The Intra-Republican Fight
The delivery of Bobby Jindal’s speech Tuesday night was so bad that my first instinct was to focus on that. But David Brooks, as seen in this clip below from PBS, went straight to it:
There’s an intra-Republican debate. Some people say the Republican Party lost it’s way because it got too moderate. Some people say got too weird, too conservative. He [Jindal] thinks they got too moderate and so he’s making that case. I think it’s insane, and I just think it’s a disaster for the party; I just think it’s unfortunate right now.
I would be a bit more optimistic than Brooks about the political merits of the hard-right agenda. This certainly isn’t where the country is right now but it’s not so unreasonable to think that things might change. I think we’ll be growing again in late 2012 and Obama will probably get re-elected no matter Republicans say or do. But it’s possible that things will really go off the rails and we’ll have a years-long L-shaped recession in which case if what the opposition party has to offer is hard-right nihilism, then hard-right nihilism is what the voters will embrace. The problem with the “Republicans must become more conservative” viewpoint is that it’s bad for the country. Ultimately, both parties matter. And neither party is ever going to be perfect—beyond ideology, there’s a lot of corruption, self-dealing, interest-group mucking around, etc. To have good policy on a sustained basis required both parties to have some level of interest in good policy.
44 Responses to “The Intra-Republican Fight”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 26th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Yep. Sounds obvious, but boy, it’s really not; read Kristol’s latest column for a straight-up defense of obstruction.
My guess is that this Republican party is incapable of adapting to the crisis. They’ll keep saying “spending freeze!” and “marsh mouse!” And they’ll become politically relevant again only after the crisis is over, when events change in a way that makes their small-gov’t idées fixes a little less crazy than they are at the moment.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Looking at this in a purel moderate/conservative frame is problematic. That is to say, while part of the problem, electorily and in terms of the good of the country, probably is that the party is too conservative, a more fundemental problem is the form that contemporary hard right conservatism takes. The Jindal performance is a microcosm of this – while no one would ever confuse him with being a moderate, he is a smart man who (based on his past speaking) is willing to think outside the box of what passes for current conservative ‘thought.” Yet instead in his speech he enagaged in the old no earmarks/low taxes blather.
Apart from being bad from a policy perspective, I don’t see that particular approach being very successful in the next few years, even were the economy to get & stay a lot worse than it is now.
It’s still amazing to me that the Republicans failed to get behind the payroll tax holiday idea as an alternative to the Democrats stimulus plan. Well, not amazing, in the sense that it just confirmed the characterization of a Republican party in thrall to the wealthy and powerful, but in the sense that the idea managed to combine a genuinely effective stimulus with good politics and adherance to conservative principles.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:50 am
But it’s possible that things will really go off the rails and we’ll have a years-long L-shaped recession in which case if what the opposition party has to offer is hard-right nihilism, then hard-right nihilism is what the voters will embrace.
Well, we’ve basically just had eight years of hard-right nihilism. Whether voters will embrace an even more extreme form if things get worse seems an open question—in the 20th century, such movements were usually based on national ethnic identity and tradition—I’m not really sure how that would work in present-day America.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Shorter Matthew:
The Republicans may be deceitful whores for the rich — politicans who lied us into an unnecessary war, killed 4200 US soldiers in order to grab Iraq for Big Oil, stole $3 Trillion out of Social Security to give to the Rich and brought another Second Depression down upon us by letting thieves run loose on Wall Street — but we need the Republicans as a check to protect us from the self-serving predations of the Democrats.
Ha ha ha. I like it. Most intelligent thing you’ve written recently, Matthew. I’m glad you’re being the recognize the real nature of Washington.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Correction: I glad you’re beginning to recognize the real nature of Washington.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:11 am
The problem is that if the American people finally dig themselves out of the rubble of this disaster, the Republicans will simply lie themselves into office again and their corruption will bring on yet another disaster. That is what a deeply corrupt oligarchy IS — look at the average incomes of South America.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:14 am
There is no future for American right-wing extremism as currently constructed. That’s because it offers no practical means to get out of our multiple crises. The hardest of the hard-right movements of the 20th century, Nazism, at least had practical tools to improve the economic conditions of 1930s Germany — mainly, huge public works projects (autobahns, remilitarization). The American right offers nothing new, nothing that recognizes the changed reality of America in 2009 — absolutely no practical means to deal with our problems.
