GOP on Journey to Ixtlan?

[MervinFerd]

Posts in several threads have noted the degree to which the base of the Republican party seems to live in a Separate Reality from the rest of humanity. Some of these posters identify themselves as Conservatives. A new report from a liberal polling organization, Democracy Corps looks at focus groups of base Republican voters and compares them with independent conservatives. A link to the report is found here:
http://gqrr.com/index.php?ID=2398

The major conclusion is that the Republican conservatives are a separate entity whose views are discontinuous with even self-identified conservative independents.

I have posted this in Conspiracy because many views expressed and many of the attitudes are highly similar to conspiracism.

To be very clear: We need two political parties. My purpose is not to ridicule Republicans, but to try to understand how we have got to the situation in which one of our major parties is dominated by conspiracy theories. And how we can get out of it.

The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans
Why Republican Leaders will have Trouble Speaking to the Rest of America
The self-identifying conservative Republicans who make up the base of the Republican Party stand a world apart from the rest of America, according to focus groups conducted by Democracy Corps. These base Republican voters dislike Barack Obama to be sure – which is not very surprising as base Democrats had few positive things to say about George Bush – but these voters identify themselves as part of a ‘mocked’ minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country.

This is not really a new phenomenon. Many white Southerners have considered themselves an oppressed nation since the Civil War. Court decisions and various regulatory efforts have most directly affected the lives of Southern rural whites---desegregation, school prayer, anti-smoking efforts, environmental restrictions, sanitation, even seat belts.

Used to be you could go into a country store and buy a baloney sandwich and a Moon Pie. No more. Unsanitary.

They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism. While these voters are disdainful of a Republican Party they view to have failed in its mission, they overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country’s founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.

Here we get into the woo. Bircher CTs have been endemic in the South. If there is more now, it may be because of better methods of communication.

The Republican base voters are not part of the continuum leading to the center of the electorate: they truly stand apart.

For additional perspective, Democracy Corps conducted a parallel set of groups in suburban Cleveland. These groups, comprised of older, white, non-college independents and weak partisans, represent some of the most conservative swing voters in the electorate, and they demonstrated a wholly different worldview from Republican base voters by dismissing the fear of “socialism” and evaluating Obama in very different terms. Most impor- tantly, regardless of their personal feelings toward Obama or how they voted in 2008, they very much want to see him succeed because they believe the country desperately needs the change he promised in his campaign. Though we kept discussion points constant between the two sets of groups, on virtually every point of discussion around President Obama and the major issues facing our country, these two audiences simply saw the world in fundamentally different ways – underscoring the extreme disconnect of the conservative Republican base voters.

There still is a rational opposition. Seems to be the case that they have no institutional mechanism for expressing their opinions.

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Direct racism was not a major motivation for the focus groups.

I'm not sure I buy this one. Surely the attitudes are more complex than during the Civil Rights era, but there are certainly plenty of old fashioned Southern racists out there. This may be partly a matter of definitions: The LA J of Peace who refused to marry a mixed-race couple maintains stoutly that he is not racist--because he let Blacks use his bathroom. For him, that is probably progress.

Special Knowledge
A central part of the collective identity built by conservative Republicans in the current political environment is their belief that they possess knowledge and insight that the majority of Americans – whether too lazy or too misguided to find it for themselves – do not possess. A combination of conservative media outlets are the means by which they have gained this knowl- edge, led by FOX News (“the truth tellers“), and to a lesser degree conservative talk radio. Their antipathy and distrust toward the mainstream media could not be stronger, and they fiercely defend FOX as the only truly objective news outlet.

Fox News is the only "objective" news outlet. These attitudes strongly recall the CT groups, or perhaps cult behavior. The fount of knowledge is always True; contrary information is the result of the conspiracy.

Favorite personalities are Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Limbaugh is actually viewed as excessively abrasive.

SUMMARY: I think this sub-culture has been around for a very long time. Two things have changed: 1) Internet connection and Fox News organize what used to be a confused and disconnected group and 2) the mainstream Republican party lacks leaders with the stature to pull the party toward the mainstream. The leaders of the Bush administration are either part of the Woo or lack the stature to lead. Repub office holders dare not speak out because of the likelihood of well-financed primary challenges.

[Caustic Logic]

GOP on Journey to Ixtlan?

