; exporting democracy (albeit at the barrel of a gun) to the Middle East was a signature policy of the Bush administration. But domestically, they don’t want those people voting.

You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn’t look, think, or talk like the GOP base. This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama’s policy of being black.[2] Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some “other,” who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear.

It is not clear to me how many GOP officeholders believe this reactionary and paranoid claptrap. I would bet that most do not. But they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base with a nod and a wink. During the disgraceful circus of the “birther” issue, Republican politicians subtly stoked the fires of paranoia by being suggestively equivocal – “I take the president at his word” – while never unambiguously slapping down the myth. John Huntsman was the first major GOP figure forthrightly to refute the birther calumny – albeit after release of the birth certificate.

I do not mean to place too much emphasis on racial animus in the GOP. While it surely exists, it is also a fact that Republicans think that no Democratic president could conceivably be legitimate. Republicans also regarded Bill Clinton as somehow, in some manner, twice fraudulently elected (well do I remember the elaborate conspiracy theories that Republicans traded among themselves). Had it been Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, who had been elected in 2008, I am certain we would now be hearing, in lieu of the birther myths, conspiracy theories about Vince Foster’s alleged murder.

The reader may think that I am attributing Svengali-like powers to GOP operatives able to manipulate a zombie base to do their bidding. It is more complicated than that. Historical circumstances produced the raw material: the deindustrialization and financialization of America since about 1970 has spawned an increasingly downscale white middle class – without job security (or even without jobs), with pensions and health benefits evaporating and with their principal asset deflating in the collapse of the housing bubble. Their fears are not imaginary; their standard of living is shrinking.

What do the Democrats offer these people? Essentially nothing. Democratic Leadership Council-style “centrist” Democrats were among the biggest promoters of disastrous trade deals in the 1990s that outsourced jobs abroad: NAFTA, World Trade Organization, permanent most-favored-nation status for China. At the same time, the identity politics/lifestyle wing of the Democratic Party was seen as a too illegal immigrant-friendly by downscaled and outsourced whites.[3]

While Democrats temporized, or even dismissed the fears of the white working class as racist or nativist, Republicans went to work. To be sure, the business wing of the Republican Party consists of the most energetic outsourcers, wage cutters and hirers of sub-minimum wage immigrant labor to be found anywhere on the globe. But the faux-populist wing of the party, knowing the mental compartmentalization that occurs in most low-information voters, played on the fears of that same white working class to focus their anger on scapegoats that do no damage to corporations’ bottom lines: instead of raising the minimum wage, let’s build a wall on the Southern border (then hire a defense contractor to incompetently manage it). Instead of predatory bankers, it’s evil Muslims. Or evil gays. Or evil abortionists.

How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? – can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative “Obamacare” won out. Contrast that with the Republicans’ Patriot Act. You’re a patriot, aren’t you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn’t the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?

You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. “Entitlement” has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is “entitled” selfishly claims something he doesn’t really deserve. Why not call them “earned benefits,” which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them? That would never occur to the Democrats. Republicans don’t make that mistake; they are relentlessly on message: it is never the “estate tax,” it is the “death tax.” Heaven forbid that the Walton family should give up one penny of its $86-billion fortune. All of that lucre is necessary to ensure that unions be kept out of Wal-Mart, that women employees not be promoted and that politicians be kept on a short leash.

It was not always thus. It would have been hard to find an uneducated farmer during the depression of the 1890s who did not have a very accurate idea about exactly which economic interests were shafting him. An unemployed worker in a breadline in 1932 would have felt little gratitude to the Rockefellers or the Mellons. But that is not the case in the present economic crisis. After a riot of unbridled greed such as the world has not seen since the conquistadors’ looting expeditions and after an unprecedented broad and rapid transfer of wealth upward by Wall Street and its corporate satellites, where is the popular anger directed, at least as depicted in the media? At “Washington spending” – which has increased primarily to provide unemployment compensation, food stamps and Medicaid to those economically damaged by the previous decade’s corporate saturnalia. Or the popular rage is harmlessly diverted against pseudo-issues: death panels, birtherism, gay marriage, abortion, and so on, none of which stands to dent the corporate bottom line in the slightest.

Thus far, I have concentrated on Republican tactics, rather than Republican beliefs, but the tactics themselves are important indicators of an absolutist, authoritarian mindset that is increasingly hostile to the democratic values of reason, compromise and conciliation. Rather, this mindset seeks polarizing division (Karl Rove has been very explicit that this is his principal campaign strategy), conflict and the crushing of opposition.

As for what they really believe, the Republican Party of 2011 believes in three principal tenets I have laid out below. The rest of their platform one may safely dismiss as window dressing:

1. The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors. The party has built a whole catechism on the protection and further enrichment of America’s plutocracy. Their caterwauling about deficit and debt is so much eyewash to con the public. Whatever else President Obama has accomplished (and many of his purported accomplishments are highly suspect), his $4-trillion deficit reduction package did perform the useful service of smoking out Republican hypocrisy. The GOP refused, because it could not abide so much as a one-tenth of one percent increase on the tax rates of the Walton family or the Koch brothers, much less a repeal of the carried interest rule that permits billionaire hedge fund managers to pay income tax at a lower effective rate than cops or nurses. Republicans finally settled on a deal that had far less deficit reduction – and even less spending reduction! – than Obama’s offer, because of their iron resolution to protect at all costs our society’s overclass.

