Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are ?78 to 81? Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it?s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West?s comment ? right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s ? so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.
It?s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.
Gallery
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country?s challenges.
?Both sides do it? or ?There is plenty of blame to go around? are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate ? think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel ? are virtually extinct.
The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.
What happened? Of course, there were larger forces at work beyond the realignment of the South. They included the mobilization of social conservatives after the 1973Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-tax movement launched in 1978 by California?s Proposition 13, the rise of conservative talk radio after a congressional pay raise in 1989, and the emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs. But the real move to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.
Re: WP: Let's Just say it: The Republicans are the problem
At the end, the writer gives recommendations to the media on reportage. I feel like that is key to the discussion so I'll post here:
WP article pg 4
We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
Our advice to the press: Don?t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?
Also, stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating a 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn?t intend it to be. Report individual senators? abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support.
Look ahead to the likely consequences of voters? choices in the November elections. How would the candidates govern? What could they accomplish? What differences can people expect from a unified Republican or Democratic government, or one divided between the parties?
In the end, while the press can make certain political choices understandable, it is up to voters to decide. If they can punish ideological extremism at the polls and look skeptically upon candidates who profess to reject all dialogue and bargaining with opponents, then an insurgent outlier party will have some impetus to return to the center. Otherwise, our politics will get worse before it gets better.
I agree with the article, but of course I would because it takes my side. I don't feel like it will take the conversation anywhere different. I keep reading all these scientific articles about how hard it is for humans to change their mind on anything or see another side of something. It would take a lot for me to do so and it would for the other side as well. I feel like we are at such an ideological impasse where people are so far apart, I honestly don't think it will get better. Hell, I'd be happy if it just leveled off.
It's like that Dr. Seuss book with the North-going Zax and the the South-going Zax and neither will move out of the other's way so that they can go about their business. Except we all know Dr. Seuss is a tree-hugging liberal and I think the Dems have tried to step a little out of the way so there's that.
If the Republicans are so far out of the mainstream, why did they win 2010 elections in a landslide?
Allen West's "communist "comment is out of context - and misleading.
In the 2010 elections, the Republicans picked up 6 new seats that had previously been held by Democrats, out of 19 that were up for election. I would hardly call 6 out of 19 "a landslide".
Because thanks to scary black muslin man, a good chunk of the country (read old white people) have moved to the edges of the mainstream.
Oh, hooray!! It's Republicans are Racist day. Only old white Republicans...let me check my notes...I know I have it here somewhere...yup. It's Monday.
Cee-jay, I think you're right. This should do absolutely nothing to further communication.
-
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
Thats what I thought, too.
I think that many Republicans themselves agree that the party is becoming less 'mainstream'; we have lots of posters here who would say that who are concerned with the surge of semi-crazy leaders (Santorum, Palin, etc)
However, that doesn't mean they will automatically jump ship to the Dems, KWIM?
Unfortunately, without a viable 3rd party you just hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
And fwiw, we have 3-4 viable parties here in any election and it doesn't make things any better or different, lol. The crazy just gets spread around!
Hurray! It's "Republican martyr" day! Let me check my calendar...yup, must be a day ending in "y".
Why BQBride, you wouldn't expect anything less, would you? You're like the Felix to my old, white Aunt's Oscar. She's never had a positive thing to say about Democrats, even before they elected a scary black Muslim to office.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
There is a good interview with the authors here:
http://m.npr.org/story/151522725?url=/2012/04/30/151522725/even-worse-than-it-looks-extremism-in-congress&ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw
I think they make some really good points, and hilariously, the fact that we are spouting hyperbole and pulling 'cards' is exactly the problem in congress. So hurray for staying in step with the lawmakers of our country!
Old people have been voting Republican since the dawn of time. So while the easy pat answer is "they're racist!!," it's a stereotypical portrayal of that block of voters. So if the point is to have an actual conversation about voting blocks, then yeah, kicking it off with a simple call of racism isn't the way to do that.
I'm out for most of the day, but will be happy to join in the convo later if there actually is one.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
Wait what? The GOP picked up 64 house seats in 2010. It was the largest midterm shift in the house since WWII. You can't call that not a landslide.
Find me here instead!
I think these are great recommendations. Start giving us actual facts and specific information.
There's too much A v. B and not enough reality v. PR. If party A puts out an economic plan, rather than a screen full of talking heads yelling at each other, we need actual analysis that tells us what the real impact will be. Instead of letting A and B debate what the impact will be, figure out using actual facts and then make A defend that plan (and B defend its alternative plan).
Strange way to look at it. If you look at just senate seats, 2012 is going to be a GOP landslide and it hasn't even happened yet. Since house seats are up every cycle, it's a much better indicator of a wave. And 2010 certainly qualifies. Especially once you look down at the state level.
Find me here instead!
I was thinking that too, but maybe that was her interpretation? No idea as I agree with you...it was a big wave/landslide.
We gave her a special deflector pin!
We missed you by the way. Hope you can make it next time!
I think there are two main problems with this:
1. Many problems are too complex for almost anyone to understand unless they have a PhD in statistics or economics or whatever.
2. No one knows what the effects of most suggestions are--too many variables and it's not like you can re-do events the other way to see how it would have worked.
I think this is why the Republicans have been doing all the woman-hating--they don't have any better understanding of how to fix the economy so they're trying to fight about something that people have a clear position on.
Me too and, thankfully, I no longer look like a Walking Dead extra! I look forward to the (hopefully soon) next GTG!
Find me here instead!
It would be nice if the media broke it down and did some hard hitting explanations of what the possible outcomes could be vs just playing politician sound bites.
It would be nice if various newspapers/media came out and said this is what the Ryan plan is going to do, not just a sound bite about how it is going to destroy medicare because I assume it probably does some good too but that is lost when we let the political consultants control the conversation. Journalists should go back to being journalists. Not everyone can be on the op-ed page.
Above Us Only Sky
I feel as if journalism has gone by the wayside to be replaced by a catch all of "news." It doesn't matter if it's a D-list celebrity getting engaged, a tiger on the loose, or national policy issues, they are all treated the same. When news channels are trying to generate 24 hours of content, they inevitably have to put in a lot of fluff as well as try to get ratings by having a celebrity instead of a journalist. So the person's personality becomes more important than the news he/she is supposedly reporting.
I just met someone the other day that thinks that whatever Bill Reilly says is OK because he is not trying to claim that it is news. I said, "um, he is on Fox News Channel and constantly talks about the no-spin zone, as if he is just reporting something in a neutral manner." She didn't know the difference, and actually seemed more engaged/involved than many other 25 year olds I've met.
This is a large part of why I quit the journalism track I was on in college. I really loved journalism but I couldn't reconcile that with where the industry was headed/what it had become.
Seriously.
I think part of the problem is that both Dems and Reps won't cop up to things when caught lying, and journalists on either side will say things that are barely true as fact without thinking twice.