My point is this: There will always be an opposition party. But the next great opposition movement won’t come from the Republican Party of Goldwater-Reagan-Bush I-Gingrich-DeLay-Bush II-Palin-Jindal ideology. That part of American history is over.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:20 am
The Republican party will double down on the crazy, take a body blow in the 2010 midterms, then triple down on the crazy, and lose in 2012 (especially with the redistricting that will be very likely to be performed by the Democratic victors). At that point there are some choices. The party can become, in effect, a regional one – while the real contest is within the Democratic party which will be broader and contain the moderates formerly in the Republican party. Or a completely my new party could emerge if the GOP brand is too crippled. The latter development is ultimately my guess, which would probably be timed with Democratic over-reach around 2016-2020.
The last time the party of Hoover behaved the way they are now they lost the White House for 20 years and the House for 60 years…
February 26th, 2009 at 10:24 am
RE tohjiro’s comment “But the next great opposition movement won’t come from the Republican Party of Goldwater-Reagan-Bush I-Gingrich-DeLay-Bush II-Palin-Jindal ideology”
————–
Er..as someone who was a member of the Young Republicans MANY decades ago, I have to say that Barry Goldwater would have been deeply offended that you lumped a pack of incompetent, lying whores like Reagan, Bush I, Gingrich, Delay , and Bush II in his company.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Re Barry Goldwater
Nobody would have been more appalled at the takeover of the Rethuglican party by the religious right whackjobs then Barry Goldwater.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Barry Goldwater’s political views, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Political_views
—————–
“Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention.”
“As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right’s views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties.[citation needed] In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion and, in 1981, gave a speech on how he was angry about the bullying of American politicians by religious organizations, and would “fight them every step of the way”.
“After his retirement in 1987, Goldwater described the conservative Arizona Governor Evan Mecham as “hardheaded”[citation needed] and called on him to resign, and two years later stated that the Republican party had been taken over by a “bunch of kooks”.”
“In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell’s opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned”,[citation needed] Goldwater retorted: “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”
“Goldwater also had harsh words for his one-time political protege, President Reagan, particularly after the Iran-Contra Affair became public in 1986.”
“Some of Goldwater’s statements in the 1990s aggravated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military’s ban on homosexuals: “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.”[39] He also said, “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
“A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, “Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.”[40] ”
“In that same year[1996], with Senator Dennis DeConcini, Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana against the will of social conservatives.”
————
In your heart, you know he’s right.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Er..as someone who was a member of the Young Republicans MANY decades ago, I have to say that Barry Goldwater would have been deeply offended that you lumped a pack of incompetent, lying whores like Reagan, Bush I, Gingrich, Delay , and Bush II in his company.
First, Reagan spoke for Goldwater at the goddamn 1964 Convention and campaigned for him. Goldwater was personally responsible for his rise to power. No way could Goldwater disown him. As to the others you list, yeah, probably so, but you know what? Tough shit, Bang-Bang Barry. He set out to destroy Rockefeller Republicanism, and did so by giving voice and power to the loony right. If incompetent, lying whores like Palin and Gingrich and Jindal were an unintended consequence of his campaign and movement, they were still a consequence of it.
He could be offended all he wants, but if he really believed in personal responsibility 1/100th as much as he talked about it, he’d have to admit his own responsibility for this shit.
So again, don’t like being associated with Palin, Barry? Tough shit. Wear it.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Oh, and I forgot to add:
In your guts, you know he’s nuts.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I made the mistake of briefly tuning in to Hardball last night and saw Chris Matthews asking Tom DeLay what he thought. While it’s frightening how disconnected from reality that guy is, my larger question was ‘why is this discredited scumbag on television being treated with even a modicum of respect?’
Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, DeLay- They sure do grow industrial strength right-wing assholes in Texas.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Never underestimate the ability or willingness of the moneyed classes to figure out how to maintain power and keep getting fat off the government gravy train. And never underestimate the willingness of the average American voter to be fooled into voting against their interests by demagoguery and clever framing.
I am consistently impressed by how successful they have been since at least Reagan at instilling their fundamental ideas into the national discourse and MSM:
Taxes and regulation are bad and kill jobs, Government is intrusive and wasteful, massive military spending is necessary to keep you safe, entitlement programs reward the lazy.
It will take a hell of a sustained and painful downturn to begin to make a dent in these ideas. I don’t think eight years of Bush was remotely enough.
Republicans are always for good and effective government policy: it’s just good and effective at rewarding the rich and connected. They are not incompetent.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The problem is, people don’t like the Republican’s positions, and don’t trust them. So they can either stick to their unpopular ideas, or try to play “me too!” without anyone believing them. Neither one’s going to bring them back into the majority any time soon.
So they might as well go for what they really believe, and if that’s pretty stiff opposition to Obama, that’s probably better for them. That’s the Opposition Party’s job, of course, and more importantly, if Obama’s plans fail, they’re in a better position to capitalize (though I hesitate to say they’d definitely come roaring back).
February 26th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
DTM seems right to me. If a one to one correspondence between the state of the economy and the party winning elects held in every instance, politics would be a much easier game. It doesn’t.While Bush was selected, rather than elected, in 2000, he came within a million votes. Similarly, in 2004, when incomes had been beaten down to 2000 levels, he won. The Dems nationally lost in 2002, in spite of the cooperation with the Bushies in pushing through Bush’s economic program.
All of which indicates that politics is autonomous, to an extent, from the state of the economy, and that the growth metric is not the best and only parameter of the economy. I have a hard time imagining the voters in Southern states, who are the most racked, at the mmoment, by the downward spiral in manufacturing – look at the Bureau of Labor stats for S.C., Alabama, Georgia, etc. – are happy with their Jindals. Remember that even the con-hope, Senator Jim DeMint, won his last election by retreating from his economic ideas – the insane sales tax thingy – and attacking gay marriages. He stood foursquare against em, and turned the tide. But this time, he had better have more going for him than homophobia.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
This is where Bobby Jindal got his talking point from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0cpjhTRO28
February 26th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“But it’s possible that things will really go off the rails and we’ll have a years-long L-shaped recession in which case if what the opposition party has to offer is hard-right nihilism, then hard-right nihilism is what the voters will embrace.”
First, I doubt we’ll have an L-shaped recession. More likely, we’ll have a double-dip recession: a few years after this one, we could have an inflationary recession as the Fed drives up rates to mop up all the liquidity it’s putting out now. Chances are, that won’t happen until after 2012 though.
Second “nihilism” is never an attractive policy, but it doesn’t characterize smart conservative policies, and it doesn’t describe Jindal’s track record. Yes, he made an awful speech Tuesday night. But, unlike Obama’s pre-White House career, there’s more to Jindal than his speeches; he’s actually done things. I don’t think most objective observers would describe Jidal’s successful evacuation of at-risk residents from Hurricane Gustav, his ambitious education reforms in New Orleans, or his reform of Louisiana’s Medicaid system as “nihilistic”. As I’ve argued elsewhere, Jindal needs to position himself as an effective government conservative, which shouldn’t be hard, because that’s what he is.
February 26th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“unlike Obama’s pre-White House career, there’s more to Jindal than his speeches; he’s actually done things.”
This line is pretty useless anymore. Not only is it demonstrably false, but Obama’s pre-White House career is OVER. Come 2012, nobody’s going to care what Obama did before he got to the White House or what how that stacks up to what Jindal’s done.
If Jindal’s got all this other stuff that recommends him, use THAT stuff. Comparing him to an Obama from the past is irrelevent, and looks pretty defensive.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
It wasn’t called the “Bobby Jindal” response, but rather the “Republican Response”. In other words the Republicans heard their beliefs and ideals to them in a very non-enthusiastic way – they actually heard them. The right wingers blasting Jindal really need to look in the mirror now, because he was just reaffirming their beliefs.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“If Jindal’s got all this other stuff that recommends him, use THAT stuff. Comparing him to an Obama from the past is irrelevent, and looks pretty defensive.”
It’s relevant because it seems to be coloring perceptions. Obama is a great orator who was judged mainly on his speeches during the campaign; commenters on this blog seem to be judging Jindal the same way, and assuming he’s a dud because he gave a dud speech. If and when Jindal runs for national office, last Tuesday’s speech will be long forgotten, and he’ll be judged mainly on his record, along with his positions as he articulates them in campaign speeches.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Dave, leaving aside the fact that this is a post about the substance, not the style, of Jindal’s speech, you seem to be saying that Obama got elected based on his oratory even though he had no record, but that if Jindal runs against Obama, people will judge Jindal by his record and overlook his terrible oratory. That seems pretty optimistic, if you’re a Jindal fan—especially since Obama is going to have an impressive record by 2012—but may the best man win.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
“It’s relevant because…”
It’s so weird, you acted like I said something completely different from what’s in my post. But I said that comparing Jindal to an Obama from the past is irrelevant, not that Jindal’s experience by itself is.
“he’ll be judged mainly on his record, along with his positions as he articulates them in campaign speeches.”
Well, experience and positions WILL play a part (As they did with Obama), but charisma is going to count, too. The three are pretty much the pillars of every Presidential election, and here’s the thing- if Jindal runs against Obama, those three factors are going to be judged against Obama as of 2012, not Obama as of 2007. That’s why it’s irrelevant.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Tomemos,
“Dave, leaving aside the fact that this is a post about the substance, not the style, of Jindal’s speech…”
The substance of Jindal’s speech was crap as well. What I’m saying is that that speech doesn’t define Jindal.
