Star Spangled Staggers

US politics from outside the beltway

Syndicate contentRSS

The Republicans are radicals, not conservatives

The party has forgotten that change, if necessary, should be incremental and practical.

New Statesman
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is introduced by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. Photograph: Getty Images.

It's not Ted Nugent's fault that he is clearly a born whack-job, but we can hold Republicans accountable for tolerating the Motor City Madman's rhetoric of violence.

Nugent told supporters of the National Rifle Association recently that he'd "be dead or in jail" if President Obama were re-elected. Nugent and his right-wing apologists have since denied that he was making any kind of threat to the president's life. The Secret Service evidently felt otherwise and paid a visit to the well-known gun fetishist.

Nugent has come out in support of GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney. When asked, Romney condemned violence generally without referring to Nugent. The Secret Service concluded that the rock musician best known for singing "Cat Scratch Fever" had no intent to assassinate anyone.

Well, that's good to know, but what was the context of his little chat? Something about Obama being a criminal, that his administration is evil, and that conservatives need to "chop their heads off." Yeah, sounds about right.

For the record, I enjoy gutter-sniping and trash-talk. It's deliciously lowbrow and a grand tradition in American oratory. The theatricality of the Nuge is part of his appeal, too. But Romney is a presidential candidate. That he seems unwilling to distance himself from Nugent suggests he and the GOP are so accustomed to the rhetoric of violence that they are inured to radicalism when it's in front of them.

US Rep. Barney Frank has said Democrats aren't perfect, but Republicans are nuts, conceding that voters have a less than ideal choice but Dems are at least functional. Yet "nuts" is only half right. Since 2008, and especially since 2010, the GOP has become extremist, so much so that its current state challenges the very notion of "conservatism."

A dominant tone in the rubric of conservatism is preservation: maintaining and protecting whatever a community has valued over time. In the US, that has meant tradition, civic institutions, family, marriage and Christianity, among other cultural norms. Moreover, conservatism is method for dealing with modernity. If change is needed, let it be incremental and practical.

But conservatives like US Rep Paul Ryan, author of a budget proposal endorsed by Romney, want to move rashly and radically to tear down widely-valued institutions like Medicare. Debates over its merits were settled long ago, but Ryan, as if he were a revolutionary waiting to blow up the current system, seeks to decimate Medicare by privatizing the entitlements that every American pays for.

The GOP vision isn't just radical; it's obliquely socialist. I'm not talking about the good kind of socialism, which the GOP is historically hostile to. I'm talking about a brand of socialism in which the government interferes with markets for the benefit of the one per cent: tax loop holes, corporate giveaways, tax cuts, etc. Noam Chomsky once wryly said that capitalism is a great idea that no one has bothered to try yet. The corporate socialists would never allow it.

Worse is that the GOP appears to want everyone who is not rich and not a corporation to believe in its free market gospel. That's why the House cut funding for food stamps. Freebies make people lazy. That's why GOP leadership is threatening to make those who earn the least pay more in federal income tax. That's only fair to the rest of us. Meanwhile, there's no place in America for a millionaire's tax. Let's not start annoying the job creators, OK? 

So what we have is a party of radicals bent on using the power of the government to redistribute wealth upward. Of course, the GOP hasn't been alone in its obsession. Democrats are to blame too. But that's largely because radical Republicans have pulled the center of the political spectrum far to the right, so much that tax cuts seem always sensible while tax hikes are always treasonous.

We are so far to the right, so terrified of irritating business, that 2,700 corporations, including Nissan, Sears and Goldman Sachs in effect tax their own workers. Twenty-two states have subsidies programs in which huge corporations keep money that would have been levied by the state for public sector purposes. But instead of going to roads, schools and fire departments, about $5.5 billion (over 20 years) has gone straight into corporate coffers.

David Cay Johnston, of Reuters, wrote: "These deals typify corporate socialism, in which business gains are privatized and costs socialized. They also mean government picks winners and losers, interfering with competitive markets."

