SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Republicans Reap The Whirlwind

JONATHAN CHAIT SEPTEMBER 14, 2010

Republicans Reap The Whirlwind

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh cited this post in calling Jonathan Chait "a hate merchant."

The conservative movement has spent the last 20 months sowing hysteria about President Obama's agenda. The most respectable Republicans call the president a socialist, a radical, a threat to freedom. The less respectable Republicans, many of them highly influential, call him an alien, a sympathizer of radical Islam, a conscious enemy of the United States who is trying to wreck the economy. Obama is a dangerous figure, he cannot be compromised with, and the fight against him is a twilight struggle to save the last vestiges of the Republic.

And so it has been amusing to watch Republicans as they desperately attempted to persuade Republican voters in Delaware to support moderate Mike Castle over Christine O'Donnell. The political logic is obvious: Castle would have been a near shoo-in to win, while O'Donnell is a near shoo-in to lose. Castle may be a moderate, but half a loaf is better than none. Here is John McCormack of the Weekly Standard:

Yet, Castle remained unapologetic about his support for cap-and-trade, unlike other moderate Republicans, such as Mark Kirk in Illinois and Scott Brown in Massachusetts, who ran from cap-and-trade when they ran for Senate. "Do I regret supporting it originally? Politically, it would have been easier not to, but ultimately if we get to the point where we are actually improving our environment and do the things we need to do, I don’t necessarily think it was a wasted vote."

But, Castle argued, cap-and-trade is almost certainly dead in this Congress and the next...

Mark Hemmingway in the Washington Examiner:

Castle may be a liberal Republican, but that's better than a liberal Democrat. True, Castle has in the past supported cap and trade and other legislation that makes conservatives wince. But he's also a co-sponsor of the bill to repeal Obamacare.

And the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

GOP primary voters must decide if they want to vote for Mr. Castle, a moderate who would help Republicans organize the Senate and who opposed ObamaCare but who will give them heartburn on some issue in the future. Or they can vote their heart even if it means giving up a Senate seat.

And so on, and so on. The premise of all these pleas for Castle was extremely sensible: this is politics. Sometimes you move the ball forward, sometimes the other team moves it forward. Sometimes you make compromises in order to get ahead.

But the Republican base has been taught not to think this way. This isn't just politics, remember? This is a twilight struggle for freedom. And Mike Castle didn't just cast a couple bad votes. He acquiesced in a sinister plan to undermine capitalism. How could they ever support a candidate like that?

Moreover, Republican voters have luxuriated in the belief that they represent the true majority of the American people. Obama may have won by fooling the voters, or possibly by stealing the election with Acorn, but the enduring majority of the public is staunchly conservative. Indeed, Republicans only lost because they strayed from the true faith.

Now, most elite Republicans understand that the red meat fed to the base isn't exactly right. It's useful to scare the daylights out of the activists, but writers for the Standard and the Journal editorial page understand that "freedom," as most people understand the term, is not really at risk. They understand as well that politics is a little more complicated than "if Republicans stay true to conservatism, they cannot lose."

But the conservative base is not in on the joke. And so Republican elites found themselves with just a few frantic days to undo the toxic and intoxicating effects of 20 months of relentless propaganda. Vote for the man who compromised with evil! The true conservative can't always win! They couldn't do it.

I won't say that the Republican base strategy has been a total failure. But it is nice to see it blow up in the face of the establishment from time to time.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 39 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

39 comments

Jon, it's too soon for schadenfreude. Personally, I won't rest easy until I wake up November 3 and find out that O'Donnell, Paul, and Angle have all lost their races...plus Rubio...plus Fiorina... Aww, hell, I want 'em all to lose, but I know THAT ain't gonna happen. All I saying is, don't count your chickens until they're hatched. From a game theoretical point of view, O'Donell's primary victory is a mixed bag. It increases the likelihood of the best possible outcome--retention of a Democratic seat--but it also increases the likelihood of the worst possible outcome--the ascension of a batshit crazy Tea Partier to the United States Senate. It's hard for me to work out whether the EV of O'Donnell's win (you poker players out there know what I'm talking about) is positive or negative.

- AaronW

September 15, 2010 at 12:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is interesting to see the lack of correlation between increased anti-Obama/incumbent election rhetoric, while even Gallup's numbers show that Obama's approval rating is holding in around 45-47%. They may be able win a primary but I'm confident that independents will not vote for the likes of O'Donnell and Paul.

