Squealing Partisans
WASHINGTON – It’s as if Democratic and Republican partisans think our country is made of feathers.
What’s most important has been left largely unexamined: if one of these candidates actually becomes president and advances his or her policies, what would be the consequences for the nation? – What If Obama Loses?
Every election season we hear about the dire consequences if one side or the other isn’t elected, but yet, we seem to muddle through. The problem is we never learn and keep voting for the same two parties, without a hint of irony that doing the same thing every election and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.
People are sick of the status quo, so is it any wonder independents are rising? With both parties committed to warmaking, why is anyone surprised that Ron Paul has gained traction, with his supporters coming from independents, Republicans, and Democrats.
The Democratic and Republican parties are bought and paid for and squealing partisans are their bankers.
For the first time, looking at all this as a recovering partisan, though I’m still a big liberal, I finally know a bit about how and what independents must see and feel when looking at partisan squealers. So now when I read or hear the hair on fire protestations about the consequences of one side or the other getting “power,” I understand the disdain people feel for both political parties.
See Rick Santorum’s comment yesterday about good economic news, when he said that it’s all about “optimism that Republicans will take the White House.” At least Mitt Romney acknowledged reality, which is that the economy is weak, but trends are in the right direction.
I did a lot of interviews this week, including for the UK Guardian, publicizing my book, but also because I was a go-to gal on Michele Bachmann getting out of the race. The Hillary Effect, got lots of attention and a nice mention on Al Jazeera.
One interview reminded me again of the state of our political culture when I heard a right wing amateur radio host call me a liar several times after our interview had concluded. It was like the old days when I used to do radio “shoot outs” back during Pres. Bill Clinton’s 2nd term and into the Gore v. Bush contest. It’s also one reason I quit doing radio interviews.
It’s what happens on Twitter regularly, vitriol unleashed whenever anything revealing is written about Pres. Obama. When squealing partisans don’t approve of what I write, their reactions are so extreme they target the messenger, moi, when I even dare to post a news item. It happened when I wrote a piece about Michael Hastings new book, because I found the interchange with the author on “Morning Joe” interesting. Obama supporters took aim at me, as usual, even invoking Hillary Clinton in the mother of all non sequitar burps, instead of taking issue with Hastings.
On the Republican side, it’s just politicians squealing.
“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” Gingrich said earlier today in Plymouth, N.H. – ABC News
“Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else?” Santorum asked, according to a video by NBC News. “So anybody can marry several people?” – LA Times
Rush Limbaugh sounded like a stuffed wart hog this week over an article from the American Enterprise attempting to make gullible Republicans start building bunkers for economic war. It all revolves around the smart move by Pres. Obama to make a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, though it should have been Elizabeth Warren.
Rush’s rhetorical explosion started with an article by James Pethokoukis at AEI:
January Surprise: Is Obama preparing a trillion-dollar, mass refinancing of mortgages?
This could be just the beginning. If President Barack Obama’s legally dodgy appointment of Richard Cordray to head the consumer finance agency should stick, it may open the door to more such actions. Here’s Jaret Seiberg of the Washington Research Group:
To us, the most important takeaway from a recess appointment of Cordray is that the President could use this same maneuver to put a housing advocate in charge of FHFA.
And why is that important? The Federal Housing Finance Agency is the regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the FHFA currently has an acting director, Edward DeMarco. If Obama replaces him with a “housing advocate” via the same recess appointment process, here’s what might happen next, according to Seiberg:
That could lead to a mass refinancing program for agency-backed mortgages that would go well beyond the existing HARP program. That could hurt agency MBS pricing and result in higher financing costs going forward. Yet it also could be a big boost for the economy and housing going into the election.
Indeed, my sources tell me the Obama administration has been eager to implement just such a plan, but needs to have its own man heading the FHFA to make it happen. The plan would be modeled after one originally devised by Columbia University economists Glenn Hubbard (a campaign adviser to Mitt Romney and AEI visiting scholar) …
Is Rush & this AEI writer freaked about Pres. Obama winning, telegraphing that Romney = Obama, or have Republicans just run out of cogent arguments to make against Obama?
Meanwhile, many Americans are simply sick of watching and playing our part in the United States two party soap opera that is getting us absolutely nowhere.
Last time I looked, the big banks were doing just fine and Wall Street is humming along.
The cause worth joining isn’t fighting over two corporate party heads who are a lot more worried about their own futures than ours. It’s refusing to play the rigged game or argue whether there’s much difference between them at all.
It all begins with getting money out of politics or at the very least, making the process more transparent.
As for the presidential contest, I’d like a choice of “none of the above.”
Taylor Marsh is the author of the new e-book, The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss, which is now available in print on Amazon. Marsh is a veteran political analyst and commentator. She has reported from the White House, been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and has been seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her new media blog.
17 Responses to “Squealing Partisans”
Excellent article. Nice to see comments like this that tell it like it is and not the two party talking points all one hears daily.
“Meanwhile, many Americans are simply sick of watching and playing our part in the United States two party soap opera that is getting us absolutely nowhere.”
Seems like we don’t have much of a choice until something comes along that can reduce the monopoly the two parties have on the system right now. We are stuck with the results of the last three elections that promote ineffective government and partisn politics. We elected senators five years ago that brought in certain views. Three years ago we elected a President and house that became a lighting rod due to a poor economy. Last year, we changed course and elected the house again, with dfferent results. Each of these elections have produced results that do not allow for a strategic long term plan to be developed in Washington, leading to at best 1 year plans that sometimes end up 3 month plans. And in 2012 we will elect another President, the House and partial Senate. Again, we will have parts of three elections working against each other.
“Last time I looked, the big banks were doing just fine and Wall Street is humming along.”
Like you said “The Democratic and Republican parties are bought and paid for and squealing partisans are their bankers”. And one only needs to look at the banks and Wall Street today to find they are much better off today than in most any other time in history. While the average American is fighting to keep their home, pay for a college education and with some living in homeless camps, Washington just keeps giving in to the financial corporations while at the same time attacking them as the 1%’ers and not doing anything to help the guys that really need help.
Can anyone really say the bailout was handled properly and efficiently with so many Americans hurting? Seems like that much money could have provided better outcomes than the earmarks that alot of it went to.
Welcome to the third side Taylor. It’s a bit fractured over here, but that’s because you’re allowed to think for yourself.
I’m all for getting the corporate/union money out of the process, or at the very least, money that wasn’t intended for political purposes (like club dues and corporate lobbying). That would still give a lot more power to the richest, but at least the money could be traced back to the giver, and the giver would know what their money was being used for.
Thanks for pointing out the attacks and vitriol. Even when talking to my own friends, I find that I have to constantly remind many of them that people with policies and disagreeable viewpoints usually have good intentions. The ones to watch are those who are in power, and repeat deceptive talking points.
Wow, I agree with everyone above.
If we had Instant Runoff Voting in this country, the voters would have the sort of power the founders had intended them to have. Oh sure, a 3rd party could be elected in theory as things are, but we all know that won’t happen with the present system. Talk is all well and good, but at some point the rubber needs to hit the road. Maybe if people get bent far enough out of shape…
Hey RP, I appreciate it very much. ProfElwood, dduck, considering I was one of the hardest partisans around, it’s been a passage, let’s say.
zephyr – The “rubber meets the road” every time people vote and it’s long past time that everyone gets that 2 corporate, Wall Street parties don’t cut it.
I don’t know what the solution is. We need to get money out out of the process but after somewhat tepid attempts to do that we are now putting money back into the process, going the wrong way.
There has to be some kind of public financing of elections. As long as money is contributed to elect office holders the office holders will be beholden to money. It is not a matter of proforma bribery even, money will elect politicians whose policies favor the people who contribute money.
This is why both parties trip over themselves and each other to kowtow to the monied (moneyed) interests.
But to give up on the two parties you have to believe that both have sold out equally. This is a hard sell to me. I would put the Republicans at 100% sold out but the Democrats at only 75%. I still think that we are better off supporting the guys that are the least far gone than supporting the ones whose platform promises complete support for the moneyed interests, the 1%, at the cost of everyone else.
And I don’t see a third party as a solution. The moneyed interests can corrupt a party faster than we can build one. The libertarians started with money from the Koches, starting with the father. The libertarian party, not Ron Paul, still depends on Koch brothers’ support.
Locking everyone into only two choices is indeed as bad for many (maybe most?) liberals and conservatives as it is for centrists. Centrists suffer from a two party system that systematically divides them. But liberals and conservatives are expected to fall in line with “their” party, no matter what, regardless of the fact that one set of positions for each side can never hope to cover all their beliefs.
That is one reason I started using the term “Partisans” because in many ways it is about those who want us to adhere to one of only two choices vs. those of us who want more.
I have to say, “none of the above” has become increasingly interesting. The push will come in deciding what to do if it “wins”, but it would at least let voters make statement that “none of this is OK”. My personal favorite is instant run-off voting….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
@Merkin
The Koch brothers fund some libertarian think-tanks, but I can’t find a single reference to say that they have funded the Libertarian party or its candidates since 1984, when they split with the party.
Taylor, I get your passions/idealism.
Merkin, I get your realism/sense of degree.
David, I get your IRV.
What could be better than complete freedom to vote for the candidate of your choice without ever feeling you’ve been forced into channeling your vote to the lesser of evils in order to prevent another GWB/Cheney regime (for instance)? It would be a win win for the electorate – and genuine opportunity for third parties. If the electorate at large understood the beauty of IRV they would clamor for it.
IRV will not bring a new dawn for third parties (witness the machine Democrat San Francisco elected for mayor), and even if it did it’s hard to imagine third parties making much of a difference.
Ron Paul is a great example of dissenting views making themselves heard, even in a party that has “100% sold out” as Merkin puts it. He will lose the nomination not because GOP power brokers will suppress him but because he’s a kook. At the end of the day voters value safety and will tend to vote for safe-feeling candidates. Radicals will tend to lose, no matter what party is sponsoring them.
Only a deep cover mole could finally upset the status qua. Think a Mr. Smith masquerading as a conservative or liberal, getting in and prior to getting assassinated pushing through voting/financing reforms and IRV.
In San Francisco, about 50% of the voters felt free to not vote for the top two candidates in the first round. That is what it is suppose to do. It isn’t going to prevent strong candidates from winning, nor should it. It is there to give more choices.
Ron Paul represents a faction, the Libertarians, that have been trying for decades to have a voice. Having one second tier candidate in a primary election one time (when the two parties have acted so badly that discontent is at an all time high), is not what I would call an acceptable outlet for their views. And having your lack of voice derided because you are “kooks” is just part of the same old excuses for the two party system locking people out.
Except Dr. Paul has a voice and isn’t locked out, David. He’s been getting a lot of air time and is competitive with the strongest of the establishment candidates.
He’s not going to win, and you’re within your rights to find that unacceptable.
But what’s holding him back isn’t the GOP machine, it’s the voters, who are squealing partisans, or risk-averse, or squealing risk-averse partisans. Look what has been written about him at TMV: the left can barely acknowledge the agreeable parts of his platform because they’re so caught up in the parts they disagree with or in calling him a racist.
You seem to be operating with this picture in mind of noble third-party candidates bearing new ideas, who would be welcomed by voters but are stifled by the electoral machinery. That’s hard to square with the data. It looks to me like the new ideas are making it through the machinery but then getting squashed by the voters.
Dr. J, what you say may be true, but it has little to do with IRV, nor does do anything to discredit the useful function to which a tool like IRV could be put. Of course it wouldn’t be a solution to all problems, but it would end the fear and lack of options for those who want to vote 3rd party without feeling they are throwing their vote away. It would be the best way to discover just how well 3rd (or 4th) parties could do on a level playing field. Again, it would be a win win.
I like IRV, Zephyr, and I appreciate the theory behind it that it makes it safe to vote for whom you really want.
It’s controversial here in San Francisco, though. We get to rank our top three candidates, and voters complain that their votes “don’t count” unless they pick a candidate who will make it to the final runoff. I don’t quite understand the complaint, but there it is. There’s also a sense that to the extent IRV yields more varied winners than some more traditional process, it’s broken.
Dr. J says:
January 8, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Yes, and that’s good. But the idea that it make up for the decades the liberterians were locked out, or all the other views that are still locked out, just isn’t credible to me.
We have a system that systematically discriminates against anything but two chosen sets of positions and the fact that voter anger might _sometimes_ manage to overcome that doesn’t make it alright. We need real change, not an occasional token opportunity.
I don’t care if he wins. I’m not a Liberterian. I just don’t like political system that denies voters choices. Denying Liberterians is part of the same problem that denies centrists.
[More about Ron Paul and why he isn't winning delected. That isn't the point, as I mentioned above. The two party system failing to block one alternative view, in one race, one time, doesn't make up for all the other views, in all the other races, in all the other years.]
Hardly, you may say “look it happened once”, everthing is OK.” But for independents who have seen the system work against them time and time again, that just doesn’t fly.
That is because voters have had years in being indoctrinated in the idea that unless they vote for one of two candidates their votes are wasted (even if both candidates suck).
There also has been a lot of claims that don’t, IMO, hold up objectively. For example, here we have had the claim that it didn’t make much difference in SF, yet 50% of the voter felt free to not vote for the top two candidates. And it also worth noting that in the SF election the most memorable spot wasn’t a negative ad where one accuses his opponent of molesting puppies, but a relatively positive spot (Lee’s “2 legit to quit” spot).
Similarly, we can contrast the claims that it didn’t make a difference in SF because the incumbent won, with the claim that it didn’t work in Oakland because the top guy _didn’t_ win. It becomes a catch 22.
Another example of the catch 22. If is works like the old system, then it doesn’t make a difference and if it works differently, then it is broken.
I don’t know if this is because people just haven’t tried to understand it or because there is push back from interests trying to protect the two party system.