(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Views » January 22, 2012
It’s the Stupid Republicans, Stupid
Progressives shouldn’t be shy about mobilizing voters around singe-issue passions.
Take any single issue you care about the most. Things will get worse under a Republican president and Congress.
I have a love/hate relationship with Rolling Stone, which isn’t surprising given that I never was, and certainly am not now, part of the magazine’s desired demographic. On the one hand, nearly every woman who appears on the cover must be dressed like a stripper in the final stages of her act. By contrast, Jon Stewart, Steven Tyler and other men on the cover actually wear clothes. On the other hand, how could we have gotten through the final years of the Bush administration, not to mention the financial crisis, without the indispensible Matt Taibbi, or the political reporting of Tim Dickinson? In its in-depth articles about the environment, the war in Afghanistan, the Fox News echo chamber, and, of course, electoral politics, Rolling Stone publishes some of the liveliest and most outraged exposés in America.
Dickinson’s article “The GOP’s Crackpot Agenda” should be required reading for everyone. Unlike some of the overly circumspect – one might say timorous – coverage of the House Republicans and presidential aspirants, whose completely outrageous positions are reported with a straight face, Dickinson tells it like it is. What is their agenda? “Promote Dirty Jobs; Trash the Environment; Unleash Wall Street; Destroy the Safety Net; Wreck the Economy; Wage Endless War; Cut Taxes on the Rich; Attack Abortion Rights; and Bash Immigrants.” He left out one crucial item: “Wage War on Gays and Lesbians.”
Let’s focus first on the word “crackpot.” Various commentators have resorted to the word “sideshow” to characterize the truly bizarre parade of serial Republican front-runners who brandish their ignorance like Olympic medals and promote the most extremist, numbskull policies to be heard in years. But it was Elayne Rapping who really nailed it: In the age of reality TV, when the Jersey Shore cast unabashedly goes looking for the Vatican in Florence, the Kardashians stage a highly profitable charade of a wedding and stupidity, meanness and dissimulation are a centerpiece of entertainment; it’s how you get and sustain attention these days. If it works for the “Real Housewives” of wherever, why not for presidential aspirants? As Rapping noted, “Mistakes of fact, and ignorance of even the boldest headline news issues, have been displayed throughout, in many cases even creating short term bumps in their poll numbers.”
Yes, it was entertaining to watch Herman Cain wonder what or where Libya is and Rick Perry give a speech in which he appeared to have mainlined a cocktail of roofies and Robitussin. But the carnivalesque nature of the Republican debates and campaign can numb us to how dangerous these candidates are.
So the Dickinson piece, with its bold-faced laying out of issue after issue, got me thinking. In the past, Republicans have successfully used single-issue passions – homophobia, opposition to abortion, creationism – to mobilize particular voters in crucial districts. Maybe it’s time for progressives to do the same. Take any single issue you care about the most – the environment, gay rights, income inequality, reproductive freedom, judicial appointments, healthcare. Things will get worse under a Republican president and Congress. Of course, most of us care about all these issues. But to avoid the so-called “enthusiasm gap” of 2010 that brought us this crowd of obstructionist Neanderthals, activists and progressive PACs need to target people’s hot-button issues much more aggressively, especially given the titanic amount of money that will get poured into Republican coffers courtesy of the Citizens United decision.
There are plenty of voters disappointed by or indifferent to President Obama. But these same people may have strong feelings about the dangers of global warming (which Mitt Romney no longer knows the cause of), have a desperate need to preserve Social Security, have gay friends or relatives whose rights they are sick of seeing trampled, and so on. And they will vote on these issues if galvanized.
Even President Obama seems to be getting it. Despite the staggering number of people still out of work, this election year’s mantra should not be, “It’s the economy, stupid,” but, “It’s the Republican Congress, stupid.” Reports suggest that’s how Obama will campaign, which would be an overdue change. In the meantime, let’s tack Dickinson’s article up on our walls and strategize how to use single issues to keep fanatical bums out of office.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and an In These Times columnist. Her latest book is Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work is Done (2010).
SAVE 53% OFF
Reader Comments
It is a shame that In These Times publishes articles by Democratic Party apologists like Susan Douglas. When she writes, “there are plenty of voters disappointed by or indifferent to President Obama,” she illustrates the fundamental problem. The word “disappointed” is a code word that Obamabots and Democratic Party apologists use to try to sugar-coat the issue. I am no more “disappointed” by Obama’s assault on progressive values than I would be by a President who did the same egregious things but had an “R” rather than a “D” after his name.