Republicans have attempted to camouflage their amorous solicitude for billionaires with a fog of misleading rhetoric. John Boehner is fond of saying, “we won’t raise anyone’s taxes,” as if the take-home pay of an Olive Garden waitress were inextricably bound up with whether Warren Buffett pays his capital gains as ordinary income or at a lower rate. Another chestnut is that millionaires and billionaires are “job creators.” US corporations have just had their most profitable quarters in history; Apple, for one, is sitting on $76 billion in cash, more than the GDP of most countries. So, where are the jobs?

Another smokescreen is the “small business” meme, since standing up for Mom’s and Pop’s corner store is politically more attractive than to be seen shilling for a megacorporation. Raising taxes on the wealthy will kill small business’ ability to hire; that is the GOP dirge every time Bernie Sanders or some Democrat offers an amendment to increase taxes on incomes above $1 million. But the number of small businesses that have a net annual income over a million dollars is de minimis, if not by definition impossible (as they would no longer be small businesses). And as data from the Center for Economic and Policy Research have shown, small businesses account for only 7.2 percent of total US employment, a significantly smaller share of total employment than in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.

Likewise, Republicans have assiduously spread the myth that Americans are conspicuously overtaxed. But compared to other OECD countries, the effective rates of US taxation are among the lowest. In particular, they point to the top corporate income rate of 35 percent as being confiscatory Bolshevism. But again, the effective rate is much lower. Did GE pay 35 percent on 2010 profits of $14 billion? No, it paid zero.

When pressed, Republicans make up misleading statistics to “prove” that the America’s fiscal burden is being borne by the rich and the rest of us are just freeloaders who don’t appreciate that fact. “Half of Americans don’t pay taxes” is a perennial meme. But what they leave out is that that statement refers to federal income taxes. There are millions of people who don’t pay income taxes, but do contribute payroll taxes – among the most regressive forms of taxation. But according to GOP fiscal theology, payroll taxes don’t count. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that since payroll taxes go into trust funds, they’re not real taxes. Likewise, state and local sales taxes apparently don’t count, although their effect on a poor person buying necessities like foodstuffs is far more regressive than on a millionaire.

All of these half truths and outright lies have seeped into popular culture via the corporate-owned business press. Just listen to CNBC for a few hours and you will hear most of them in one form or another. More important politically, Republicans’ myths about taxation have been internalized by millions of economically downscale “values voters,” who may have been attracted to the GOP for other reasons (which I will explain later), but who now accept this misinformation as dogma.

And when misinformation isn’t enough to sustain popular support for the GOP’s agenda, concealment is needed. One fairly innocuous provision in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill requires public companies to make a more transparent disclosure of CEO compensation, including bonuses. Note that it would not limit the compensation, only require full disclosure. Republicans are hell-bent on repealing this provision. Of course; it would not serve Wall Street interests if the public took an unhealthy interest in the disparity of their own incomes as against that of a bank CEO. As Spencer Bachus, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, says, “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”

2. They worship at the altar of Mars. While the me-too Democrats have set a horrible example of keeping up with the Joneses with respect to waging wars, they can never match GOP stalwarts such as John McCain or Lindsey Graham in their sheer, libidinous enthusiasm for invading other countries. McCain wanted to mix it up with Russia – a nuclear-armed state – during the latter’s conflict with Georgia in 2008 (remember? – “we are all Georgians now,” a slogan that did not, fortunately, catch on), while Graham has been persistently agitating for attacks on Iran and intervention in Syria. And these are not fringe elements of the party; they are the leading “defense experts,” who always get tapped for the Sunday talk shows. About a month before Republicans began holding a gun to the head of the credit markets to get trillions of dollars of cuts, these same Republicans passed a defense appropriations bill that increased spending by $17 billion over the prior year’s defense appropriation. To borrow Chris Hedges’ formulation, war is the force that gives meaning to their lives.

A cynic might conclude that this militaristic enthusiasm is no more complicated than the fact that Pentagon contractors spread a lot of bribery money around Capitol Hill. That is true, but there is more to it than that. It is not necessarily even the fact that members of Congress feel they are protecting constituents’ jobs. The wildly uneven concentration of defense contracts and military bases nationally means that some areas, like Washington, DC, and San Diego, are heavily dependent on Department of Defense (DOD) spending. But there are many more areas of the country whose net balance is negative: the citizenry pays more in taxes to support the Pentagon than it receives back in local contracts.

And the economic justification for Pentagon spending is even more fallacious when one considers that the $700 billion annual DOD budget creates comparatively few jobs. The days of Rosie the Riveter are long gone; most weapons projects now require very little touch labor. Instead, a disproportionate share is siphoned off into high-cost research and development (from which the civilian economy benefits little); exorbitant management expenditures, overhead and out-and-out padding; and, of course, the money that flows back into the coffers of political campaigns. A million dollars appropriated for highway construction would create two to three times as many jobs as a million dollars appropriated for Pentagon weapons procurement, so the jobs argument is ultimately specious.

