Showing posts with label claire conner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label claire conner. Show all posts

Friday, October 30, 2020

After Tuesday, the Democrats need to remember which party the Never-Trump Republicans came from

Claire Conner, who wrote an autobiographical account of growing up in a family whose father was a major player in the John Birch Society, wrote this blog post late last year describing Trump's radical right politics as President, Poisoning America with Conspiracy Theories, Birther Nonsense, and Lies 03/19/2017 (bolding in original):
They [Trump and the Republicans] tell us:
  • The economy has been a disaster
  • The military is crumbling
  • Obamacare is a disaster
  • Nothing in the government works
  • Terrorists are pouring in
  • Immigrants are taking our jobs
  • Muslims are the enemy
  • Undocumented immigrants must be deported
  • Our leaders are losers and morons, except, of course, the great Donald Trump and his cabinet
  • We’re one supreme court justice away from gun confiscation
  • It’s almost the end of the nation that was once known as the United States of America. 
Every day these talking points are repeated by Trump’s surrogates. Republicans parrot the same dribble and repeat it to their constituents.

As a child of the radical right, I heard the identical talking points from my father and his John Birch Society allies. It’s hard to say, but it’s true; my father preached the ideas that are poisoning American politics today. These radical right-wing ideas have polarized Americans and threaten our democracy.

Please don’t dismiss Trump and his GOP pals as “politics as usual.” Don’t laugh at his crazy tweets and pretend that somehow, someday he’ll start acting presidential. Don’t assume that a president like Donald Trump will be stopped by the same radical GOP that elected him.
I would add: Don't assume that the same radical GOP that elected Trump and supported him loyally for the last four years are going to revert to acting like those fabled moderate Eisenhower Republicans of "bipartisan" folklore.

I should point out that at least in the 1950s and 1960s, Muslims were not a particular target of Bircher fear-mongering.

Speaking of the Birchers, here's an interesting cultural relic from 1968 - John Denver singing a song critical of them, John Denver with The Mitchell Trio - The John Birch Society (Live 1968):



The John Birch Society still exists, though I won't include their website link here. John Savage wrote about them in 2017 in The John Birch Society Is Back Politico 07/16/2017:
This is what the 21st-century John Birch Society looks like. Gone is the organization’s past obsession with ending the supposed communist plot to achieve mind-control through water fluoridation. What remains is a hodgepodge of isolationist, religious and right-wing goals that vary from concrete to abstract, from legitimate to conspiracy minded—goals that don’t look so different from the ideology coming out of the [Trump] White House. It wants to pull the United States out of NAFTA (which it sees as the slippery slope that will lead us to a single-government North American Union), return America to what they call its Christian foundations, defund the UN, abolish the departments of education and energy, and slash the federal government drastically. The John Birch Society once fulminated on the idea of Soviet infiltration of the U.S. government; now, it wants to stop the investigation into Russia’s 2016 election meddling and possible collusion with the campaign of President Donald Trump.

The Society’s ideas, once on the fringe, are increasingly commonplace in today’s Republican Party. And where Birchers once looked upon national Republican leaders as mortal enemies, the ones I met in Texas see an ally in the president. “All of us here voted for Trump,” says Carter. “And we’re optimistic about what he will do."
Rick Perlstein discussed the Birchers and Claire Conner's book in Growing Up in the John Birch Society The Nation 08/06/2013. That was during the Obama Administration, three years before Donald Trump was elected President. Rick wrote then:
... now we have thirty states with Republican majorities, many of them veto-proof.

... in Chicago, Claire [Conner] concluded in thunder. “These people are at the point of changing our government. If you want to see how, look at Texas, look at Florida. Look at Ohio. Look at Wisconsin, for God’s sake - my state. Look at Michigan, for heaven’s sake: they think they elected a moderate, but they elected a right-wing radical. That’s how this game is played. They’re changing the policy. And the whole thing is so deep that when they vote them out of office, number one, half of them won’t be able to vote. And number two, we will have years of problems to fix…. We were so happy that we won the popular vote, but they’re buying the place….they’ve virtually stopped the government for five years.”

Claire Conner knows of what she speaks. She was there at the inception—as a sad-eyed, vulnerable adolescent—then watched as the machine was put together: a machine whose deceptively smooth surface has always only barely hid the corrosive ugliness and cunning anti-democratic cleverness underneath, convincing too many liberals, too many times, that the ugliness could not but fade away in the fulness of time—convincing them wrong. Read her, and listen well: there is nothing new under the wingnut sun. [italics in original; my emphasis in bold]
We can defend or idealize Obama all we want. But this was the state of American politics less than a year after Obama's re-election. And whatever the Democrats did, good or bad, during those eight years was not sufficient to avoid a Radical Republican takeover in 2016. This is something we all need to remember when people hold up the Obama Administration as a template for a Biden Administration. If we want a Biden Presidency to be more than a four-year reprieve from a Trumpist restoration, that Administration will have to achieve something different in both policy and in political organization and persuasion than what we had in 2009-2017 under Obama.