When Obama assassinates American citizens or signs into law a bill authorizing the indefinite detention of Americans, is she “disappointed” or “indifferent”—or is she outraged? When Obama blocks the EPA from implementing a smog regulation, is she “disappointed” or “indifferent”—or is she outraged? When Obama launched drone attacks that kill civilians in the Middle East, is she “disappointed” or “indifferent”—or is she outraged?
The list goes on and on. The idea of being “disappointed” or “indifferent” is what you say when you are making excuses or finding a justification for looking the other way. Obama, the biggest recipient of Wall Street donations in Presidential campaign history, is the enemy, not the friend, of the left. Furthermore, Obama’s ability to suck the lifeblood out of leftist movements—as illustrated by the Heany and Rojas study a year ago that showed that Obama’s election killed the antiwar movement because of partisan loyalty trumping progressive values—illustrates the point that there would be a massive opposition in the streets to the President if he had an “R” after his name and were doing half the horrific things that Obama is doing. The very arguments that Douglas advances here for supporting Democrats is exhibit A of this kind of problem.
The beauty of OWS is that has thus far shown no willingness to be co-opted by the Democrats, who are essentially one of the two parties of the corporate ruling class. The ability of the Democrats to, as we say on the left, server as the graveyard of social movements, is illustrated by the way that its apologists (like Susan Douglas) will use words like “disappointed” or “indifferent” to justify continued support for one of the two corporate parties (or perhaps we should say, one of the two wings of the single corporate party) that govern this country. Perhaps Ms. Douglas shold ask herself what it is that Bill Daley did before he was Obama’s chief of staff, or what it is that Broderick Douglas was doing at Wall Street before he became a chief adviser in Obama’s re-election campaign.
What In These Times needs is more insightful, independent critiques of the existing political and economic status quo, not someone who defends it. No, I am not “disappointed” or “indifferent” to that status quo. I, for one, am outraged..
Posted by Mike V on Jan 23, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Some of the obstructionist Republicans were wearing 1000 buttons, to remind us that it has been three years since the Senate, with a Democrat majority, has passed a budget. Why have they not done that, do you suppose?
Posted by John McBride on Jan 25, 2012 at 8:55 PM
Since we are talking about congress…some interesting numbers worth examining. In December 2006, unemployment stood at 4.4%. The Democrats took control of the house and senate the following month. By the end of 2007, it stood at 5%. By December 2008, it stood at 7.3%. Obama took office the following month. By December 2009, it stood at 9.9%. By the November 2010 election, it was at 9.8%. GOP took over the House in January 2011. In December, 2011, it was 8.5%..............
Just sayin’
Posted by Paul M Winters on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:59 PM
What makes Ms. Douglas smarter than Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney? Romney is a successful businessman and former governor of Massachusetts. Gingrich is the author of multiple books and a former Speaker of the House when Congress last managed to balance a budget. Both men succeeded in highly competitive fields. In the view of Ms. Douglas, these real world accomplishments mean nothing. Real intelligence is measured by taking the correct pose.
So, for example, Republicans are for “dirty jobs.” Disregard the fact that 99% of the jobs in the world are “dirty” and will be for at least the next 100 years. To be smart, one need only repeat the phrase “I’m for making investments that will create millions of new clean jobs of the future.” This is fantasy and objective people know it. But it doesn’t matter if something works. All that matters is the pose.
No Republican is for “wrecking the economy” or “trashing the environment” etc. They simply have different ideas on what is required to fix the unemployment and debt problems plaguing the nation. These ideas include reducing onerous regulations, reforming entitlement programs, and responsible resource development. Characterizing these ideas as “destroying the safety net”, and “unleashing Wall Street” is lazy, intellectually dishonest, and does nothing to advance the discourse.
Keep in mind there are, at least, a hundred million adult Americans who do not subscribe to the liberal world view. They love this country. So please take off the ideological blinders. The students at UM could use a hole in the echo chamber.
Posted by Mark Lundahl on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:18 PM
Calling the opposition GOP “stupid”. Now that’s original! Don’t Warmers have other epithets to hurl at us heretics. Fortunately, unlike Dark Age inquisitors, they still lack the power to burn us at the stake.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but being called stupid for not believing Warmer dogma is so 20th Century!
Posted by Gus Malanga on Jan 25, 2012 at 11:38 PM
extended discussion >>>Continued...
Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 15 posts.