Take away the cash nexus and there still remains a psychological predisposition toward war and militarism on the part of the GOP. This undoubtedly arises from a neurotic need to demonstrate toughness and dovetails perfectly with the belligerent tough-guy pose one constantly hears on right-wing talk radio. Militarism springs from the same psychological deficit that requires an endless series of enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The results of the last decade of unbridled militarism and the Democrats’ cowardly refusal to reverse it[4], have been disastrous both strategically and fiscally. It has made the United States less prosperous, less secure and less free. Unfortunately, the militarism and the promiscuous intervention it gives rise to are only likely to abate when the Treasury is exhausted, just as it happened to the Dutch Republic and the British Empire.

3. Give me that old time religion. Pandering to fundamentalism is a full-time vocation in the GOP. Beginning in the 1970s, religious cranks ceased simply to be a minor public nuisance in this country and grew into the major element of the Republican rank and file. Pat Robertson’s strong showing in the 1988 Iowa Caucus signaled the gradual merger of politics and religion in the party. The results are all around us: if the American people poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution versus creationism, scriptural inerrancy, the existence of angels and demons, and so forth, that result is due to the rise of the religious right, its insertion into the public sphere by the Republican Party and the consequent normalizing of formerly reactionary or quaint beliefs. Also around us is a prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science; it is this group that defines “low-information voter” – or, perhaps, “misinformation voter.”

The Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, there is now a de facto religious test for the presidency: major candidates are encouraged (or coerced) to “share their feelings” about their “faith” in a revelatory speech; or, some televangelist like Rick Warren dragoons the candidates (as he did with Obama and McCain in 2008) to debate the finer points of Christology, with Warren himself, of course, as the arbiter. Politicized religion is also the sheet anchor of the culture wars. But how did the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs – economic royalism, militarism and culture wars cum fundamentalism – come completely to displace an erstwhile civilized Eisenhower Republicanism?

It is my view that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism (which is a subset of the decline of rational problem solving in America) may have been the key ingredient of the takeover of the Republican Party. For politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes – at least in the minds of followers – all three of the GOP’s main tenets.

Televangelists have long espoused the health-and-wealth/name-it-and-claim it gospel. If you are wealthy, it is a sign of God’s favor. If not, too bad! But don’t forget to tithe in any case. This rationale may explain why some economically downscale whites defend the prerogatives of billionaires.

The GOP’s fascination with war is also connected with the fundamentalist mindset. The Old Testament abounds in tales of slaughter – God ordering the killing of the Midianite male infants and enslavement of the balance of the population, the divinely-inspired genocide of the Canaanites, the slaying of various miscreants with the jawbone of an ass – and since American religious fundamentalist seem to prefer the Old Testament to the New (particularly that portion of the New Testament known as the Sermon on the Mount), it is but a short step to approving war as a divinely inspired mission. This sort of thinking has led, inexorably, to such phenomena as Jerry Falwell once writing that God is Pro-War.

It is the apocalyptic frame of reference of fundamentalists, their belief in an imminent Armageddon, that psychologically conditions them to steer this country into conflict, not only on foreign fields (some evangelicals thought Saddam was the Antichrist and therefore a suitable target for cruise missiles), but also in the realm of domestic political controversy. It is hardly surprising that the most adamant proponent of the view that there was no debt ceiling problem was Michele Bachmann, the darling of the fundamentalist right. What does it matter, anyway, if the country defaults? – we shall presently abide in the bosom of the Lord.

Some liberal writers have opined that the different socio-economic perspectives separating the “business” wing of the GOP and the religious right make it an unstable coalition that could crack. I am not so sure. There is no fundamental disagreement on which direction the two factions want to take the country, merely how far in that direction they want to take it. The plutocrats would drag us back to the Gilded Age, the theocrats to the Salem witch trials. In any case, those consummate plutocrats, the Koch brothers, are pumping large sums of money into Michele Bachman’s presidential campaign, so one ought not make too much of a potential plutocrat-theocrat split.

Thus, the modern GOP; it hardly seems conceivable that a Republican could have written the following:

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” (That was President Eisenhower, writing to his brother Edgar in 1954.)

It is this broad and ever-widening gulf between the traditional Republicanism of an Eisenhower and the quasi-totalitarian cult of a Michele Bachmann that impelled my departure from Capitol Hill. It is not in my pragmatic nature to make a heroic gesture of self-immolation, or to make lurid revelations of personal martyrdom in the manner of David Brock. And I will leave a more detailed dissection of failed Republican economic policies to my fellow apostate Bruce Bartlett.

I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country’s future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and “shareholder value,” the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP’s decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.

If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren’t after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté.[5] They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be “forced” to make “hard choices” – and that doesn’t mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked.

During the week that this piece was written, the debt ceiling fiasco reached its conclusion. The economy was already weak, but the GOP’s disgraceful game of chicken roiled the markets even further. Foreigners could hardly believe it: Americans’ own crazy political actions were destabilizing the safe-haven status of the dollar. Accordingly, during that same week, over one trillion dollars worth of assets evaporated on financial markets. Russia and China have stepped up their advocating that the dollar be replaced as the global reserve currency – a move as consequential and disastrous for US interests as any that can be imagined.

If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America’s status as the world’s leading power.


[1] I am not exaggerating for effect. A law passed in 2010 by the Arizona legislature mandating arrest and incarceration of suspected illegal aliens was actually drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative business front group that drafts “model” legislation on behalf of its corporate sponsors. The draft legislation in question was written for the private prison lobby, which sensed a growth opportunity in imprisoning more people.