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Rightwing radicalism in the Republican Party and neoliberalism among the Democrats

Claire Conner made a useful list on her website last September of important elements in the supposedly libertarian radicalism of today's Republican Party (Why Does the GOP Cling to Trump No Matter What? 09/17/2019):
Trump and today’s radical GOP agree on the basics.
  1. Cut taxes on the rich and handcuff the IRS.
  2. End most federal programs and privatize the rest.
  3. Reduce the safety net and end all welfare.
  4. Repeal healthcare reform and let the free market handle the issue.
  5. Make it harder to vote.
  6. Stop immigration and block all reform that would offer a path to citizenship.
  7. Oppose reproductive rights and equal rights for the LGBTQ community.
  8. Stack the courts with right-wing judges who will stop any progressive legislation that comes before them. 
Even today, too many Americans have no clue that the GOP really believes these things. And I can understand why. The extremists have gone to great lengths to frame their ideas in sound bites. At the same time, they’ve become masters at telling half-truths and outright lies about the real-world consequences of their radical ideas. [emphasis in original]
One more reminder that even though Trump presents, uh, unique features, his domestic radicalism isn't some aberrant phenomenon. This is what today's Republican Party is. And it's been on this road for a long time.

Trump does it in a crass, caricatured populist fashion. But he's on board with the things in that list.

Part of his populist appeal in 2016 was to promise things like protecting Social Security and a vague promise for a great healthcare system for everybody. Of course, as we also saw in 2010, the Democrats have made themselves vulnerable to accusations that they want to cut Social Security:
Adopting "third way" neoliberal economics and a general defense crouch was a bad development in the Democratic Party.James Kwak provides one description of that process in (‘Take Back Our Party’ Chapter 3: Bad Politics The American Prospepct 12/16/2019. Although it's kind of unfortunate that the story is illustrated with two different photos of Al Gore. It's true that Gore was a leading figure in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a party faction that actively promoted this development. But I would argue that his leadership on making people aware of the seriousness of the climate crisis is a major mitigating factor. And, in general, he has been sounding more like a regular New Deal Democrat since the 2000 Presidential election was stolen from him by the Radical Republicans and the Supreme Court.

This is part of how Kwak describes the political effect of the Democrats' corporate/neoliberal approach:
The 2018 elections proved that Democrats can still put up a fight when Republicans go after popular government programs. But the first major weakness of the Democratic economic platform in recent decades has been a failure to talk about the economic issues that most people actually care about. Presidents Obama and Clinton liked nothing more than invoking the soaring rhetoric of growth and opportunity. Schumer, Bustos, and the rest of the leadership seem to think that repeating the word “jobs” will enable them to connect with the working class. But for most people, growth and opportunity are just abstract concepts, and jobs are not what keep them up late at night. Few people setting aside their medical bills because they are afraid to open them think that a larger economy will be the solution to their problems, or that cheaper student loans will turn their lives around. Nor are jobs the answer to all problems. For one thing, the unemployment rate is historically low; it was less than 5 percent when Donald Trump was elected president, and has since fallen as low as 3.5 percent. It is true that many people have given up on looking for jobs and are not counted in those figures (although the broadest measure of unemployment, which includes discouraged and underemployed workers, is also at the lowest level since 2000). But workers without the skills to find employment in a highly favorable labor market are unlikely to think that the existence of more job openings will magically make them better off. The economy has been growing for a decade, and unemployment is low, yet tens of millions of people still face a daily struggle to make ends meet. [my emphasis]
A central feature in Democratic politics right now is a quasi-theological dispute over identity issues, i.e., racism/sexism/gender vs. economics. For the Obama/Biden/Clinton corporate-friendly neoliberal pitch to distinguish itself from the Republican version, emphasizing both symbolic and real measures to protect civil rights while pretending that growth in the GDP stimulated by deregulation and low taxes for corporations oligarchs would take care of economic problems. Trickle-down economics with a more diverse face.

The unemployment rate is a good example of the weakness of the neoliberal a-rising-tide-lifts-all-boats narrative. For decades, the unemployment rate has generally been an excellent measure for the relative strength or weaknesses of the economy. But the weakening of labor laws and the rise of the "gig economy" means more and more that the unemployment rate is now a far less meaningful indicator of economy distress or well-being.