IT IS DIFFICULT, ALMOST PAINFUL, to shift from last week’s warm memories of Easter in my youth to the harsh political realities of our present day. In doing so, I face the enormous difficulty, perhaps impossibility, of sustaining contact, however tenuous, with conservatives, while confronting what I regard as the demands of a just society and what I see as the social, economic and political imperatives with which we — all of us — as Americans are faced.
What we have witnessed in the past four years has been a Republican Party at war not only with the president and the Democrats but with the democratic electoral process and with itself. The party has made compromise in governance not merely difficult but, again and again, impossible.
It is becoming standard GOP practice:
• to rail against Obama on the grounds that he is incompetent and incapable of leadership, while simultaneously employing parliamentary obstacles to governance in a manner and to a degree never before experienced in this nation. Every weapon in the arsenal of minority manipulation of the democratic process has been employed. The incredible record of filibusters is just one dramatic piece of this strategy.
• to simultaneously sound frantic alarms against deficits — crisis looming! — while holding the line against examination of the degree to which manipulation of the complexities of the tax code leaves many of the most profitable corporations in our history paying minimal taxes, even receiving huge credits and refunds. Corporate wealth has never been higher, salaries and dividends soar even as middle class wages stagnate, and the GOP bleats incessantly about Obama policies “crippling” the “job creators.”
• to demand as solution to those deficits that we eliminate concern for the fate of the poor, and even for that wage stagnation of the middle class.
• to refuse approval of highly qualified judges for one and two years — or forever — while the judicial system is swamped and justice delayed.
• to, in short, publicly and incessantly call for presidential cooperation when what is really being demanded is presidential surrender.
One of the major stumbling blocks to the creation of any functioning compromise is the current fixation among Republicans upon the libertarian notion that government is “the enemy.” What are we to make of a governing philosophy that includes a willingness to consider turning over to private enterprise (and private profit) many of the functions of government except, of course, those from which no profit can reasonably be extracted?
Such a course would establish a worshipful dependence on private enterprise to solve all problems, excluding, of course, that multitude of problems created by private enterprise; industrial pollution, for example. Or massive oil spills. Or that giant on the horizon, the consequences of global warming, which for that matter, by Republican edict, doesn’t exist.
Indeed, what are we to make of a party that:
• is condemnatory of government while ignoring the reality that an incredibly complex modern state requires an equally complex government for its sustainance?
• demands allegiance to Grover Norquist’s view that government should be reduced to the size that it “can be drowned in a bathtub,” or more pointedly to the size of Norquist’s grasp of the nature and reality of government? (That the libertarian — or Norquist — government thus achieved would be utterly, pathetically and tragically incapable of sustaining the intricate connectedness and interdependence of the modern state and its complexities is a reality easily ignored. The sheer simplemindedness of this view is startling. Even more dramatic is the effort at its adoption.)
• simultaneous with demanding that government stay out of the economic lives of its citizens, hastens to press for edicts concerning the most private decisions of its female citizens — that, while having little concern for the realities of the lives of the unemployed poor and middle class, who after all could solve their problem by simply going to work, has an intense and overriding fixation upon the welfare of the zygote?
What, after all, are we to make of a Grand Old Party that, while vehemently pressing that demand that government get out of people’s lives, proposes to monitor and control the most crucial and intimate decisions of women about their own bodies and reproductive lives? Forced ultrasound — bring it on! Roe v. Wade, forget it, that was yesterday. Face it lady, sex has consequences and the GOP is prepared to deal with that … in its own unique way.
In short, and on that issue, while the zygote is sacred, the infant, of course, is clearly on its own. We wish you good luck, kid, but if your parents haven’t provided, that’s life! Suck it up and learn to live lean.
Finally, it is always fascinating to observe the process whereby private enterprise purports to enter into what were formerly governmental responsibilities, on the premise, of course, that marked efficiency and improvement of service will automatically follow. Rarely, and for an exceedingly limited range of services, does this happen. What does normally happen is that the private corporation emphasizes those operations that yield profit and degrades or eliminates important services that do not. And why would we think it would be otherwise?
It is illuminating to consider the fate of such policy in practice. The Canadian experiment with PPPs (Public-Private Partnerships), or P3s, has been examined in an exhaustive study by John and Salim Loxley. I quote from their book, “Public Service, Private Profits: The Political Economy of Public-Private Partnerships in Canada”: “Through an exhaustive series of case studies of P3s in Canada — from schools, bridges and water treatment plants to social services and hospital food — this book finds that most P3s are more costly to build and finance, provide poorer quality services and are less accessible than if they were built and operated by public servants. Moreover, many essential services are less accountable to citizens when private corporations are involved.”
Thus doth reality intrude upon the schemes of those for whom government is ever the enemy; except, of course, for that unacknowledged role as the consensual setting, the bulwark of legality, the stable ground upon which a viable society is built. And that we denigrate at our peril.
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Mr. Page’s writings become ever more brilliantly succinct, comprehensive and unanswerable. His series of bullet-points, above, should penetrate the heads of every self-styled conservative in the country. More pointedly, they should explode in the posteriors of our local backwardites, Pugh, Lund, Livesay and those several pseudo-thinkers repeatedly imprinted upon our attention from Creators Syndicate. Ye gods, the tin horns and empty drums! The people of pretzeled purview!