If you mean behaving as if on powerful hallucinogens, indeed it seems so. But to actually reach Ixtlan requires a steadfastness and warrior-like intent that these guys can't muster.

Posts in several threads have noted the degree to which the base of the Republican party seems to live in a Separate Reality from the rest of humanity. Some of these posters identify themselves as Conservatives. A new report from a liberal polling organization, Democracy Corps looks at focus groups of base Republican voters and compares them with independent conservatives. A link to the report is found here:
http://gqrr.com/index.php?ID=2398

James Carville is involved, so we can suspect some kind of manipulative political spin. I don't know anything about Stan Greenberg & Karl Agne.

To be very clear: We need two political parties.

Now don't get crazy on us. Two worked before, but now that one part is insane, two is way too many. I'm fine with a one party democracy.

Lol.

My purpose is not to ridicule Republicans, but to try to understand how we have got to the situation in which one of our major parties is dominated by conspiracy theories. And how we can get out of it.

Apparently the only answer these folks would accept is to nullify the 2008 election. The natural fix would be to pick the next highest-voted-for white American candidate, so that's McCain. He's no Ron Paul, Lindon LaRouche, or David Duke, but he'll do.

This is not really a new phenomenon. Many white Southerners have considered themselves an oppressed nation since the Civil War.

Yeah, military occupation can do that to you.

Used to be you could go into a country store and buy a baloney sandwich and a Moon Pie. No more. Unsanitary.

I still recall the brouhaha over the "soap laws."

Yes now I'm being nothing but a smartass, whereas above there were some points in there. Time to stop.

[dropzone]

Being a proper smartass means the mix is half truth and half smartass. I think you managed it.

[MervinFerd]

James Carville is involved, so we can suspect some kind of manipulative political spin. I don't know anything about Stan Greenberg & Karl Agne.

They are a Democratic Party polling organization and make no claims otherwise. There's a certain honesty in that. Their polling results are generally in line with independent organizations.

Carville doesn't help with the credibility department. But, he is amusing.


Apparently the only answer these folks would accept is to nullify the 2008 election. The natural fix would be to pick the next highest-voted-for white American candidate, so that's McCain. He's no Ron Paul, Lindon LaRouche, or David Duke, but he'll do.

Except that the reaction to Bill Clinton was just about the same. The difference is that there was then a rational wing of the Republican Party. GW Bush decimated that.

Yeah, military occupation can do that to you.

"Hale Far! I never knew DamnYankee was two words until I was 14 yers old!"

It's been 150 years. The real problem is cultural isolation and backwardness. If you believe the world was created in 4004 BC and have never actually talked with an Asian, the modern multi-cultural multi-gendered society will seem like an alien country.

I still recall the brouhaha over the "soap laws."

Don't know anything about soap laws.

IMHO, we went overboard with regulations during the '70s. Trying to protect adults whether they wanted protection or not. Effectively substituting elite attitudes toward risk for the judgments of people in very different circumstances and creating an intrusive fabric of regulation and litigation.

I'm quite capable of deciding whether the fellow making my baloney sandwich has washed his hands, but thank-you very much for worrying about me.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if the answer wouldn't be _more_ than two political parties.

Honestly, I see issues lumped under "liberal" or "conservative" over there, that really have no reason to be the monopoly of either.

For example why is it that "Christian"="conservative" anyway? What happened to the idea of being Christian and _left_ wing, you know, actually care about your fellow man like supposedly Jesus did and told people to?

For example, why is environmentalism an either left or right issue, and not something independent of both? I can easily think of approaches to, say, emisions which aren't particularly left wing: e.g., instead of hiking taxes for those who pollute, give a tax break to those which don't. Net effect is lower average taxes, so that ought to be right wing, right? Not saying it's the best approach or anything, just that there is nothing left wing about the environment.

And the results of that arbitrary lumping of issues under Republican or Democrat, sometimes seems to me like it has funny effects. Like you see midwest farmers -- which effectively have been on the welfare since the Great Depression, and everyone's taxed to support them -- effectively chest thump for lower taxes and less government spending. Gee, wiz, what if we started with elliminating the spending that they receive? But I don't think they're in it for that particular reason, but just because somehow Democrats have become associated with being godless atheists _and_ against guns, and those poor farmers have to side with the only party they perceive as letting them keep their bibles and guns.

