JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 15, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I've been saying that one of the most important developments of the last year has been the entry into the Republican Party of activists and candidates who come from smaller, right-wing subcultures that were previously consigned to the political fringe. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has tended to cover this phenomenon as a series of "gaffes" rather than as the emergence of a coherent ideology. TPM, though, has been doing some terrific reporting. Here's Justin Elliot's report on Sharron Angle:
The key to understanding Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle may be the fact that she has not always been a Republican.
For at least six years in the 1990s before she held statewide elective office, Angle was a member of the little-known Independent American Party, a right-wing party that combines elements of Ron Paul's doctrinaire libertarianism -- pro-gun, anti-tax, anti-bureaucracy, pro-states' rights -- with Christian social conservatism and fear of the "North American Union" and other forms of "global government." The small party attracted considerable controversy in 1994 when it took out a newspaper ad titled "Consequences of Sodomy: Ruin of a Nation," which suggested HIV could spread through the water.
Three members of the Independent American Party tell TPM that Angle, a Nye County, Nevada, school board member at the time, was an active member of the party in the 1990s. They say she only left the Independent American Party and became a Republican out of political expediency when she decided to seek a seat in the state assembly, to which she was elected in 1998.
15 comments
This, my friends, is exactly why November may not be the bloodbath predicted in the earlier post by the same author. If anything, the media attention that the Tea Party has been able to attract is provoking their radical candidates (and even the more mainstream Republicans) to do and say ever more ridiculous things. They then try to walk it back, but 24-hour TV and internet coverage makes that impossible to do. Most working and middle-class people are too busy trying to hang on to their jobs and health care to pay much attention right now. They will start as we get closer to November. They won't like what thy're hearing from the fringies.
- desertdog
June 15, 2010 at 12:43pm
So the question is: how long before decent people who currently lean to the GOP find they can no longer align themselves with the ugliness of the lunatic fringe that has become so prominent? I'm guessing that most Republicans are a little embarrassed by their association with Sharron Angle and her ilk. Some of them were embarrassed by George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin, and must be wondering just how much worse it can get. By all appearances, it looks like it will get much much worse and so the question must be asked. Is there really no bottom to Republican degradation? Neil
- purcellneil
June 15, 2010 at 12:46pm
And I always thought the consequences of sodomy were that even more people were having more fun than me on any given night. Yes, I've been single too long.
- Fishpeddler
June 15, 2010 at 12:51pm
desertdog, Call me delusional, but I still think Democrats can hold House losses down to 15-20, provided the economy gains steam. That, of course, would mean 235-240 House Democrats, which is still a pretty substantial House majority. In the Senate, I think Democrats could hold losses down to 2-3 seats, which again, still means a substantial majority in the Senate. But it's going to be hard. That said, House and Senate Democrats -- in turning a littany of longtime party staples into practical realities, most notably health care reform -- have certainly fulfilled their end of the bargain this Congress. Much more than any Congress in at least 45 years. In health care reform, Democrats made one of the gutsiest and best political performances in at least 45 years. The party deserves our money and our time.
- jimbomoron
June 15, 2010 at 12:56pm
Don't expect "moderate" Republicans to rescue the party from the lunatics. They have been more than tolerating this sort of thing for many, many, many decades now. As long as the party is serving what they see as their immediate economic interests and the lunatics are serving the party in terms of acquiring and maintaining power, they are fine with their insanity and stupidity and even happy to cater to it. Why? Because they believe the harm the far right lunatics are most likely to do will be done to others, less powerful and less prosperous, not to them. Politics is about self-interest, not decency. And the truth is, aminstream moderate Republican interests are served by both parties now. Those interest only need the Republican party as a threat -- the scarey it becomes the more it helps keep the Democrats in line.
- esmense
June 15, 2010 at 1:03pm
SORRY. The last two sentences should read: "mainstream moderate Republican interests are served by both parties now. Those interest only need the Republican party as a threat -- the scarier it becomes the more it helps keep the Democrats in line."
- esmense
June 15, 2010 at 1:06pm
Wait a minute, so the HIV virus is worse than flouride?