- jpjoyce44

September 15, 2010 at 12:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It would have been hard for Joe Biden to campaign in Delaware against Mike Castle. It will be easy for him and his son and his boss to campaign against O'Donnell. In fact, she and Angle are sufficiently crazy that it might even start to reflect on some other Tea Party favorites such as Paul and Miller. The narrative may be about to change in the Democrats' favor.

- timteeter

September 15, 2010 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, right wing extremists have been elected to national office before, though mostly national office in other places. I made a comment about fantasy thinking in an earlier Chait post: "My own theory about the surge in fantasy thinking among Americans is that the past four-five years have completely upset their world view, and rather than accept it, they have taken to fantasy thinking". What we hear said by the extremists may be entirely different from what is heard by those taken to fantasy thinking. It can't happen here, it is often said about America. Don't bet on it.

- rayward

September 15, 2010 at 9:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Concern well shared, rayward. But what is that old Indian saying about He who rides the Tiger becomes devoured? Change is difficult, look a the flip side in the Washington DC mayor race.

- NR027810

September 15, 2010 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We knew before the last elections that Obama is both an anti-Semite and an adherent to Liberation theology because of his spiritual mentor, Wright. I am non-longer a Democrat because today it includes too many who have Obama's views. I could not vote against Obama last time because I could not possibly vote for Palin. This time I will vote even for supporters of Palin and 2 years later even for Palin herself to unseat Obama. I would never vote for anyone who was part of anything not accepting Black's and will of course never vote for anyone who ever belongs to an anti-Semitic church... for 20 years. Too bad the Republicans are self destructing just when I am for the first time going to vote for their candidates to get rid of Obama's supporters.

- Poupic

September 15, 2010 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Uh-Oh Nate Silver isolates three factors in this dynamic and I'm not ready to conclude they only apply to what we've seen. There is no reason (and obviously no proof) that they won't be profound in November. This is a deadly cocktail for Democrats and at this point we only have control of #2.

1. "...the condition of the economy and the Democrats’ seeming inability to craft a winning message around it." 2. "Democratic disinterest" 3. "Republican engagement"
Earlier this year my optimism relied upon waning enthusiasm from the right and an awakening of the left. However, the energy of the radical right has not abated, the late primaries indicate the crazies are as excited as they've been all year.

- michaelg

September 15, 2010 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poupic - good riddance. You don't belong in the party with your ridiculous lies and nonsense anyway. Join the party of nutters and fantisizers where you fit in perfectly.

- WandreyCer

September 15, 2010 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poupic said: "We knew before the last elections that Obama is both an anti-Semite and an adherent to Liberation theology because of his spiritual mentor, Wright". Amazing commentary. I grew up in the Southern Baptist tradition and routinely heard, Sunday after Sunday, that America was bound for hell and unless we changed our sinful ways we were doomed to eternal damnation. I grew up. People like Poupic need to grow up too. To ascribe a world view to one loud minister, whose rhetoric is routinely taken out of context, is typical right wing wing trash talk. Enough!

- NR149566

September 15, 2010 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back in the late 90s, leading up to the .com bust, I used to ask people in various startup .coms, "Are you a serious business?" Roughly translated that means, do you have an actual intent to be in business in 10 years, and do you have a business model that might get you there, or are you just surfing a wave of obvious insanity because you can pocket some cash by doing so? A lot of the answers weren't very encouraging. Neither were the results. I am now at the point that I feel the need to ask of an entire political party and it's voters "Are you serious abount being a nation?" - that is, do you actually intend to be a world power and leader in a couple of decades, or are you just surfing an wave of obvious insanity because it leads to short term gratification and power, and damn the long term consequences? I don't think the answer will be any better than the one I got from the .coms. These people are not SERIOUS - in the sense that they are incapable of thinking through or caring about whether their grab for power ruins the country and leads us to being a second rate republic that looks more like Mexico in the 60s, than a true leader. Ideology and the thrill of calling the shots in the name of ideology is enough for them.

- IowaBeauty

September 15, 2010 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would only say this, regarding the election as a whole across the country: democrats have an incredible way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Our party need not say "thank goodness O'Donnell won b/c we'll keep the Senate." Rather, we need to be out there, energizing the base, mobilizing for November, and getting ready to get out the vote. Otherwise, the crazies from Dover to Anchorage will be the ones lined up at the polls...and lined up to win.