Like I said, not the good kind of socialism. That would never be tolerated. When a moderate president like Obama says the GOP wants to "impose a radical vision on our country," he's right. But that's when someone like the Motor City Madman will get crazy and call him a socialist.

John Stoehr is a lecturer in Political Science at Yale University.

13 comments

John Cheese's picture

Here's radical: This is what overt Governmental regulation & nationalization of industry will get you. Good luck Euro-club:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/08/argentina-dollar-idUSL1E8H8EJA...

mike cobley's picture

quoth Gingellenator - "It wories me that a lecturer at Yale University holds such irrational views."

What, that there are different grades of socialistic governance? Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? Ah, but then in your next sentence you show why, in your recommendation of Hayek's works, those elaborations of the fables and mythos of laissez-faire ultracapitalism.

I could recommend a score of books to you but for now you should read 'Popper' by Bryan Magee, particularly the chapters near the end on politics and policy. And if you like playing the odd computer game, you really should have a go at Bioshock - it demonstrates what happens to a society that adopts laissez-faire to the exclusion of all else. Enjoy!

Gingellenator's picture

Hi Tue thanks for the link

Yes, Bio shock is a great game, although I prefer Gears of war. I will definitly look into the book you recomended, I am not closed minded. The point I was trying to make is that Socialism is inherently totalitarian, this has been provide:
1) Logially - Road to Serfdom (Hayek), Open Society (Popler)
2) Emperically - Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, PRC, it goes on and on unfortunately....

Therefore gradation is largely irrelevant and irrational.

I really would encourage you to read Hayek, I don't think your a bad person, or that you hold your socialist views for anything other than an honest conviction to help your fellow man, but unfortunately you are misguided. Try to see 'society' as a spontanious oranisation of individuals as upposed to something that must be planned.

Gingellenator's picture

Hi Tue thanks for the link

Yes, Bio shock is a great game, although I prefer Gears of war. I will definitly look into the book you recomended, I am not closed minded. The point I was trying to make is that Socialism is inherently totalitarian, this has been provide:
1) Logially - Road to Serfdom (Hayek), Open Society (Popler)
2) Emperically - Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, PRC, it goes on and on unfortunately....

Therefore gradation is largely irrelevant and irrational.

I really would encourage you to read Hayek, I don't think your a bad person, or that you hold your socialist views for anything other than an honest conviction to help your fellow man, but unfortunately you are misguided. Try to see 'society' as a spontanious oranisation of individuals as upposed to something that must be planned.

Tom_McL's picture

You are making the logical fallacy of conflating socialism with statism by citing examples of Popper and Hayek.
Whether you look at the anarcho-communism of the CNT-FAI before and during the spanish civil war or the communitarian socialism advocated by more and more, both would reject the centralising Fabian-style socialism adopted much of the time by the labour party.
Moreover, a move towards laissez-faire capitalism and the ethical egoism of the likes of Ayn Rand leads to similarly dystopian futures. The concentration of capital and political power is always bad- whether in the form of a bureaucratic elite (USSR) or a financial and political elite (as is starting to happen in post-industrial nations such as America)

fredgoooodwin's picture

Hi Tom

Thanks for msg, food for thought! I suppose the point I make is that freedom is freedom and that socialism is socialism is fascism is totalitarian. For the simplistic minded:

Facism = Stalinism = Comunism = Trotskisym = state socialism = anarco solialism

Just different points on the same development framework. re. your point about differentiation of socialist movement - I find it hard to believe that any of the abhorrent political movements above would suffice themselves with localisms, they are all on the same path. Can you really imagine Hitler being content with just being a local dictator?! No, of course not, the point is that socialism is totalitarian irrespective of colour or camouflage.

I have never read Rand, although her Wikipedia article is not very flattering - I will do shortly tho. Re Capitalism leads to dystopian future - what evidence are you basing this on? Is it the warm food you eat, or perhaps the wonder of modern technology on which you type?