- liberal reformer
June 15, 2010 at 1:20pm
The danger of ideological takeover of a political party, as has already happened to the GOP, is that voters and leaders influence one another in a two-way street. If the already radically ideological GOP becomes even more radical, that may alienate some voters. But it will also radicalize other voters. It looks to me like the conservative ideological cult has already reached a size where elite radicalization produces more radicalized converts than it does alienated apostates. The Tea Party seems to be doing for Rand/Bircher authoritarianism in the Republican Party (and America generally) what the AKP is doing for Islamist fundamentalism in Turkey. It's become a self-accelerating process.
- rhubarbs
June 15, 2010 at 1:21pm
I agree with rhubarbs. This process also causes a revised understanding of what a radical political ideology looks like. In other words, 'radical' politics are becoming 'normal', and I am not optimistic that the process is near to reaching its limit.
- Fishpeddler
June 15, 2010 at 1:48pm
lr, that was funny, the same with fishpeddler (though his was also kind of sad) Jimbo, because of the spill I am backing off a little from my previous optimism and am revising it up to 30 in the House and sticking to 5 in the Senate, and it might even be less because of McMahon, Paul, Angle (McMahon less so but it could have been a pickup because of Blumenthals phantom war experiences) and Kirk himself has been floundering and Fiorina is a flake. Right now I see Delaware, North Dakota, Indiana and Arkansas as definite losses for Democrats. Lord knows what Crist will do if he is elected. This is an interesting season because of all the Republican nutcases running for Senate (I include Toomey in PA. who is very radical)
- blackton
June 15, 2010 at 1:51pm
This is interesting news: "The Independent American Party, a right-wing party that combines elements of Ron Paul's doctrinaire libertarianism -- pro-gun, anti-tax, anti-bureaucracy, pro-states' rights -- with Christian social conservatism and fear of the "North American Union" and other forms of "global government." It is highly probable that the Independent American Party is a "front organization" of a smaller, disciplined, ideologically more extreme corpuscle. Was our Republican candidate Sharron Angle also a member of the small, ideologically pure, inner circle of the corpuscle? You are on the correct track. Please keep drilling down deeper. I smell something foul.
- LawrenceGulotta
June 15, 2010 at 1:58pm
Yes, in what promises (still) to be a very good year for the out party, the GOP is indanger of losing 3 very winnbale Senate seats - CT, IL and NV. Blumenthal should be toast, but Linda McMahon (!!)? Rob Simmons would cream him, and Simmons ACTUALLY served in VN. Angle is the worst one to run against Reid - the other 2 beat him like a drum. Yes, even Tarkanian. Kirk should have won easily, but now he's inflating his record, too. Not as badly as Blumenthal, but still. He's running against a mob banker who is clearly an incompetent. After all, it is Roland Burris's seat. All 3 may still win, but why make it interesting? We're alreay going to win ND, DE and AR, and keep FL.
- butchie b
June 15, 2010 at 2:16pm
The Democratic Party has got to start going after this stuff. Being nice is not paying off, when for example, one GOP congressional candidate in AL is talking about armed revolution. The big success of 2006-2008 was the defection of the Rockefeller Republicans in the suburbs to the Democrats. They are starting to swing back. But if this stuff is put front and center, they may not.
- MikeB.
June 15, 2010 at 2:51pm
As someone from Las Vegas who has many friends and relatives still living there, all I can say is keep these articles coming. I'm forwarding them to everyone I know who isn't a complete nutjob and therefore not a Sharron Angle supporter.
- Clareita
June 15, 2010 at 3:42pm
I think there is a danger of moderate Republicans moving to the fringe, but that is most likely only going to happen in states that are already safely Republican. In most states the fringe candidates DID NOT win. These candidates are hurt by the fact that a portion of Republican party has been so radicalized that they will not vote for the moderate nominee. I'm seeing a fair amount of that in Illinois. There are plenty of Tea Partiers who view Mark Kirk's record as proof he is a gay Socialist. Andy Martin ran such a negative campaign that it should depress Republican turnout by 5% or so.
- Attrill
June 15, 2010 at 3:53pm