Effectively it's like having to pick between two women to marry. The one on the left is smart and young, but fat and ugly and the stereotypical male-hater, and really a woman. The one on the right is dumb and old, but still looks kinda good and likes men a lot, but unfortunately she also _is_ a transvestite man. Who do you choose? Come on, you can't complain about lack of choice. Any issue you pick, the two are polar opposites in that aspect. But does either really fit as your dream date?

[Sunray Breaker]

Why the Castaneda reference? After all, when I think neo-cons, the LAST thing I think is Castaneda.

[MervinFerd]

Why the Castaneda reference? After all, when I think neo-cons, the LAST thing I think is Castaneda.

Well, they are in A Separate Reality.

Probably not because of drugs.

[Praktik]

Well, they are in A Separate Reality.

Probably not because of drugs.

Ya the real reason is too little amounts of drugs.

[MervinFerd]

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if the answer wouldn't be _more_ than two political parties.

Honestly, I see issues lumped under "liberal" or "conservative" over there, that really have no reason to be the monopoly of either.

For example why is it that "Christian"="conservative" anyway? What happened to the idea of being Christian and _left_ wing, you know, actually care about your fellow man like supposedly Jesus did and told people to?

For example, why is environmentalism an either left or right issue, and not something independent of both? I can easily think of approaches to, say, emisions which aren't particularly left wing: e.g., instead of hiking taxes for those who pollute, give a tax break to those which don't. Net effect is lower average taxes, so that ought to be right wing, right? Not saying it's the best approach or anything, just that there is nothing left wing about the environment.

And the results of that arbitrary lumping of issues under Republican or Democrat, sometimes seems to me like it has funny effects. Like you see midwest farmers -- which effectively have been on the welfare since the Great Depression, and everyone's taxed to support them -- effectively chest thump for lower taxes and less government spending. Gee, wiz, what if we started with elliminating the spending that they receive? But I don't think they're in it for that particular reason, but just because somehow Democrats have become associated with being godless atheists _and_ against guns, and those poor farmers have to side with the only party they perceive as letting them keep their bibles and guns.

Effectively it's like having to pick between two women to marry. The one on the left is smart and young, but fat and ugly and the stereotypical male-hater, and really a woman. The one on the right is dumb and old, but still looks kinda good and likes men a lot, but unfortunately she also _is_ a transvestite man. Who do you choose? Come on, you can't complain about lack of choice. Any issue you pick, the two are polar opposites in that aspect. But does either really fit as your dream date?

Something about the Federal system and presidential government seems to cause us to gravitate toward exactly two parties. Unlike in a parliamentary system, there is no way for minor parties to gain much influence on the government.

The current political alignment is extraordinary and unsustainable.

Here's my perception. This country has seen extraordinary social changes over the last 40 or so years---much greater than Europe. We had desegregation, liberation of women and the sexual revolution (America began the period far more puritanical and sexually repressed than Europe). And, we had the very disruptive experience of Vietnam. So, much of our politics has been about social issues rather than economics. That worked for the Republicans for a while, but now the party is controlled by an increasingly isolated reactionary minority.

I entirely agree that there should be discussion of conservative alternatives on issues such as global warming. Instead we get irrational denialism.

Why aren't Christians involved in social welfare causes? Some are. There's been some movement among christian groups in that direction. But, mainstream denominations are declining in membership. As in Europe, religion is moving out of the mainstream and the extremes are left.

The takeover of our journalistic institutions by media conglomerates and the rise of 24 hour cable news have been part of the problem as well. Loud-mouth evangelical preachers get better ratings than thoughtful mainstream ministers.

[Brainster]

It's as if the Democrats' base had not been engaged in conspiracy-theorizing from 2001-2008. Anybody remember how Bush "stole Ohio" in 2004? Or Florida in 2000? Anybody remember the darling of the netroots, Howard Dean, theorizing that the Saudis told Bush about 9-11 beforehand? Anybody remember the Cheney death squads? The claims that Bush would declare martial law before the elections? The 5,000 people buried in a swamp in Louisiana?

There is a simple way to get rid of conspiracy theorizing from the GOP; put them back in power. Of course, then we'll have to put up with conspiracy theorizing from the Democrats.

[MervinFerd]

It's as if the Democrats' base had not been engaged in conspiracy-theorizing from 2001-2008. Anybody remember how Bush "stole Ohio" in 2004? Or Florida in 2000? Anybody remember the darling of the netroots, Howard Dean, theorizing that the Saudis told Bush about 9-11 beforehand? Anybody remember the Cheney death squads? The claims that Bush would declare martial law before the elections? The 5,000 people buried in a swamp in Louisiana?