Free your mind!

Tom_McL's picture

I don't mean to be rude but just because you say Hitler wouldn't be a local dictator does not make socialism inherently totalitarian. I still see no coherent argument of why socialism is despotic apart from your observance that several marxist-lenninist regimes limited freedom. This is like me pointing to the fact that General Pinochet limited freedom and thus Ron Paul is a tyrant in waiting....
The warm food I eat and the modern technology upon which I type is mere fortune from good birth- the fact that I have been born into a middle class household.
Doubtless, markets are great at creating wealth. But unfettered markets or those implicitly designed to enrich a small elite inevitably lead to gross inequality which in turn causes great unhappiness and strife.
I think that the suffering that goes hand in hand with capitalism is a failure to respect the obligation we all have as a social unit to end suffering within our community

Gingellenator's picture

'Good' and 'Bad' socialism! Do you think there is a 'good' and 'bad' totaliteraiasm too!? It wories me that a lecturer at Yale University holds such irrational views. I would recomend that you read Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, Fatal Conceit and the road to serfdom.

mike cobley's picture

Dunno who John Cheese is but, really - Obama a socialist? I don't know of any socialist who would a) increase an already bloated defence budget, b) send more troops into Afghanistan and sign off on swarms of drone attacks, resulting in the death of innocents, c) do anything and everything that Wall Street wants, d) keep Guantanamo open, e) reject the Public Option in favour of a half-baked, weak sauce, pro-insurance industry alternative, f) allow law enforcement of all kinds to become militarised....etc etc etc.

Socialist, yeah right.

John Cheese's picture

dunno who Mike Cobley is but, ...Barry 0 a capitalist? Really...you're kidding right? Dems controlled the ENTIRE congress in 2007 & Barry gets in 1/2009. Unfettered Fed spending & printing of money has gone on (M1 money supply up 18 %)- In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history. People on food stamps gone up 35%, gas up, food up, & higher taxes coming. He's whispered to Russia he's cutting missle defense if he stays in 4 more...0bama0 has no real business world experience, he's in over his head. He & the Dem's refuse to even complete a budget or cap just "the spending rate". Barry's solution: focus on those hi-income earners that make over $1 million /year & tax them more. If you took 100% of the million dollar earner's income, it would fund our Fed Gvt for about 3 days. Øbama.

JG's picture

Interesting to hear the word "socialism" used in the context of the Republicans. And a timely reminder that Nazism was "national socialism."

Where the US Republicans lead, the governing Conservatives in Canada are doing their best to follow.

And if Cameron ever gets a majority in the UK....?

LVTfan's picture

You use the word "radical" as if it was in some way a negative! "Radical" to me represents the notion of going to the "root" of the problem -- think of radish, radical (square root). eradicate (to tear something out including its roots).

Thoreau said, of poverty, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."

I don't think either party is sufficiently radical. Neither would know the root of the problem if they stumbled over it.

And few of us have looked closely at what ought to be socialized and what ought to be privatized, and use "socialism" as if it was a negative. I have come around, slowly and sometimes grudgingly, to agree with Henry George that that which nature provides us ought to be socialized, and that which the community creates belongs to all of us, and that which the individual or corporation creates (having compensated the community for the value of what we've taken from nature's finite supply or from the rest of the community) is rightly privatized.

I've seen it expressed "What I produce is mine. All mine! What you produce is yours. All yours! But that which none of us produced, but which we all lend value to together, belongs by right to all of us in common."

THAT is radical. And just.

And worth pursuing.

John Cheese's picture

Ha, Nugent a socialist?? Nice try but no cigar. Try President "O" & his redistributionist Critical Race Theory. He's increased the US poverty level 9.5% in 39 months, so now 43,600,000 people are living in poverty. But he has a Nobel... Way to go!

Latest tweets