HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Thursday, November 20, 2008

 
Rump

by digby

In a post discussing Paul Krugman's argument that the congress needs to stop posturing and arrange for a bridge loan until a new administration can take a look at the problem (which seems to have happened), Scarecrow at FDL notes this:

As MSNBC explains, this is also "north versus south" again, in which Jeff Sessions argues that employees in Alabama who don't have health insurance should not be asked to bail out those with health insurance in Michigan. But what that means is that those with insurance should be forced to fail so that everyone can not have health insurance. Brilliant logic, Jeff.


Actually from Sessions' point of view, it is. As I touched on the other day, this battle over the Big Three has a strong red state Blue state component, made more acute by the fact that the Republican Party is no almost exclusively a Southern party, with regional priorities and attitudes that are going to increasingly be in conflict with the rest of the country. Not that's there's anything exactly new about that, is there?

There has been a lot of yammering about Lincoln and his "team of rivals" (which dday summarily dispatched the other day.) I actually think comparisons to Lincoln are apt, but not in the way people are saying. Perhaps he brought political rivals into his cabinet (with not very much success as it turns out) but he was dealing with a political opposition so intractable that it resulted in civil war. In fact, he failed spectacularly to "bring the country together," which is the main thing the chatterers expect Obama to do.

There have been times when the country came together in mutual crisis. The great Depression was one, although the south was on board out of economic desperation and based upon a promise that Roosevelt wouldn't try to act on any kind of civil rights. So, yes, everyone was "together" --- except for the black people who were as apart, as always.

Things are different now. After all, Obama is black and the South is not the same place it was then. But it is the political home of one of the two parties once again and that makes it a potential roadblock to progress even so. Southern conservatives (Dixiecans?), acting in concert, can be a powerful force for obstruction. And their character is one of angry, prideful aggression.

Dday referred in his post the other night to Lincoln's Cooper Union speech, which I have discussed many, many times on this blog in trying to understand the nature of Red State Republicanism. I think that Obama can learn a lot from that speech by recognizing what he's up against:

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

That's the genesis of the victimization culture we still see today in the American right. "All their troubles proceed from us." It's beyond borders and certainly not confined to southern conservatives, but this is where it all began.

During the darkest days of Republican dominance I wrote this:

Lincoln had a keen understanding of the problem and he logically framed it in moral terms regarding the subject at hand, slavery. As it turns out this was not simply about slavery. It was about a deep and abiding tribal divide in the country that was originally defined by slavery but metatisized into something far beyond it, even then. Southern “exceptionalism” was always justified by its culture, which was assumed to be unique and unprecedented.

You can apply Lincoln’s arguments to any number of current issues and come out the same. There is an incoherence of principle that we see in every section of the republican party, the willingness to call to State’s Rights (their old rallying cry) when it suits them and a complete abdication of the principle once they hold federal power --- while still insisting that they believe in limited government! They blatantly misconstrue the plain meaning of long standing constitutional principles and federal policies (such as Brit Hume’s abject intellectual whorishness in the matter of FDR’s beliefs about social security privatization) and show irrational, rabid anger at any disagreement. They see Democrats as “traitors” fighting for the other side, just as the Southerners of the 1850’s accused the “Black Republicans” of fomenting slave revolts. They brook no compromise and instead repay those who would reach out to them with furious perfidy unless they show absolute fealty to every facet of the program. It is loyalty to “the cause”, however it is defined and however it changes in principle from day to day, that matters.


Now, before everyone gets furious with me, let me make clear that I am not talking about southerners in general --- I'm talking about southern conservatives, who are now the nearly exclusive demographic of the national Republican party. Obviously, there are many liberal southerners fighting the good fight, electing progressives where they can. But they are in the minority. This thesis is about conservative political power and there is no denying that the Republican rump is clustered in the south.

The point of all this is that the Republican party being a Southern party is both good and bad news. It means they are not a majority, which is the good. But it also means that it is far more conservative and consumed with a sense of its own victimization at the hands of the rest of the country. That makes them dangerous, even in their relative weakness. Democrats had best pay heed and be a little bit less concerned about their rivals and more concerned about their enemies. Losing the last of their moderating regional and ideological ballast leaves them with nothing but a 250 year old chip on their shoulders and they have quite a vivid history of acting in very destructive ways toward the nation as a whole.


.