Ted Cruz & GOP gov't shutdown prove Tea Party is step to post-democracy America

[yurbud]

When the Tea Party first showed up, I could not figure out why they noticed at all since their ideology is pretty consistently conservative Republican.

The early explanation was Baby Bush had put so much stink on the GOP brand, that Republican politicians had to call themselves something else to get elected.

At the time, I suspected they had another purpose: some of the right's most conservative wealthy backers were disappointed that Republicans in Congress (and the White House) didn't pull the trigger on full fascism during the window of opportunity during the Bush years.

The very wealthy are not stupid and know demographics will eventually cripple the GOP because of the legacy (and largely on-going use) of the Southern Strategy.

Therefore, they have to either A) hitch their horse to corporate Democrats, which would entail giving in to just a little bit to taxes, regulation, and worker protections, OR B) get Republicans to seize power permanently while they could. After 9/11 they came pretty close, and Karl Rove even floated a trial balloon about "postponing" the 2004 election because of the War on Terror (and when would they declare that over?)

Republicans in Congress balked at that, probably not out of conscience or patriotism, but a reasonable analysis of the risks of failure and what it would cost them personally (everything).

Rather than resign themselves to plan A, the wealthy cranks decided they needed politicians who didn't do risk assessment because they were either too stupid, too over-confident or both.

If the right has another opportunity like controlling both chambers of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court again, they will not hesitate or chicken out again.

[cali]

1. the tea party and those elected who fit that description are regional

phenomena, with but a handful of exceptions. Ted Cruz can no more be elected President than Sarah Palin can.

[nomorenomore08]

7. I sure hope you're right... *fingers crossed*

[bemildred]

2. I've thought about that.

I was wondering at the time if they would pull the trigger, it was clear enough some people wanted to.

The problem is that we lack the wherewithal for them to control the country after. I mean think about it, we failed to control Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Vietnam, and ...

And Amurkins are quite well armed and many are very well trained too. And this is a big country. It would result in civil insurrection at least, and greatly hasten our decline.

It is vanilla US politics to engage in misrule to stay in power, that would be no problem, the threat of losing control and power is the real threat, and I think that was why it was thought better to pull back and wait for better days. Notice how stunned they were when Rmoney lost?

But I think THAT is why they didn't pull the trigger.

[yurbud]

3. and maybe mild disagreement in the country club about whether to throw a bone to the peasants

or take whatever bones we buried to chew on later.

[bemildred]

4. Oh yeah, your argument works fine too, I think the two fit together really.

The Tea Party has reminded me of the John Birch Society ever since they got attention, particularly the reactionary political narrative they fancy and their longing for corporate feudalism. Goldwater was their boy in 1964. They are persistent.

[yurbud]

5. good point about the Romney reaction--maybe they thought they could steal it without firing a shot

[bemildred]

6. Well, I think "buy it" is the right term for 2012.

But a lot of that was Rove's alternate reality, which paid very well for Rove, mind you.

Have you considered the Citizen's United connection? Do you think it was an accident that the successors to the Felonious Five unleashed an avalanche of money into our political process right then? And Numbnuts was relying on it to get him the Oval Office?

The Kochs and Scalia are acquainted? Scalia thinks of himself as a religious aristocrat. Did you see his funny hat at the inauguration?

I think the only thing which has saved us so far is the stunning level of ignorance, venality, and incompetence these guys bring to the table. We had these same characters around during the Vietnam debacle, and they never learn a thing. This whole Iraq mess was Cheney trying to prove he was really right all along, and he's still out there with his metal heart trying to convince us.

[yurbud]

8. I think the anonymous hackers saved us from Mitt.

There should have been some hint that money wouldn't do the whole job after Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown here in California.

She had a boatload of money and he had a pretty modest bankroll.

[marmar]

9. In a lot of ways, we're already in post-Democracy America.

[yurbud]

10. yes and no. We are still close enough that people can be fooled. Sort of like

stealing elections. They can be stolen, but at the moment, it has to be close enough for people to believe the thief actually won.

The parallel issue with governing is Democrats enacting conservative, neoliberal policies by pretending Republicans are forcing their hand.

As Republicans become a smaller, more marginal party, it will be harder and harder to keep up that pretense.

And once it's impossible to keep it up, what will be Democrats excuse for not enacting what Democratic voters actually want?

So the Democrats will either have to become something like Mexico's PRI, a corrupt single party, or the GOP has to seize power, with the Democrats falling back into their role since the dawn of Reagan of the opposition that couldn't shoot straight.

Put that way, it looks like we're in for a President Cruz since that strategy worked so well in the Bush years by getting progressives and others to pin their hopes on Democratic presidential candidates who would have only deviated from Bush's policies on cultural issues.