Enjoy the Republican Defeat Now (in Case They Don't Actually Lose)

The New York Times has a schadenfreuderiffic front-page story about Republican "precriminations" over the GOP's widely anticipated and richly deserved ass whupping in next month's elections. In short, the economic conservatives hate the social conservatives, and the social conservatives hate the economic conservatives, and everybody hates the Jews neocons. Some choice quotes:

Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson: "I have been extremely disappointed with what the Republicans have done with the power they were given."

Former House Republican leader Dick Armey: "Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There is a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools….These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic."*

American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene: "The principle sin of the neoconservatives is overbearing arrogance. It is not so much that they have been wrong. It is that nobody has ever convinced them that they have ever been wrong."

[*The Times cribbed the Armey quote from The Elephant in the Room, Ryan Sager's well-timed book on the conservative crackup.]

Comments

[R C Dean]

I like that ACU quote. You can substitute just about any political faction for “neo-conservatives”, and it works just fine.

“The principle sin of the teacher’s unions/evangelicals/feminists/anti-gun crusaders/environmentalists is overbearing arrogance. It is not so much that they have been wrong. It is that nobody has ever convinced them that they have ever been wrong.”

[Pro Libertate]

Okay, I think the GOP will lose the House, too, but what if they don’t? I can’t see anything but huge inner turmoil among the Democrats if they fail to win this relatively easy election. The Senate is unlikely to fall, so any gains or even keeping the status quo there will be sufficient. But, given the level of pre-election glee that’s going on (and its opposite in the GOP camp), the failure to win the House could be a disaster.

I suppose it’s prediction time. I bet the Dems get the House, but only by one seat.

[Ruthless]

If the Repugnacuns are the Bible-thumpin’ party, and the Greens are the environmental party, why isn’t there an atheist party?
Wouldn’t they have a headstart on the separation of church and state issue, which both Repugnacuns and DemocRATS mouth platitudes about?

[Evan!]

I didn’t know environmentalism was a religion. Actually…more like a cult ;-P

Clever plays on words, there, Ruthless. Your distaste for Dems and Reps has been adequately conveyed.

Why do you need a party that’s affiliated with any sort of theory on theism at all? Especially when something like 80%+ of this dumb country believes that there’s a ghost in the sky who answers our beggings and pleadings? I don’t need a political party to represent my atheist viewpoints any more than the jesusites should need the GOP. Politics should be agnostic.

[Daniel DiRito]

I hate to be sarcastic…but not so much so that I won’t take an opportunity to point out the difficult position in which the GOP finds itself in the aftermath of the Mark Foley scandal. Here’s the snark. The Bush administration and the Republican Party have made a concerted effort to refute claims that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and here in the U.S. they are now on the precipice of an uncivil war within the ranks of their own formerly lockstep voter coalition. From my perspective there is a degree of poetic justice in that reality.

There is one further irony found in comparing the unrest in Iraq and the schism within the GOP. Millions of Iraqi’s made the effort to cast their votes in hopes of enacting a more equitable government and the Bush administration touted the now famous purple fingers as a symbol of success. Similarly, millions of evangelicals went to the polls in 2002 and 2004 believing they were electing leaders who would enact their agenda. The reality is that the votes by millions of Iraqi’s did little to advance the goal of democracy in Iraq as powerful groups and individuals continue to battle for influence and power. There is growing evidence that the outcome here in the United States may well be the same.

Read more here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

[de stijl]

Ruthless,

Speaking as an atheist, I don’t really see how believing in one less giant sky fairy than most Americans is a compelling basis far a new political party.

Besides, in theory we’re already covered by the First Amendment’s Establishment clause. The operative phrase there is “in theory.”

The Athiest Party would also be overun by the professional, pissed-off atheists who may be more annoying than professional, pissed-off xtians or big L Libertarians.

[Pro Libertate]

The rich, Corinthian irony will come in 2008, when a Democratic president will continue the occupation of Iraq. The one thing you can rely on these parties to do is not to do what they say must be done during campaign season.

[madpad]

Nice Tom Lehrer shout out, there Jacob.

Regarding this quote: “The principle sin of the neoconservatives is overbearing arrogance.”

Why is it that conservatives are so quick to deride the intellectuals as a liberal mainstay when neo-conservatives are obviously so and more.

They’re just as guilty, just as destructive and every bit as condescending in their counter-intuitive, theoretical nonsense.

[de stijl]

madpad,

IOKIYAR

[madpad]

Sad but true, de stijl.

[Aresen]

“giant sky fairy”

So Barney Frank DOES have a god.

[Sorry. Couldn’t resist.]