“you seem to be saying that Obama got elected based on his oratory even though he had no record, but that if Jindal runs against Obama, people will judge Jindal by his record and overlook his terrible oratory. That seems pretty optimistic, if you’re a Jindal fan—especially since Obama is going to have an impressive record by 2012—but may the best man win.”
I made no predictions about Jindal versus Obama, and frankly, I doubt Jindal will even run against him. He’s only 37, after all. If he waits for an open field in 2016, he’ll still be younger than Obama is now. Whenever he runs though, he’ll be judged by what I mentioned above, and not Tuesday’s speech, which will be long forgotten by then. I agree with Matt though that the economy will probably determine what happens in 2012. If we have a decent recovery, Obama will probably win reelection. The second part of a double-dip recession probably wouldn’t hit until after 2012, if it happens.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Colby,
“It’s so weird, you acted like I said something completely different from what’s in my post. But I said that comparing Jindal to an Obama from the past is irrelevant, not that Jindal’s experience by itself is.”
Not to beat this to death, but my point was that Obama’s candidacy has conditioned people (especially Obama supporters) to put more weight on the speeches (including the substance of them, e.g., how Obama was lauded for his early anti-Iraq War speech) and less on resumes, and that some dismissive comments about Jindal (not just his speech, but him) on this blog may have been colored by that.
I agree that charisma is important in a presidential candidate. I don’t think Jindal’s lame speech on Tuesday was an accurate measure of that, but we’ll see down the line.
Re a potential Obama-Jindal race in 2012, see what I wrote in the previous comment.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
The problem with Jindel’s speech was not really Jindel’s fault, unless he went rogue and wrote it himself. The problem is that the GOP is completely out of step with the reality we have in the US. They knew what Obama was going to say, and they laid up that Turd-burger of a presentation. The campy stories and the reference to Katrina. Who do they have writing speeches over there? Where is David Frum when they need him?
How are we to expect the GOP to have a positive impact on the US when they are lead by Steele and his targeting of hip hop suburbans and this sort of messaging.
If the GOP wants to play in the big leagues, they might want to try a little harder to look like a professionally run party. It is actually kinda sad.
As a liberal, I know the GOP has a place in keeping down spending and protecting the interests of business, but how are we supposed to ever consider voting for them if they are so poorly managed. It is an embarrassing clown circus over there.
Maybe the GOP should stop trying to win all the time and let the democrats have their way. If the democratic policies are really so bad, the GOP will be in charge in 2010. If not, then the GOP can say “hey we let you succeed.”
I just with I could short the GOP, does anyone know of an exchange traded fund that will let me do that?
February 26th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
“Not to beat this to death”
Don’t worry, you’re not- this is the first time you’ve said that, and the previous things you’ve said- the direct comparison between Obama and Jindal, the false claim that there was nothing to Obama besides his speeches, and the stirring defense of Jindal against the charges of “nihilism”- don’t really indicate that point at all.
As for the “dismissive comments”, none of them HAVE been based on Jindal’s “short resume”- in fact, you and I were the first people to mention his experience at all (and I don’t think you could say that Jindal has a “short resume” by 2012, anyway). So it’s pretty hard to truthfully claim that the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Jindal HAS been colored by that. It all seems to be based on the speech he made, including the content…
…and you yourself are saying that speeches are going to be more important because of Obama. Now, you also say that THIS speech won’t be as important, but that just doesn’t jive with your large argument, especially given all the build-up to this speech, that it WAS Jindal’s introduction to the country, and that 50 million people watched.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
“The problem with Jindel’s speech was not really Jindel’s fault, unless he went rogue and wrote it himself. The problem is that the GOP is completely out of step with the reality we have in the US.”
Well, didn’t they say he DID write it himself?
Either way, it is a LITTLE his fault- if he wrote it, then it’s his bad ideas. If he didn’t, then he’s letting himself get bowled over by someone else’s bad ideas. Either one is something he’s going to have to correct.
February 26th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
DTM,
“But I also think it had to be a highly disturbing event for Jindal fans nonetheless.”
It was, for this one at least.
“So here is the thing: when is the GOP going to stop demanding of its Palins and Jindals that they go out and say stupid things which make them sound stupid?”
Daniel Larison had an interesting theory about Jindal’s speech. Remember when Jindal had to bail on the RNC because of Gustav? Larison suggests that Jindal might have dusted off the convention speech he didn’t give and tweaked it slightly for Tuesday. If so, that was a bad idea and it doesn’t excuse it, but it may help explain it.