[2] I am not a supporter of Obama and object to a number of his foreign and domestic policies. But when he took office amid the greatest financial collapse in 80 years, I wanted him to succeed, so that the country I served did not fail. But already in 2009, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, declared that his greatest legislative priority was – jobs for Americans? Rescuing the financial system? Solving the housing collapse? – no, none of those things. His top priority was to ensure that Obama should be a one-term president. Evidently Senator McConnell hates Obama more than he loves his country. Note that the mainstream media have lately been hailing McConnell as “the adult in the room,” presumably because he is less visibly unstable than the Tea Party freshmen

[3] This is not a venue for immigrant bashing. It remains a fact that outsourcing jobs overseas, while insourcing sub-minimum wage immigrant labor, will exert downward pressure on US wages. The consequence will be popular anger, and failure to address that anger will result in a downward wage spiral and a breech of the social compact, not to mention a rise in nativism and other reactionary impulses. It does no good to claim that these economic consequences are an inevitable result of globalization; Germany has somehow managed to maintain a high-wage economy and a vigorous industrial base.

[4] The cowardice is not merely political. During the past ten years, I have observed that Democrats are actually growing afraid of Republicans. In a quirky and flawed, but insightful, little book, “Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred,” John Lukacs concludes that the left fears, the right hates.

[5] The GOP cult of Ayn Rand is both revealing and mystifying. On the one hand, Rand’s tough guy, every-man-for-himself posturing is a natural fit because it puts a philosophical gloss on the latent sociopathy so prevalent among the hard right. On the other, Rand exclaimed at every opportunity that she was a militant atheist who felt nothing but contempt for Christianity. Apparently, the ignorance of most fundamentalist “values voters” means that GOP candidates who enthuse over Rand at the same time they thump their Bibles never have to explain this stark contradiction. And I imagine a Democratic officeholder would have a harder time explaining why he named his offspring “Marx” than a GOP incumbent would in rationalizing naming his kid “Rand.”

by Mike Lofgren, in a TruthOut repost under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.


51 Responses to Must-Read Tell All: “Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult”

  1. Peter Mizla says:

    Lots of data here.

    Going to the Gym this morning saw a white man, in a beat up 10 year old Ford Taurus station wagon- well hell I drive a 9 year old Mazda

    what interested me was the music I heard- ‘Pinko Communist Fags’


    I am in eastern CT a fairly liberal area- but we have our reactionaries here as well.

    Was he a ‘Low information’ voter? Probably. Well there are plenty of those- everywhere.

    Climate Progress allows some interesting views to be expressed. But our views are still a small minority.

    We as a culture will reach the ‘perfect storm’- there is nothing I see at this point that will prevent this country from imploding.

    in the 19th century it was slavery

    in the 20th century it was race & sexual orientation.

    This century it will be climate change- then all the prejudices of race, religion and sexual orientation will be forgotten.

  2. petronelle says:

    Just awesome! A word I rarely use. But, is anyone (any Dem) listening?

  3. Lionel A says:

    As an outsider I have seen this develop, I read widely not just on climate change. Also there are clear signs of voter apathy over here in the UK which will no doubt have been exacerbated by the shenanigans of the so called Conservative-Liberal coalition.

    The little man gets screwed every which way and sees no way for redress such as when companies involved in Health Care PFIs (Private-Finance Intitiative) can shed staff and close wards, supply sub-standard food and then squirrel away their ill-gotten in Channel Islands (Guernsey) tax havens.

    The paragraph from the excellent article quoted below could be easily reworded to apply to the UK

    Another chestnut is that millionaires and billionaires are “job creators.” US corporations have just had their most profitable quarters in history; Apple, for one, is sitting on $76 billion in cash, more than the GDP of most countries. So, where are the jobs?

    As another example of GOP Scrouge like attitudes take the example of those employed by Walmart and as explained at:

    Crooks and Liars – Taxpayers Should Stop Subsidizing Walmart

    Ms. Green told the crowded church how in her tenure with Walmart, she’s received two raises and is now a manager. She makes nine dollars an hour (one dollar above the laughably-low California minimum wage). She pulled from her pocket three cards she claimed most Walmart employees at her store have: a 10 percent Walmart employee discount card, her employee ID and her EBT card (what used to be called food stamps).

    She relayed that 80 percent of her store is on food stamps. I’d argue one is too many.


    Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, testified in 2005 to the Minnesota Senate. She stated if we eliminated the (laughably low) minimum wage, we could wipe out unemployment. Yes, instead of paying one person eight dollars an hour which makes him eligible for food stamps and (in some cases) Medicaid – let’s pay eight people one dollar an hour and they can be eligible for food stamps, Medicaid AND General Assistance. Basically, allow the government to take care of the work force so private industry can have the profit. This is corporate welfare. This is also corporate socialism. The government covers what Walmart gets away with not covering.

    To those who enjoy Walmart’s ample profits – it’s welfare check money laundering. To those who tout “free market” principles, that’s not one of them.

    Bachmann, who hopped on the tea party bandwagon when it first rolled out on socialized roads, has decried the government even though her family farm and husband’s clinic have received government money. Bachmann denied this money has benefited her personally; her financial disclosure forms completely contradict that statement.

    The fact that Walmart’s slaves employees get a store discount card kinda reminds me of the days of railway building where the navies employed received pay in ‘company money’ which could only be spent at ‘company owned’ shops for the supplies to keep their families going, supplies at a considerable mark-up in price, after all employees couldn’t use their ‘money’ anywhere else.

