For years, people have been warning that the Republican Party was at risk of ceasing to continue, that it had effectively yielded it's power to Donald Trump, and that the insanity of Cult 45 had forced the GOP to be an actual political party. Indeed, it is more like a cult these days, complete with a leader telling the followers that everyone else is lying, and that he is the only source of truth in the world.
Imagine looking to Donald Trump, of all people, as the sole source of truth in the world. I can hardly imagine a sadder, more depressing reality than that. Yet, it seems to be the entirely voluntary reality that tens of millions of Americans have opted for.
And the country is far worse off for it.
Now let me confess to something that probably comes as no surprise to anyone: I never was a Republican. That is something that I cannot say about the Democrats, despite my present disgust for them as well. The Republicans, however, pretty much always disgusted me.
The Republicans have turned off many people in recent years. But many people seem to have the problem that I had back in my early adulthood. Indeed, when I was fresh out of high school and about to vote in my first election, I joined the Young Democrats, and did so enthusiastically, at that. I believed! But after one meeting, which was extremely short to the point of non-existence in terms of ideas, and almost exclusively focused on strategy and how to win, win, win, my enthusiasm wavered. Not a little, but entirely. My illusion of the world, and that however flawed the world might appear, it was nevertheless progressing and getting better, was pretty much shattering by that point.
It did not end all at once, admittedly. I had not initially been enthusiastic about Bill Clinton. He was not my first choice in the Democratic primary, nor my second, or even my third. I supported Tom Harkin at first, then Paul Tsongas, and finally, Jerry Brown. But once it became clear that Clinton was the nominee, I supported him, albeit reluctantly. I even flirted with supporting Ross Perot for a while, so little did I think of Clinton. Then came Perot dropping out, and then the Democratic National Convention, which was capped by Clinton's acceptance speech. It was a truly great speech, seeming to redefine and energize the Democrats, who had grown too used to losing and always being second behind the Republicans for 12 years up to that point. Suddenly, I enthusiastically supported Clinton, wondering how I could not have seen how good, how impressive he was! He actually reminded me of John F. Kennedy for a while there! That would not last particularly long, but there were admittedly times when that faith and hope came back. Mostly, it was because, despite everything, Clinton was a solid public speaker. He could give great speeches, and make what he did sound truly amazing. You almost wondered how you could not have seen it all, and how he was at the center of these amazing improvements in the country that you just somehow had not seen.
Even as late as the late summer of 1996, I was enraptured once again by Bill Clinton. Again, it came with his acceptance speech, this time at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, and as the incumbent. He set the record straight, and I wondered how I could not have seen just how amazing his first four years in office had actually been! Only later, once the sobering reality of mediocre results clashed with those amazing and stirring words and promise, did it become obvious that Clinton was a master of words, but actually delivered little. One example of this was his claim to have paid more than half the national debt. It sounded great! And technically, I guess you could say that it was true, as well. At least if you believe that you paid off a credit card by getting a loan, or another credit card, and transferring those balances onto the new debt. You still owe the same amount, it just shifted from one to another. That was how Clinton did things. He gave wonderful speeches that sounded absolutely wonderful. But the reality, once you dug just a little deeper, was hardly anywhere near as inspiring as he had initially made it sound.
Another example was his environmental record. Oh, his environmental record sounds wonderful when presented under a certain light and with no questions asked, and he himself always was skillful at making it sound truly wonderful. But when you find out that, in fact, a huge portion of these wonderful environmental actions took place in the last 72 hours of his administration - that is to say, in the final three days of a presidency that lasted eight years - knowing full well that his successor would soon take over and reverse these policies, it lacked any real substance. It was a political gimmick. A skillful one, maybe even a masterful one, at that. It inflates the official record on Clinton, making him look far more noble and progressive and selfless than he actually was, while also casting Bush, the man who would succeed him, as a convenient goat. But again, it is not real. That, to me, defined Clinton's presidency. It also pretty much defined the presidency of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as well. More style over substance. Good speeches and symbolic actions, but lacking teeth in actually seriously improving the lives of Americans.
To me, that was insanity. And apparently, I was not the only one who thought so. By the year 2000, Ralph Nader garnered some attention to his presidential campaign, which was considered a protest vote against the two party system. Yes, I was one who supported Nader, and by then, was sick and tired of both the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats, who lost that election (well, not really, but the end result was a Bush presidency nevertheless), blamed Nader, and people like me. Maybe they should have looked closer at why we were tired of them, the mainstream Democrats, for lionizing Clinton, as they have done to Obama since. As they are presently doing with Biden, as well.