There is a simple way to get rid of conspiracy theorizing from the GOP; put them back in power. Of course, then we'll have to put up with conspiracy theorizing from the Democrats.

The difference, as I think we have discussed before, is that conspiracism never controlled the Democratic Party, as it now does the Republican Party. As I said in the OP, we need two parties; my question is how the Repubs went from a respectable conservative party to its current state. Putting the Repubs back in power now would only hasten their eventual demise. They are not well-enough grounded in reality to promote their own self-interest.

I don't remember, actually, Cheney Death Squads, 5000 buried in LA, or Howard Dean going Truther. Perhaps those were more prominently discussed on conservative sites.

The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore was vigorously opposed by 4 of 9 Justices, so I don't think opposition to that decision constitutes a conspiracy theory.

[HansMustermann]

Why aren't Christians involved in social welfare causes? Some are. There's been some movement among christian groups in that direction. But, mainstream denominations are declining in membership. As in Europe, religion is moving out of the mainstream and the extremes are left.

The question was _not_ why individual Christians aren't into caring for their fellow humans. Obviously, yes, some are. It's why in the USA it seems to be joined at the hip to right-wing politics, and with supporting politicians who are all about why the poor should be poorer so the rich can get a bigger bonus.

The same people who might do some volunteer work at the homeless shelter, then vote for right-winger politicians proposing to do less for those same homeless or at least to not do more. Or watch Billo The Clown on Fox come and say that the poor could afford healthcare if they stopped buying a quart of gin a day, and actually admire him.

And again, some of them are farmers who are effectively on a thinly disguised form of welfare since the 30's. But then applaud at Billo or some politician proposing to cut welfare to someone _else_. Exactly when did "stop paying that other bum so _I_ can make more" become a _Christian_ attitude?

Basically why is it that Christian seems to be automatically Christian-Right, or at least why I don't hear anything about a Christian-Left?

[Brainster]

The difference, as I think we have discussed before, is that conspiracism never controlled the Democratic Party, as it now does the Republican Party.

You mean, that you have a conspiracy theory that conspiracism controls the Republican party. I see little evidence of this, the laughable report from Carville's group notwithstanding. The only conspiracy theory that has any grip on the GOP right now is the stupid birther thing, but even that tops out at about a third; that's right where the stupid Truther thing was with the Democrats. As for the "ooga-booga, Obama's going to turn the US into a socialist state," it's standard rhetoric from the GOP about any Democratic president; Clinton got it just as bad. And Reagan and the two Bushes were turning the US into another Nazi Germany, if you listened to the Democrats

As I said in the OP, we need two parties; my question is how the Repubs went from a respectable conservative party to its current state. Putting the Repubs back in power now would only hasten their eventual demise. They are not well-enough grounded in reality to promote their own self-interest.

Aren't you being guilty of the exact thing you accuse the Republicans of?

I don't remember, actually, Cheney Death Squads, 5000 buried in LA, or Howard Dean going Truther. Perhaps those were more prominently discussed on conservative sites.

There's this marvelous new invention called Google.

Cheney Death Squads (http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/11/7310/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_describes_exe cutive_assassination_ring).

5000 buried in a swamp in Louisiana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgu5Q4wpEj4&feature=player_embedded).

Howard Dean's LIHOP (http://www.slate.com/id/2092515/).

Note that none of these people are insignificant; Sy Hersh writes for the New Yorker, Cynthia McKinney was a congresswoman, and Howard Dean went on to run the Democratic Party for four years.

The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore was vigorously opposed by 4 of 9 Justices, so I don't think opposition to that decision constitutes a conspiracy theory.

No, of course you don't. It's called confirmation bias. And the key decision was 7-2 in that case; it was only 5-4 on the remedy portion.

[NoZed Avenger]

The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore was vigorously opposed by 4 of 9 Justices, so I don't think opposition to that decision constitutes a conspiracy theory.

I see this a lot, and I've even seen this a lot on this very site.

But while no sinlge opinion gained more than a plurality, the decision was actually 7-2, not 5-4. The actual remedy portion of the . . .

Oh, someone beat me to it.

Bugger.