[Umbriel]

“The principle sin of the atheists is overbearing arrogance. It is not so much that they have been wrong. It is that nobody has ever convinced them that they have ever been wrong.”

[Ruthless]

de stijl,
My ulterior motive here is similar to Kinky Friedman’s: to promote anarchy.
So, thanks for your come-back.

[Akira MacKenzie]

“…why isn’t there an atheist party…”

Speaking as a atheist, I have to ask: Why should we have to form our own party? If demographics are any indication there aren’t enough of us to make any dent on the political scene. And besides church-and-state issues, what would an atheist party run on? Most atheists I know lean to the left–some very hard left–but I tend to think that’s GOP hasn’t exactly rolled out the welcome mat for atheists. (The X-ian Right was the reason I left the GOP.)

[Pro Libertate]

Akira,

I agree. What’s the atheist platform? You’d all agree on two major issues (which, of course, are really only one): separation of church and state and the teaching of evolution. Even opposition to abortion can occur without religion.

[peachy]

I find that the potical futility of my libertarianism subsumes the political futility of my atheism…

[Chris]

but during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week, Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark are dancing cheek to cheek.

[David Ross]

PL: “Teaching of evolution”, yes; but how to enforce it? I could see statist atheists going for a federal takeover of education. We libertarians could, I suppose, set up a national examination to set the standard, and then allow universities to discriminate against the failures as they saw fit. But the latter would quickly be tarred as “racist” or “culturally biased” or “insensitive”.

We are headed toward Idiocracy I fear.

[Kristen]

Armey is right in some ways about demagoguery…but it’s not just the far right that engages in it. What is most disheartening is that on ALL sides of all issues these days, especially as the election is coming up, the voices of the “intellectually lazy” get the volume turned up.

[Pro Libertate]

If the United States was remotely in danger of becoming a theocracy–and I think it’s safe to say that it isn’t–a secularist party might evolve, which would consist of a coalition of people who wanted to keep religion out of government. That would mean an alliance of atheists, agnostics, and many religious folk. However, I agree with the prevailing wisdom here–there’s simply not enough for atheists to unify around to form a political union. Though theists might want you to group together for convenient identification and disposition later.

Frankly, I’d rather religion and nonreligion were a nullity in political discourse. If we didn’t have public education, it probably wouldn’t come up nearly as often.

[David]

We are headed toward Idiocracy I fear.

Headed toward?

[ed]

Atheism is not a movement. It’s simply an acknowledgement of reality. Which is why it could never work as a political party.

[Pro Libertate]

ed,

No. Atheism is wrong, too. Only solipsism accurately describes reality. Join me!

?

You know, the Solipsist Party would be a fun name for a new political movement. It combines an almost infinite amount of irony (solipsist. . .party?) with the way most Americans see themselves–as the only thing that exists in the universe. I think I’m on to something here.

[Buckshot]

Pro Libertate:

My Solipsist nature would compell me to create an alternative to your Solipsist Party – The Ironic Neo-Solipsist Party.

[ed]

I don’t believe in either of you.

[Umbriel]

No, _I’m_ on to something here.

[Pro Libertate]

Heh, heh, figments of my imagination are arguing with me about the nature of existence. How quaint my mind is. . .in its infinite scope.

The beauty of solipsism is that absolutely nothing you do or say can convince me that you exist. Even if you do, somehow, exist and, say, kill me, I’ll never know anything but that I’m the only confirmed being in existence.

I’m gonna try this line of reasoning on my girlfriend.

[Johann]

Get real. Foley is just a coagulant for people’s feelings about the congress which are at levels of dissapproval beyond anyones experience. The real issues are Iraq and Bush. Iraq is imploding, yesterday the generals on the ground essentially said we have lost control. Even the beautifully coiffured Kay Baily Hutchinson and old Macacawitz are starting to run away from this. What’s the death toll announcement going to be on Nov 3rd. 80, 90, 110. The democrats are going to take at least 20 seats and it could be a landslide in the house. The senate, at best the Republicans hold it by one or two seats, which means they no longer control it effectively.

[Grand Chalupa]

Speaking as a atheist, I have to ask: Why should we have to form our own party? If demographics are any indication there aren’t enough of us to make any dent on the political scene. And besides church-and-state issues, what would an atheist party run on? Most atheists I know lean to the left–some very hard left–but I tend to think that’s GOP hasn’t exactly rolled out the welcome mat for atheists. (The X-ian Right was the reason I left the GOP.)

If there was an atheist party it would be an ANSWER clone. Trust me, us libertarian atheists would be better off sticking with the evangelicals.

[wayne]

“Foley is just a coagulant”…

OK, you win the ickiest analogy award.

[E. I. DuPont de Nemours]

“Better things for better living: through coagulants”