    It would seem also that Walmart are averse to employing enough staff to properly man the check-outs.

    Scrouge would have been in his element in Walmart management.

  4. Brewster says:

    A Tremendous Article.

    Any Ideas how to get the people who most need to read it to do so?

  5. Ernest says:

    How does one get it on the NYT editorial section? (I doubt the WSJ would pick it up.)

  6. Ernest says:

    Sorry, I meant the opinion section.

  7. John McCormick says:

    Mike, that is what we dems seem to lack the most…your ability to message. Superb writing and reasoning.

    From my perspective and having observed first hand, as an NGO environmental lobbyist, Congressional legislators are not smart enough to have figured out this game plan and have not enjoyed enough tenure to implement it by themselves.

    Wealthy interests have put this plan together to eliminate government, even governance, as the certain means to so reducing tax levels that they would mirror average sales taxes. I put the Koch bros in that cult of executioners but also the legion of CEOs who pull the strings on their legislator puppets.

    As you so aptly stated:

    “The United States has nearly the lowest voter participation among Western democracies; this, again, is a consequence of the decline of trust in government institutions – if government is a racket and both parties are the same, why vote? And if the uninvolved middle declines to vote, it increases the electoral clout of a minority that is constantly being whipped into a lather by three hours daily of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. There were only 44 million Republican voters in the 2010 mid-term elections, but they effectively canceled the political results of the election of President Obama by 69 million voters.” it all begins with the polling booth.

    Nothing gives the kleptocrat class more advantages than to be able to control who votes and how they vote. This includes their buying the Diebold technology as a certainty that the voting outcome is as they planned it.

    Meanwhile, we pre-and baby boomers muddle along as if we are all characters in a Kurt Vonnegat novel. Never knowing how we are actually being shafted but suspecting it nonetheless. Hopeless we are because we do not have honest leaders to galvanize the younger generation to take back THEIR country before they too become numbed serfs.

    Corporations are deemed ‘persons’ by the Supreme Court because they, to a large degree, act entirely in their self interest, just as do the Koch bros and even Jeff Imemelt.

    We get along to go along. They get what they want.

    Senator Sanders are you listening?

    John McCormick

  8. John Mason says:

    It’s an extraordinary thing, you know, looking in at America from the opposite side of the Atlantic. Now, like the overwhelming majority of NW Europeans, some bits of U.S. politics leave me scratching my head. But one thing occurs to me, which is that the name of conservatism has been smeared by the current GOP.

    There is nothing wrong with conservatism in the context of “it it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. That might well be described as “conservative with a small c”. It is, however, the exact opposite of what the GOP is dominated by right now, which seems to be a contest of ways to utterly fuck things up even more.

    Are there sensible, ordinary conservatives left over there? If so, you guys need to reclaim your party. OP it may be, but G it ain’t any more. It’s been taken off you. Its manifesto these days could well have been written by Sauron!

    Cheers – John

  9. Frank Turkovich says:

    Fantastic article.

    To sum up:
    Republicans (those that are not naive) are evil.

    Democrats are incompetent.

    I fear for our country. Maybe it will take riots like England, demonstrations like Israel to wake people up.

    The media are also incompetent. Real reporting is rare, facts are not checked, Republican soundbites go unchallenged.

    It will take a competent, characteristic leader (Obama is not) to get us out of this mess.

  10. dick smith says:

    This is powerful–considering the source. I sincerely hope many of the 150-plus folks who commented on your weekend question (should we support Obama?) rethink their decision to abandon him. The alternative to Obama is stark–and frighteningly broad.

  11. james corbett says:

    The most important of Mr. Lofgren’s observations is that the Democrats “fear” and the Republicans “hate.” There is strength in “hate” and weakness in “fear.” Voters, given a choice will always vote for strength over weakness. The Democrats face a dilemma of perception. One has only to look at Bush’s two elections to understand Republican tactics. Bush was “strong,” Gore or Kerry “weak” (and French). Obama is a “college professor,” Perry is a “tough guy.” The entire dynamic boils down to one thing, the Democrats must demonstrate strength, even if it means short term political chaos. Mr. Lofgren refers to the Republican “hostage” strategy. There is only one response that works with hostage takers, the “dead hostage tactic,” in which negotiators assume the hostage is dead so they can act without concern for the consequences. Dems will lose every time,until the recognize a “dead hostage” provides no negotiating advantage and often begets sympathy from observers.

  12. james corbett says:

    I should also note, that while Obama is clearly a better choice than any Republican currently running (save, perhaps Huntsman), by supporting a candidate perceived as “weak,” we play into the strength of the Republican narrative. A fire-breathing liberal who gained the nomination and then moved to the center for the general election is all that will counter the reactionary right candidate who moves to the center for the general election. The Rove strategy works-make sure everyone in your base is enthusiastic and votes. Obama has done the opposite.

  13. Great to see a Republican speak out against the dangerous-to-America tactics of the modern GOP. Thank you Mr Lofgren.

    Pathetic that a Republican can do a far better job than most Democrats at defining and defending the basic American values that the modern GOP are attacking.

    Required: more Republicans that care about the future of our great nation step forward like Mr Lofgren has done before it is too late. There is no honour is aiding the destruction of American traditions and core strengths by passively giving support for modern GOP scorched earth tactics by being a concerned but silent Republican.