[MervinFerd]

But while no sinlge opinion gained more than a plurality, the decision was actually 7-2, not 5-4. The actual remedy portion of the . . .


Ummmmmmm. The opinion -I- read had four dissents. If that was only the "remedy", well, the remedy was really the controversial part, was it not?

In any event, the opinion was controversial among legal scholars and disagreement with the majority opinion is hardly evidence of irrational Conspiracy Theory thinking. Is it?

[Brainster]

Ummmmmmm. The opinion -I- read had four dissents. If that was only the "remedy", well, the remedy was really the controversial part, was it not?

In any event, the opinion was controversial among legal scholars and disagreement with the majority opinion is hardly evidence of irrational Conspiracy Theory thinking. Is it?

Well, only if you ignore the fact that if the recount had gone forward the way Gore and the Florida Supreme Court wanted, that Bush would have won (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html). Had Bush v Gore been decided in Gore's favor, Bush would have been President (barring further legal efforts).

And a reminder: the conspiracy theory is that Bush stole Florida. Not that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision (which is defensible).

[NoZed Avenger]

Ummmmmmm. The opinion -I- read had four dissents. If that was only the "remedy", well, the remedy was really the controversial part, was it not?

Not for my money. The applicability of the Federal Act to the state's brou-ha ha over its handling of elections seemed at least as controversial, but admittedly, your mileage may vary.

[MervinFerd]

Well, only if you ignore the fact that if the recount had gone forward the way Gore and the Florida Supreme Court wanted, that Bush would have won (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html).Had Bush v Gore been decided in Gore's favor, Bush would have been President (barring further legal efforts).

But, the Court did not know that at the time, now did they? Courts normally try to maintain the appearance of impartiality. In this case, the appearance would have been much improved if the Court had ordered a complete recount administered by a respected figure. There is no way a decision made by 5 judges appointed by Republican presidents was ever going to appear impartial to the other side.

Jeebus!

And a reminder: the conspiracy theory is that Bush stole Florida. Not that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision (which is defensible).

Ummmmmmmm. What factual claims were/are made that are contrary to established facts? The election was excruciatingly close; the recount was administered by a highly partisan figure, there were badly designed ballots and reports of voter intimidation; and, the whole thing was ended abruptly by five Republican Justices.

"Bush Stole Florida" is rhetorical excess, but it is not insane.

[MervinFerd]

Let's simplify this. I will stipulate that there are Loons in the Democratic Party. But there is also a vigorous, sane and responsible leadership. Barack Obama, obviously. But then I can easily make an indefinitely long list of highly respected figures--Bill Clinton, Hillary, numerous senators and Reps, various writers....

Now. Who can you name as sane and responsible leaders of the Republican Party?

GW Bush?---nahhh. John McCain? ----Ok, except the Repubs don't like him much.

Rush Limbaugh? Glen Beck? Sarah Palin?

You mean, that you have a conspiracy theory that conspiracism controls the Republican party. I see little evidence of this, the laughable report from Carville's group notwithstanding. The only conspiracy theory that has any grip on the GOP right now is the stupid birther thing, but even that tops out at about a third; that's right where the stupid Truther thing was with the Democrats. As for the "ooga-booga, Obama's going to turn the US into a socialist state," it's standard rhetoric from the GOP about any Democratic president; Clinton got it just as bad. And Reagan and the two Bushes were turning the US into another Nazi Germany, if you listened to the Democrats



Aren't you being guilty of the exact thing you accuse the Republicans of?



There's this marvelous new invention called Google.

Cheney Death Squads (http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/03/11/7310/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_describes_exe cutive_assassination_ring).

5000 buried in a swamp in Louisiana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgu5Q4wpEj4&feature=player_embedded).

Howard Dean's LIHOP (http://www.slate.com/id/2092515/).

Note that none of these people are insignificant; Sy Hersh writes for the New Yorker, Cynthia McKinney was a congresswoman, and Howard Dean went on to run the Democratic Party for four years.



No, of course you don't. It's called confirmation bias. And the key decision was 7-2 in that case; it was only 5-4 on the remedy portion.

[Brainster]

As I assumed when I saw this thread, it belongs over in Politics. I'm not contributing anymore until it's moved.

[MervinFerd]

As I assumed when I saw this thread, it belongs over in Politics. I'm not contributing anymore until it's moved.

:duck::duck::duck::duck::duck::duck::duck::duck: :duck::duck: