Brain Dead?
Richard Cohen writes this morning that Herman Cain’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich is proof positive that the Grand Old Party is brain dead:
It’s hard to know who is the more ridiculous figure — the grandiloquent, bombastic and compulsively dishonest Gingrich, or the beguilingly ignorant Cain, a man who has never held elective office and who was reduced to speechlessness when asked a question about Libya. Nonetheless, Gingrich, his Alfred E. Neuman grin on his face, accepted the endorsement and then went on with his nihilistic campaign for the White House. This has been an exceedingly silly political season.
In fact, the Republicans have become the silly party, precisely because they cannot accept the concept of nuance:
If you ask me what I think of abortion, I’d say, “It depends.” It depends on whether you’re talking about the ninth month of pregnancy, the first, the health of the mother, the fetus — or, even, the morning-after pill. But in the Republican contest, the answer to the question is always the same: no, no and no again. Thanks for giving the matter such careful thought.
It is the same with taxes. Should they be raised? It depends. It depends on economic and fiscal conditions — and on whose taxes will be raised and by how much. The answer cannot be “No, never.” That’s not an economic position; it is an ideological one and exhibits a closed mind.
And so it is with all issues — global warming, the Iranian nuclear problem, relations with China. The answers are all simple. The problem is that the world isn’t. And the Republican Establishment — if it still exists — has not had the courage to bring this to the party’s the attention. For too long, Cohen writes, the movers and shakers in the party have
been mute in the face of a belligerent anti-intellectualism, pretending that knowledge and experience do not matter and that Washington is a condition and not a mere city.
They are now reaping the harvest of their neglect.
5 Responses to “Brain Dead?”
Mr. Cohen has put his finger on our, yes our, problem. There seems to be only one rational political party and it ain’t the GOP.
We need sensible people talking sensibly about all the problems we as a nation face; those he listed, and many more. We need two rational parties to debate, compromise, and solve national problems. Too much power in one or the other will inevitably lead to less than adequate decisions.
What we don’t need is discussion in the House and Senate about what Americans do in the privacy of their own home.
I only take issue with his Alfred E. Neuman grin reference. Gingrich may be a morally ambiguous man, but he’s anything but blankly hopeful like Alfred. Gingrich’s smile seems to me to be more sly, as though he’s peering out to see what effect his latest outrageous comment has made on his audience. Puck brought to the political stage.
I really like “Yahoos stride the stage”. So true.
How is a candidate that has already lost endorsing another candidate that is going to lose a sign that an entire party is brain dead?
DaGoat
I don’t think the entire party is brain dead. After all 6 Republicans voted against going into Iraq. And a several are against considering war with Iran.
This tarring one party or another with the attributes of a few is what is making our political system increasingly in danger of failing completely.
Which makes my previous comment suspect; I meant the leadership, not the entire party. My bad.
It’s more than that, Ohioan. The article says that a candidate that has been rejected by a party endorsing another candidate that will probably be rejected is somehow illustrative of the party. I don’t follow that logic.
DaGoat
That may be because you don’t start with the same premise – that the act is futile and therefor irrational.
The authors’ extrapolate what they see as an irrational act to the GOP’s actions since they see the party, in general, acting without nuanced (rational) judgement of situations.
It might be called disassociative rather than brain dead, but it’s their column(s).