Now, I did not move away from the Democrats in order to get closer to Republicans. To me, the GOP has always been more disgusting and despicable, and even more full of crap than the Democrats, even including Clinton. They claim to be the party of Christian values, but they praised a man who was truly awful to begin this new century. George W. Bush had numerous corporate scandals on his hand, and nearly ran the entire economy to the ground. Also, he aggressively pined for war in Iraq, even as we were already at war in Afghanistan, in response to the September 11th attacks. Remember, they absolutely claimed to be sure, without a shadow of a doubt, that Saddam Hussein has a huge arsenal of "Weapons of Mass Destruction," or WMD's. Saddam was mentioned so often in the same sentence as terrorism and 9/11, and they also clearly implied that he almost had nuclear weapons and spoke of a mushroom cloud over American skies, that most Americans were convinced. This was, to me, criminal, and indeed, the Bush administration are, to a one, war criminals in my view. How could Americans have been so dumb as to believe that this man, Saddam, posed such an immediate threat, yet also still believe that he could and would be removed from office in six days or six weeks, at most? How could a man so easily defeated in war 12 years earlier, and who had been largely disarmed, suddenly be the leader of a new superpower (that was how this new version of Iraq sounded to my ears), with 45-minute response time, and an active nuclear program? And how could they allow the Bush administration to pine aggressively for an unjustified, unprovoked war with Iraq, and have absolutely no exit strategy?
The country was divided, and the war grew increasingly unpopular. But Republicans remained in Bush's camp solidly. Despite his mishandling and bumbling of the presidency for four years, he was rewarded with a second term in office. Other prominent Republicans during this time included Tom DeLay, who was the epitome of a truly disgusting, slick politician if there ever was one, and Dennis Hastert. Both are convicted of truly awful crimes. Since then, the GOP has graced us with other wonderful politicians, such as Rick Perry, Rick Scott (who became the first to censor the term and idea of global warming while serving as Florida Governor, an action that later on, Trump would follow), Greg Abbott, Marco Rubio, Rick DeSantis, and Ted Cruz, just to name a few of the slimier ones. But of course, the one man, who actually was not a Republican for a very long time, but came to lead and ultimately has come to define the GOP, is Donald Trump. I hardly need to speak more about his actions, or what he and his cult following actually represent.
This is where the Republicans, who long have flirted with authoritarian tendencies (likely dating back to the days of Nixon), have now largely done away with any pretense of being in favor of American democracy. They now outright support Trump's claims that the 2020 election, which Trump lost in a landslide, was skewed by "massive voter fraud." Trump claims to have all sorts of proof, but he never actually releases the specifics. Remember, he declared victory on election night, even though it is not up to him. He demanded recounts in some states, and requested to stop the count in other states. He contested the results in every way possible. He had over 60 cases in court, where his lawyers could and perhaps should have revealed this irrefutable proof of massive voter fraud. Instead, his lawyers made a point of being clear that they were NOT arguing a case for massive voter fraud. They instead focused on voting irregularities, which largely would not have reversed the reelection results of a single state. He outright lost all but one of those cases, and in numerous cases, he lost those cases with presiding judges that he himself appointed.
Despite all of this, Republicans largely still seem to support him, with some notable exceptions. One of them is happening right now, with Ben Sasse. And Sasse's case is, in fact, typical. He is going away, thus entrenching Trump's hold on power over Republicans. Here, according to an Alternet article by Alex Henderson, is a summary of the interparty challenges to Trump that have largely fallen by the wayside, without exception:
“Ben Sasse is retiring from the Senate at the youthful age of 50,” Longwell writes. “We know why. Politicians who thought they could wait out Trump now see the writing on the wall. The party’s over. For years, we watched the GOP defenestrations: Will Hurd, Jeff Flake, George W. Bush, the memory of John McCain, Paul Ryan, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and any other Republican who stood up to Donald Trump — or even just opposed Trump’s attempted coup. Some fell on their swords. Some were tossed aside involuntarily. The result was the same.”
Again, Republicans have long flirted with authoritarianism. My own suspicion is that the culture of narcissism and greed that they championed has spread so incredibly well - a testament to their ideological success - that they feel falsely entitled to bend everything, including American democracy itself, to their will. And in this, they have found their man in Donald Trump. In some ways, this is fitting. After all, trump embodies this spirit with his ruthlessness, his premature and nevertheless superficial and outrageously exaggerated claims of success, the tricks and gimmicks and other ways that he manipulates the system, in order to get his way. This is the attraction of Trump. And it is now the way of what once, however flawed, nevertheless used to be a legitimate political party, but now more closely resembles a pseudo-fascist cult.
Here is the link to the article I used in writing this particular blog entry:
'The party's over': GOP strategist warns that 'good Republicans' can’t defeat 'lunatics' in 2022’s GOP AlterNet By Alex Henderson of AlterNet, October 17, 2022:
https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/the-partys-over-good-republcans/
No comments:
Post a Comment