Robert – this comment is offensive. You invite nasty comebacks. Please stop these juvenile personal attacks. Comment on Mr. Page’s content and move on.
Jeff,
Yours is a welcomed voice of reason.
Jeff I agree with what you said. But at the same time I do not believe in censorship. As I follow the comments on this run I notice they are mostly anti Republican as was the article. What will happen is if someone is critical of the article they will be attacked and not at all very nicely. You are correct personal and name calling attacks do provoke a nasty comment back. As a Republican/Conservative I do not agree with what the writer says. We do have a Senate controlled by the Democrats and a House controlled by the Republicans. A Democrat as President. If the real issue is the Republican so called obstructionist just who are the folks calling them that? Is it Democrats, Liberals, far Left Leaning Liberals? It is for sure not Republicans. Both sides have alway said the other side is an obstructionist and it will be the party that is not getting their way on issues that are important to them that will say it. I have followed politics for many years. Nothing in my opinion has changed. There will always be two sides to the issue. I will ask you Jeff do you consider Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi obstructionist? Do you consider the Republican Senate and House leaders as obstrictionist? The arguements have been going on for years. The access to media now has made folks alert to what is happening. In the past they were not as likely to care. Even at that the folks that comment are really the only ones tuned in on both sides. So what do you get, opinions from both sides. Very healthy without the nasty personal and name calling attacks. I have not changed and will comment back at personal and nasty comments directed at me. So I do believe we should all try to follow Jeff’s comment.
From the article: “It is becoming standard GOP practice: • to rail against Obama on the grounds that he is incompetent and incapable of leadership….” Mr. Page paints an accurate picture of the right-wing extremist-dominated obstructionist Republican party of our time. Centrist Republicans need to wake up and take back – and remake – the party of Lincoln. National leaders could set a new tone for local and state leaders, and return the U.S. to a nation of cooperative builders, growers of the middle class, and protectors of our freedoms and equality under the law.
Good article, Jerry – and excellent contribution, Jeff. The Repubs have fallen into bad hands. Many conservatives here in Benicia seem to be taking their lead – always on the attack, blaming, and calling for less government, no taxes, without a thought to the damage they are causing.
Roger stated: Many conservatives here in Benicia seem to be taking their lead… calling… no taxes
I would be curious Roger to know what ‘conservatives’ here in Benicia have ever stated that they want “no taxes”.
Since there are ‘many’ who do, perhaps a name or reference can be provided.
Very well written, Jerome. The GOP will continue on the road to ruin until someone in party leadership stands up to Rush Limbaugh and others in conservative media who put personal profit (ratings) over party sanity and responsible government. Does anyone think Limbaugh and Faux News are upset that Obama was re-elected? They get higher ratings and make more money by being anti-Obama than they would as pro-Romney. Their MO is creating bogeymen and conspiracy theories, and stirring up hatred among the lunatic fringe…which is their audience.
And no one in party leadership has the nads to stand up to them. While the party might take a short-term hit by alienating the fringe, it’s the only long-term path back to becoming a serious national party.
More on ‘the hard edge of reality’ for the community to consider….
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/04/now-its-official-obama-sells-catfood-futures-um-social-security-and-medicare-cuts.html
More details on ‘the hard edge of reality’ for the community to consider…
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/
Oops!
More details on Social Security and ‘the hard edge of reality’ for the community to consider…
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/08
From one of Will’s earlier other posts:
From one of Wills other posts:
Obama….No jobs. No growth. Falling income. Unaffordable colleges. A dying middle class. Young people without hope. The greatest economic inequality in modern history.
And yet, in the midst of the Long Depression, we’re told that the President intends to cuts Social Security.
According to reports, the new Presidential budget proposal will also include job-killing spending cuts and a Medicare cost hike that will increasingly affect the middle class with every passing year.
The President says this isn’t his “ideal plan,” but he doesn’t say what his ideal plan would look like – and he certainly isn’t fighting for a better one.
Hey Will, your guy won, get use to it.
DDL longs for the glorious times of the Bush administration, which found us losing 700,000 jobs per month and a 50% drop in the DJIA. Ahhhh, those were the days….
DDL longs for the glorious times of the Bush administration
As much as I may like history, I still look forward to the future……. President Paul or President Rubio. I like Rubio, we don’t need any more old white or half-white guys any more.
From the above reply:
“Hey Will, your guy won, get use to it.”
I never voted for Mr. Obama!!
That was a good honest answer Will.
Will I am not sure what you are trying to tell us. Could it be that you think President Obama is a bad President. He is going to take s/s away from everyone because he cannot manage a budget. Please Will help me out and explain what you are trying to tell us. I am very confused on this one.
I do not want to go back to anything that is bad. But can it be as bad as this is. I will take President Bush any day over President Obama. Presdent Bush at his worst was consideralbly better than President Obama. Last time I heard President Obama was still President. When does he start taking responsibility?
Dear Jerome,
In all sincerity…Thanks for the Easter break.