  14. CTG says:

    It’s so sad watching the decline and fall of your once great country

  15. Celia Schorr says:

    Absolutely brilliant article. This is the most lucid analysis I’ve read on the current state of our politics. Lofgren nails the description of (and reasons behind) current Republican tactics and strategies and the incompetence of Democratic attempts to respond. The Obama administration should hire him to help with communications and congressional strategy.

  16. Rabid Doomsayer says:

    This is scary. I know I have been quoting George Carlin “The owners of this country” and suspected the GOP’s hatred of Obama was “His policy of being black”,but Lofgren’s article lays it out so clearly.

    If the general population are broke they will not need the XL pipeline oil or Dixie cups. Do not the rich realise they will reduce their own fortunes as well in the end. What use being a multi billionaire, if there is a hundred thousand dollars to the Renminbi

  17. BBHY says:

    I could not disagree more. The present Republican Party is a dangerous cancer attacking our country, and voting Democratic is the equivalent of taking an aspirin.

    Worse than doing nothing, since it distracts from the need to find a real cure, meanwhile the disease metastasizes.

  18. Jeffrey Davis says:

    The ultimate, avowed end of the current Republican agenda: bankrupt the country in order to end the Welfare State. The recent debt ceiling move was just one step in trying to get by economic means what they cannot get by electoral or legislative means.

    Lofgren’s remarks, as damning as they are, pull their punches. The modern GOP is treasonous.

  19. CW says:

    I agree, the definition of “conservative” has adopted a new meaning over time in the US. They’re mostly corporate socialists now.

    Although, I was also really glad to see the phrase “latent sociopathy” in the footnotes and “lunatics” up front. To be corporate shills, and to take some of their positions, you have to be at least a little sociopathic.

  20. Ernest says:

    A very delicious and rich read.

    My only complaint, if one were disseminate to the “low information”, or actually “time crunched” voter is that it is much too long a read. (Also, a bit on the high brow side, and may border on “preaching to the choir”.)

    We need some good “sound bites”. Without even having to manufacture them, we can go to the source. Examples, “Starve the Beast” (Karl Rove). (Then proceed to explain, if asked about GOP strategy.) “Corporations are people, my friend” (Mitt Romney). (If a debate ensues about how the money in corporations actually go to people, yes, lets look at the people, compensation, and the institution, and keep the issue alive as the meta message as the specifics are being debated.) We need succinct starter messages as well as an efficient way to frame the issues.

  21. John McCormick says:

    RE # 14

    That’s the problem you have…too long…too pointy headed. How about Shakespeare.. a good read.. too long..worth the time…yes?

    Here’s a sound bite…”Rethugicans eat their young”.

    Forgive my crass response. I’m angry with what I have read and I want Mike to go viral!!!!

  22. Ernest says:

    I do also. If people can read through the penetrating analysis, all the better.

  23. JimmyB says:

    Spoke like an true Republican plant dressed in progressive clothing.

    Anything to score a few votes.

  24. otter17 says:

    Wow, I just don’t know what to think after just reading part of that. I’ll have to come back to it later.

  25. David B. Benson says:

    Off-topic, I suppose but “The insurance company Munich Re said in the first six months of the year there were 98 natural disasters in the US, about double the average of the 1990s.”
    [h/t J. Bowers]

  26. PeterW says:

    This is an absolutely stunning commentary by Mike Lofgren. If it gets traction, look for the Republican attack machine to go after him the same way they went after David Frum.

  27. Susan says:

    Dear Mr Lofgren: so what do we do about it!?

    I get frustrated by these reflective pieces on the apparent manifest takeover of this extreme conservativism – would the author really bother to write it if he believed it inevitable? How can we turn back the tide??

  28. David B. Benson says:

    Help convince lotsa people to vote progressive.

  29. Zan says:

    Yup! Very good piece.

  30. Jeffrey Davis says:

    So, think about this. I’ve been re-reading the great story of the collapse of the credit market, The Big Short by Michael Lewis. In it there’s a passage by one of the people who foresaw the Wall St. collapse where he says, “I said to my mother, ‘I think we might be facing the end of democratic capitalism. […] She said, ‘Oh, Charlie,’ and seriously suggested I go on lithium.” Think of this. Just recently, S&P, a crudely political ratings agency, decided to go to war on the government of the United States (which has a printing press for money and the obligation to pay its debts) by downgrading American Treasury bills in an obvious attempt to create financial chaos. (S&P kept their ratings of sub-prime mortgage bonds at AAA. The poor have no access to printing presses for money.)

    The horrible thing is that Obama actually bargained with the GOP schmucks in Congress. So, lithium? no lithium?

  31. Ziyu says:

    Terms to use:
    Republican fascists
    Regulation->Pollution prevention
    Deregulation->free for all shoot out
    Oil->Toxic explosives
    Nat Gas-> Gasified corpses
    Coal-> Concentrated junk
    Banks->Financial robbers
    Renewable energy-> cleanergy
    Religious Right-> Christian Jihadists OR Anti-Christ Crusaders
    Subsidies/tax breaks-> corporate welfare
    Entitlements->Payroll returns
    Big business-> pollutocrats
    Unions/labor->Worker support groups

    These things are very important, but above all, the Dems must learn to be like the Tea Party and always negotiate with nothing to lose and assume the hostage is dead. And NEVER EVER take responsibility for anything. People don’t take it as leadership. They see it as blame.