Andrew,
“If the democratic policies are really so bad, the GOP will be in charge in 2010.”
Not necessarily. There are often lag times at work. For example, President Clinton didn’t pay a price for his policy of increasing home ownership by encouraging the extension of credit to marginal borrowers, and President Bush didn’t either when he continued that policy. That policy played a role in our current financial crisis, but it didn’t blow up until after Bush had already been reelected.
“I just with I could short the GOP, does anyone know of an exchange traded fund that will let me do that?”
You can bet against GOP candidates with the University of Iowa’s electronic marketplace, I think, but I don’t know of a way to short the party.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Colby,
“the false claim that there was nothing to Obama besides his speeches”
That was an overstatement of near-Yglesian proportions on my part. Clearly there was to Obama than his speeches. He wouldn’t be president now if there wasn’t. There was his obvious intelligence, his cool temperment, the perception among opponents of the Iraq War that Obama displayed good judgment in opposing it early, Obama’s inspiring biography, and the hope that, by virtue of that biography he could have some positive effects on the country. The point I meant to make in that clause, and could have made more precisely (albeit less pithily), was that Obama had not accomplished much prior to running for president. I realize that there were talking points to the contrary during the campaign, but it’s still true that Obama had one of the thinnest resumes of any successful presidential candidate. Partly because of that, and partly because Obama is such a talented orator, his speeches drew more focus.
“As for the “dismissive comments”, none of them HAVE been based on Jindal’s “short resume”-”
How does this refute my point that Jindal shouldn’t be dismissed based solely on the speech he gave on Tuesday?
“and you yourself are saying that speeches are going to be more important because of Obama.”
I think they get more attention now because of Obama. I don’t know if they will be more important than usual in the future.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:47 am
“was that Obama had not accomplished much prior to running for president.”
I still don’t buy this, but I suspect it might be a difference of priorities. However, the criminal, ethical and health reforms he instituted in Illinois, as well the ethics, transparency, and nuclear non-proliferation programs he brought to the Senate always struck me as very impressive, that’s one of the reasons I supported him.
“How does this refute my point that Jindal shouldn’t be dismissed based solely on the speech he gave on Tuesday?”
It wasn’t intended to, nor do I believe he should be. I think I only just now understood what you’re trying to say- that because of Obama, we put more emphasis on speeches, but Jindal isn’t the “speechifying” kind of politician, he brings other things to the table. I get that, but really, it’s not ’cause of Obama that we put more emphasis on speeches- it’s pretty regular that the more inspiring candidate wins the election. That’s been going on for at least 30 years without a break.
And you have to admit, it would be a little easier to not compare him to Obama if he wasn’t constantly touted as “The Republican Obama”, or given that speaking slot, or directly compared to Obama when people are trying to make a DIFFERENT point about him.
Now, I still think dismissing that he’ll EVER become President is a little too much- the world will look very different in 2016 or 2020- but I also don’t see anyone doing that. Even in the OP, Brooks wasn’t saying Jindal will never make it, he was clearly focused on the Republicans’ current “comeback” efforts.
And as far as that goes, dismissing Jindal as a candidate, or even the foundation of a comeback, between now and 2012 is simply bowing to the political reality I outlined above, it isn’t letting Obama’s recent success color anything. Because even if Jindal IS much more capable of delivering an inspiring, elevating speech than this demonstrated, he’s going to have to DO IT, and he’s not going to get many more chances to address a national audience (especially because one of the saddest rule of politics is that failure breeds failure).
So, in summation- I DON’T think Jindal should be judged by any “Obama rubric”- but I also don’t think there IS an “Obama Rubric”, and that Republicans only have themselves to blame for the comparisons. I also DON’T think Jindal should be dismissed as “Never gonna be POTUS”- but I think it’s reasonable to dismiss him as a POTUS candidate in ‘12, or something the Republicans can build a short-term comback off of, and that’s all I see people doing.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
A hilarious moment from GOP on GOP Action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0CMgcCOoG8
February 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
First, Republicans will point to anything that became worse during the Obama administration. They’ll argue he took a bad situation and made it worse. Crime, for instance, is going to be much higher in 2012 than it was in 2008. Republicans love crime as an issue. It is their best lever to pry away the people who are likely to switch votes – white suburbanites who like minorities in theory, but not practice.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
April 9th, 2009 at 7:55 am
FANTASTIC!
April 9th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
The topic is quite trendy on the Internet right now. What do you pay attention to when choosing what to write ?