- caseykap

September 15, 2010 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poupic represents a person who exhibits a complete mental disconnect between thinking one thing and doing another. If it was known BEFORE the last elections that Obama was a Manchurian Candidate then why would Poupic vote for him? I don't buy the reason was because Palin was worse. I think Poupic is disingenuous about claiming to have voted for Obama. This isn't cognitive dissonance on Poupic's part. That requires thinking. The assertion being made here is that his/her voting actions were Pavlovian. Poupic was "forced" by outside forces to vote for Obama and now regrets having been "forced" to do so. Hence the statement "I could not vote against Obama last time because I could not possibly vote for Palin." If that's the case...then stay home and don't vote.

- singlspeed

September 15, 2010 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fact that Republicans are bonkers does NOT excuse Obama and many Dems in Congress from a set of very bad decisions and policies. It's possible to be too aggressive (Repubs) or too timid (Dems). In fact, the Repubs have gotten this far in no small part BECAUSE of the timidity ot Obama and many Senate Dems-- supported and abetted by enablers like Chait and many tnr bloggers who are hopelessly naive and pusillanimous. The size of the stimulus package and how the monies were designed to be spent is a good example. Advocating a stimulus policy that is a compromise between Hooverian and Keynesian economics is a policy disaster that has produced a political disaster. It's like trying to devise a policy for space exploration that combines geocentric with heliocentric theories of the solar system. And no-- it WASN'T the best that was politically possible. Obama has taken a similar incoherent approach to Afghanistan, heath care, financial reform, gay marriage, immigration reform -- approaches that he is unable to explain or sell to the average voter.

- drofnats1

September 15, 2010 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great post IowaBeauty.

- WandreyCer

September 15, 2010 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As stated above, don't count the chickens. This only works out for America if people get out and vote for rational candidates, ie Democrats. If Democrats stay home and don't vote we're in big trouble.

- Sophia

September 15, 2010 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Take a deep breath drofnats1. We're not the Donner Party, this is still the Democratic Party. There is a way to survive without having to devour our own. If you thought it was tough with 58 or 60 votes it won't be easier as you carve up a few more.

- michaelg

September 15, 2010 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Naive and pussillanimous. Words spoken by an ideologue and a genius who thinks that there are Blue Dog senators. It is always amusing to see children attempting to instruct adults about how the world works.

- liberal reformer

September 15, 2010 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pusillanimous. Pussillanimous is what cats are when they have something against you.

- ironyroad

September 15, 2010 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the prospect of a 45 or even 50 member republican caucus in the Senate comprised of this batch of renegades is tantalizing. The GOP leadership is used to running a pretty tight ship and having their team relatively well coordinated. Throw in a few tea party candidates which the establishment actively fought against, as well as the few remaining moderates (snowe, etc.), and you begin have a pretty uncoordinated group. It's distinctly possible that hyper-individualist tea party loons who don't understand that they play for a team could be much worse for the GOP than moderates like Castle who know what's good for them.

- Fooberman

September 15, 2010 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting, Fooberman. You're postulating a Republican caucus as fractious and uncontrollable as the Democratic caucus has been at times?

- cspencef

September 15, 2010 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IowaBeauty... You're statement reminds me of some song lyrics from the Underworld song 'Ring Road'. "it's a rush job, it looks good for long enough, Knock 'em out, sell 'em, move on, it's a fast buck and the race is on to get in, get out, get what you want, get out it's the short term, the long term can look after itself unless you happen to be living here" Sadly, these people can't see past the end of their own noses.

- singlspeed

September 15, 2010 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know this is impolitic (!) and vulgar, but this all reminds me of Gore Vidal's long ago contention that the Republican Party's entire platform can easily be reduced down to three words: "Kill the ni***rs."

- WandreyCer

September 15, 2010 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hah:) Pussillanimous. I got a lot of that around here:)

- Sophia

September 15, 2010 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regardless I am seriously worried. The Tea Partiers may have tapped into something ugly and more popular in America than one would have thought. And if the rest of us are our usual apathetic selves and don't vote - I don't want to think about it.

- Sophia

September 15, 2010 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How do you spell Michael Foot in Republican?