  32. Lewis Cleverdon says:

    I doubt we’ll ever read a more succinct and definitive account of the subversion of the Republican Party, let alone one by so authoritative a source as Lofgren, who details the progress of that subversion through the decades as the reactionaries’ long game has unfolded. With Perry now getting poised to reverse the American peoples’ hard-won economic, social and ecological gains of the last eighty years, the culmination of that long erosion of the US democratic process is approaching.

    Yet this is not simply a threat to America but to all nations, given our material interdependence and, in particular, the ongoing intensification of global climate destabilization – to which there is no solution without US co-operation. For many years the right wing’s goal in its perverse blocking any action on AGW has seemed a puzzle to me, for the damage to which delay is committing us would not only serve the nationalists’ goal of potentially destabilizing China’s bid for global leadership, it would also predictably disrupt western corporations’ operations and profitability.


    The coming US election is thus a uniquely critical event – As Lofgren confirms, Obama’s policy of a futile appeasement of the right in vain hopes of wooing the centre ground reflects both the right’s herding and its intention of regaining the presidency. Had he refused to resort to appeasement, and made the progressive case clearly and repeatedly, he might or might not have achieved a lot more, but he would not have taken on the mantle of incompetent loser that each act of appeasement has been building around him. Being fully committed to courting the centre and ignoring his base he cannot now afford to switch tracks – and there are still fourteen months before the election for his strategy’s weaknesses to further discourage support.

    For instance, later today the US stock market is going to fall quite badly, owing to last week’s lousy US employment data and to Monday’s Labour Day closing the exchange – while major European markets fell by 3.6% to 5.2%. The expectation of renewed US recession, and its impacts, is driving those falls, with drastic implications for the banking sector and the economic system. The prospect of the American voter experiencing notably better economic conditions before the election is thus fading by the day.

    It may be that the graph of known future global oil supply – released by Dr Chu’s DOE in March ’09 – describes the critical knock to Obama’s prospects of re-election. (If anyone can link to Joe’s fine account of it, please do so). It shows all-sources global production falling away from normal global demand growth during 2012 (owing to new sources not keeping ahead of the accelerating depletion of old ones) and the consumption the ~1.0 million barrels/day of ‘market cushion’, whose loss spiked the global oil price in 2008. On the plus side the resulting recession has cut western demand somewhat, but, global demand is still enough for very high benchmark prices of $84/WTI and $109/Brent. On the minus side the DOE’s graph took no account of the annually rising fraction of global production that is being retained to meet rising demand in producers nations, thus cutting the fraction of global supply available for overseas trade. On balance, as far as my studies show, a severe oil-price spike is highly likely by Q3 2012, with rather neat timing for the election.

    Alongside the probability of Obama losing the presidency to Perry there is also that of his losing the senate to tea-baggers, giving the GOP a clean sweep. However, the still greater problem is that, were he somehow to win, funding his all-out election campaign would leave him yet more compromised with corporate funding while struggling with economic decline, and so less able to address the critically urgent and economically fundamental issue of climate destabilization.

    Thus win or lose, we simply cannot afford an Obama candidacy in the coming election. The constitutional option of replacing him via a successful primary challenge with a person well able to confront the puppet-GOP, and to galvanize both young people and their elders with the commonsense and passion of progressive goals – is thus to my mind a necessity, not an option.

    This is a major challenge to take on, but it is worth noting that we’ve been waiting for exactly the present rare convergence of interests to occur for around four decades – Alongside the ecological constituency (a fraction of which visits CP) there are also both the social and enterprise constituencies who now face the collapse of critical conditions for their well-being. I suggest that it is the combination of votes from these three constituencies that makes feasible the common goal of putting a serious person in the White House. Given the growing power of the conspiracy that Lofgren describes so clearly, it seems we are unlikely to get a better chance to do so.



  33. Lewis Cleverdon says:

    Perhaps a person can be found who could persuade him to read the article, either on camera or with a relevant set of video clips, with a view to putting it on U Tube ?

    Emailing Joe’s intro and the link to Joe’s post to every Dem student activist would be another sweet step.



  34. Greg says:

    Simply voting won’t do it.

    The media give Republican craziness a free pass because they get hammered by the Republican base if they ever dare to challenge it. For a commentator, criticism of the right brings a personal cost. Criticism of the left does not. So the right gets a free pass and the left gets criticized.

    What you need to do is make it just as costly for the media to give right-wing craziness a free pass as it is for them to critique it.

    Whenever media commentators don’t call out Republican craziness, whenever they don’t name and shame, write to the media organisation and the commentator and the commentator’s boss and complain. Get angry. Threaten to withdraw your business from advertisers. Tell them you want commentators who can tell when public figures are saying crazy things, and who can call it like it is.

    If you and tens of thousands of others can make it costly for the media to give craziness a free pass, every time it happens, for years, you can turn back the tide.

    Are you up for it?

  35. Kristopher L says:

    One problem I see is that the right will simply dismiss the entire article without even reading it. The brainwashing is embedded too deep.

  36. bill green says:

    why is this on CP? — it is very far off the subject of climate change.

