Guest Post by Anonymous Liberal
I realize the media likes nothing better than covering Democratic in-fighting (hence all the breathless op-eds and news articles this morning discussing the “fiasco” that is the Democratic leadership race), but maybe, just maybe, we should now devote some attention to the fact that, despite being resoundingly rebuked by voters, the Republicans in the House have just re-elected the same people who have steered their ship into one iceberg after another over the last few years. As John notes below, by electing Boehner and Blunt, the Republicans in the House are basically extending their middle fingers to the voting public.
It’s remarkable really. While the Democratic party has been in a more or less continuous–and often paralyzing–state of introspection for what seems like decades now, the Republicans in Congress seem intent on proceeding as if they weren’t just booted out of the majority in disgrace. They seem to think this election was just a hiccup, a temporary setback in the GOP’s inexorable rise toward permanent majority status. It reminds me of the scene with the black knight in Monte Python and the Holy Grail:
ARTHUR:
Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT:
‘Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR:
A scratch? Your arm’s off!
BLACK KNIGHT:
No, it isn’t.
ARTHUR:
Well, what’s that, then?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I’ve had worse.
[Arthur cuts off other arm]
BLACK KNIGHT:
Have at you!
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR:
Look, you stupid bastard. You’ve got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Yes, I have.
ARTHUR:
Look!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Just a flesh wound.
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!
Look, all teasing aside, I don’t mean to imply that this election was some sort of mortal blow to the Republican Party. But, at the very least, it should have been a mortal blow to their Congressional leadership. When the Democrats take over the House in January, their majority will be as big as any majority that the GOP has enjoyed over their entire 12 years in power. The “revolution” is over, folks. This isn’t just a flesh wound. It’s well past time for some serious introspection to begin. If you’re looking for a good place to start, may I recommend this observation from David Brooks in an interview on Newshour last year:
I think Republicans have in their minds we are the anti-government party. We came to shrink government. So they say that out on the campaign trail. But when you are the majority party actually governing, it doesn’t work. People want the problem solved. So instead of having a governing philosophy that will tell them I’m going to spend it here but not there, they have a governing philosophy that is irrelevant to actually governing. So they take that anti-governing philosophy and they just toss it out the window and when they get here and spend like sailors. So what you have is a governing philosophy that doesn’t apply to the real world . . . .
And it’s not just the voodoo tax policy and inability to cut spending. The programs the GOP has actually tried to implement over the last few years are, almost without exception, exceedingly ill-advised. Indeed the Republicans are fortunate that they weren’t successful in their attempts to privatize social security or create health savings accounts, etc. These are classic examples of ideas that were conceived of and championed because they conformed to pre-conceived ideologies and not because they made any policy sense. They would not have solved the problems they were intended to solve (indeed they would have made them much worse) and they would have grown increasingly unpopular over time. They’re just really bad ideas. And you can’t build a lasting majority on really bad ideas.
Republicans are quite good at campaigning and sloganeering. But to build a lasting majority you need to be good at governing too. The Republican party, at least in its present form, has shown absolutely no ability to do this. And until they do, they’re never going to have anything more than narrow and short-lived majorities.