- IggyPop

September 15, 2010 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I don't know when the demented Gore Vidal (you know, that Vidal, the one who thinks that the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was a conspiracy) said that, but a long while back the Republicans had moderates like Everett Dirksen, who helped shepherd civil rights legislation through Congress and the segregationist party in the South was the Democratic Party. And now, Michael Steele is the RNC chair, self-parody that he is. But still. Some people, and publications - like the ludicrous Nation - act as if nothing has changed in half a century.

- liberal reformer

September 15, 2010 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Congratulations to TNR for going full tilt with the nuts and sluts attack against Christine O'Donnell. As postulated by law professor William Jacobson, this is the attack of choice which is generally used by employers against any woman who lodges a discrimination complaint. But it has been used liberally against any number of women insurgent candidates in this election cycle and in fact many, many female candidates of both parties. Did anybody watch Christine's acceptance speech and her two appearances on MSNBC and ABC this a.m. She was articulate, gracious and savvy and must have been exhausted. I love TNRs sadness for defeated RINOs. Don't be sad, if she's so bad Coons will be a shoe-in. But wait maybe that quite true, gosh, she might actually beat Coons. Ramp up the nuts and sluts attack! She is on target to raise $500,000 today.

- Viator

September 15, 2010 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is something base and ugly that is being tapped into by this corporate backed tea party. It is like a lot of older white people miss having that Cold War paranoia. They want it back. So they have created a whole new mythology of ACORN, Socialists, etc. to be scared of and enternally vigilant of.

- MikeB.

September 15, 2010 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most of you agree that the Repubs reap what they have sowed--- and that is an authoritarian, nativist, ignorant set of candidates that are very strong-willed abiout btheir ignorance. What most of you do not accept-- is that the Dems likewise are reaping what they have sowed. Obama and the Senate Dems in particular have been timid (pusillanimous) in response to attacks, incoherent on policy in both bills passed and public rhetoric, and naive in analyzing the intransigent nature of their opposition. and those that recognize part of these problems (like most everyone but Iowa), advocate: nothin' but keep on truckin' in the same naive, incoherent, pusillanimous way. You'll have as much luck with that in the future as you have in the past.

- drofnats1

September 15, 2010 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We knew before the last elections that Obama is both an anti-Semite..." I totally forgot what religion Obama's chief of staff and his head of the council of economics advisors is... Can anyone remind me?

- mmathog

September 15, 2010 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah DROF, but they're our bastards! Any way, the deed is done. Now, offer up a solution to keep the House and the Senate. Irony, by the way, gets comment of the week, IMHO.

- icarusr

September 15, 2010 at 6:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am against torture in almost a categorical imperative fashion, but I do believe in torture for ideologues. So if I had the plenitpotentiary power to do so, I would dethrone Nancy Pelosi and elevate dro, and watch him twist slowly in the wind. It would be a delightful spectacle.

- liberal reformer

September 15, 2010 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A little vintage Chris Matthews for you folks... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697//vp/39201195#39201195

- Viator

September 15, 2010 at 9:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yeah DROF, but they're our bastards! Any way, the deed is done. Now, offer up a solution to keep the House and the Senate." Obviously, you've not been reading drofnats, ick. Let me clue you in: he wants the Dems to lose the midterms big, which would set up a true progressive ideologue to dethrone Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries. A true progressive agenda would then sweep through congress, the thinking goes. Now, don't ask me how one leads to the other, but that's his thinking. I'm not making this up, I swear. And I'd swear again that the dude is tep with a new tag.

- scrubby

September 15, 2010 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, the old "Mondale/Dukakis Maneuver". Dang it, I need to get with the program.

- icarusr

September 15, 2010 at 10:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it me, or is Jonathan getting a lot more notice in the mainstream media these days?

- NR409654

September 17, 2010 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This (the entire tea party phenomenon) is nothing less than a nationwide temper tantrum. Sorry, I know that's paternalistic and probably insulting. So be it. We've taken lots of insulting crap from them, maybe it's time to return some. The only question is whether the grownup-in-chief can keep his own cool ( I suspect he can) and keep the babysitters on board (far more questionable) long enough for everybody to change their diapers and go to bed.

- gwcross

September 17, 2010 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, Mr. Chait, why can't you be a love merchant like Rush Limbaugh? Is it because Craigslist took that part of the site down?

- frippo

September 17, 2010 at 3:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll take two minutes' hate. Can you make it to go, please?

- austinexpat

September 17, 2010 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close