    While CP is progressive, this seems extremely partisan, and factually questionable. For example, in the description of this summer’s fiasco with the Federal Aviation Administration, it is arguably the Democrats in the Senate who were willing to shut down the FAA, since they ultimately passed the House version of the extender bill that they could have simply passed earlier to avoid the shutdown.

    Please, keep the BS out of CP in the future.


    [JR: This is a seminal piece, considering the source, and has direct relevance to all those who want to understand the climate and energy situation we will find ourselves in the for the 1st feasible future. As for you version of the FAA events, I’ll just say, not quite. But in any case, the fact that this post has proven incredibly popular, one of the most widely read posts of the last week on CP, with a huge number of retweets, makes clear the large numbers of people do not agree with you.]

  37. Berbalang says:

    This was very powerful reading and has given me a lot to think about. However, they are making a big mistake by trying to use Teabaggers as a means to their goals. One only has to read the work of Carlo Maria Cipolla to see why their plans are going to go horribly wrong. (They are ignoring an important corollary to Rule 5)

  38. thanes says:

    One thing about the payroll taxes that drives me nuts- yes, the Right ignores payroll taxes when they speak of tax burdens, BUT- when they talk about the debt-ceiling and long-term government spending, virtually ALL of the liabilities are Medicare, Medicaid, a whiff of Social Security, which is all, you guessed it, based on PAYROLL TAXES!
    You’d think the media could point that out. Once, maybe. Or all the time.

  39. This great article lays out the basics in a clear, comprehensible style with just the right amount of detail to preempt conflation. We may not have had 30 years of one-party rule, but we have had 30 years of business-driven ideology and 30 years of rewriting history with a red pen. No one under 45 can remember Gerald Ford well, let alone Eisenhower, and what they know about earlier history has been reframed. Even if we throw out teh crazee, the road back from social Darwinism to “a rising tide lifts all boats” is a much longer journey.

    Re messaging, George Lakoff has been writing for years about why GOP messaging is effective and how progressives can be more effective with messaging. If you want to get a good grounding in framing and idiom, check him out.

  40. Also


  41. Sasparilla says:

    Wow, what an article by that long term Republican staffer, as you said Joe, a seminal piece. Thank you for putting it up.

    Seeing this from one of the inner operatives of the GOP side from the House and Senate for decades is truly depressing (it confirms much of what has been talked about but also that things aren’t poised to stop getting worse from them).

    While the Dems don’t have the craziness trajectory, they are nearly as bought off (as the last 3 years have shown).

    I’d assumed these forces we’d seen come to the fore of the GOP would rip the Republican party apart, however as Lofgren points out they are often complimentary for the most part and self reinforcing – very disheartening when looking to the medium term future.

    The question for 2012, at this point, isn’t whether the Dems will get the house back – its whether the Dems will loose the Senate and Presidency and put this radically different (from even Bush Jr’s time) party in control.

  42. Sasparilla says:

    Very true, I’m sure he is already persona non grata just for writing this.

  43. Sasparilla says:

    In answer to your question at the end I think you can look at the financial collapse of 2008. Many of the key players in that fiasco knew it would end up crashing, but the short term gains (what was good for them short term) far outweighed those considerations.

    Works the same for the folks you are talking about, as long as they get more in the mean time – it won’t matter if they slowly send the overall country over the side, they’ll be good (and even better protected than the banks in 2008). JMHO…

  44. Craig says:

    I agree very well written. I have no qualms with bashing the Democrats for cowardice and or corporate butt kissing but the current GOP is well simply Bat Sh*t crazy and has been for more than a decade. I simply don’t see it changing and will probably suceed as the “low information voter” will no doubt fall for the tripe coming out of the GOP’s mouth.

  45. awhite says:

    If you listen carefully, the growing middle classes of India and China are being courted by big corporations. A billion new-money customers! So what if the American middle class vanishes.

  46. Harry Middlemas says:

    Wow, just wow!

    May have to rethink what to do about 2012.

    This needs to be spread far and wide.

  47. Jim Groom says:

    Up until just a few years ago I found that the far left amused me and the far right scared the hell out of me. Now I find both freightening indeed. The right is just batshit nuts and the left is lacking guts and vision. The GOP always had ideas, albeit bad ones, and today the left is willing to take those bad ideas and make them worse. I would sure like to find someone who had some answers and this article is certainly a good start.

  48. Teri says:

    I can’t even describe what I’m feeling having read this. Scared! And then hopeless, and more scared about feeling hopeless.
    But, then, there will be those in power who are good people, good Americans, who will read this and may be enlightened enough to want to change it. That, in the end is it. We have to hope.

  49. John McCormick says:

    Teri, there are good and important people, good Americans who could begin to change this. Who among us greens and believers are working on those people to get them to step up.

    We had four years of Eileen Claussen at PEW jawboning with Exxon and Duke Power, about a climate change agreement. Got us nowhere.

    So, why haven’t our green leaders come up with a strategy and campaign to get those good and important Americans to get in front of the camera and shout to all of us that the house is on fire. We wait and watch the curtain coming down.

  50. bSpittle says:

    The quote below is what I worry about. Republicans winning while ____ing up the counttry and blaming democrats.

    “If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America’s status as the world’s leading power.”

  51. PeterGrfx says:

    Just one suggestion: Whenever you can, use the word “poison” instead of, or, if you must, in conjunction with, “pollution” — as in: “Mountaintop removal poisons the water we drink and the air we breathe.”