Republicans must be capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast

[scandal 951]

http://www.slate.com/id/2295128/

Fantasy Island

Are Republicans losing their grip on reality?

By Jacob Weisberg

At a press conference last week, someone asked Chris Christie for his views on evolution vs. creationism. "That's none of your business," the New Jersey governor barked in response.

This minor incident, which barely rated as news for a few political blogs, offers a glimpse of Christie's personality, which seems increasingly grumpy and snappish. But it says even more about the current state of the national Republican Party, where magical thinking trumps rationality, and even to acknowledge basic realities about the world we live in runs the risk of damaging one's political future.

Christie is not part of the natural constituency for Darwin-denial. He's an intelligent man, a lawyer, a fiscal rather than a social conservative. But Christie is also someone who might want to run for president someday, or be selected as someone's running mate. For those purposes, he must constantly ask himself the question: Am I about to say something to which a white, evangelical, socially conservative, gun-owning, Obama-despising, pro-Tea Party, GOP primary voter in rural South Carolina might object? By this standard, simple acceptance of the theory of evolution becomes a risky stance. To lie or to duck? Christie chose the option of ducking while signaling his annoyance at being put in this ridiculous predicament.

Moments like this point to a growing asymmetry in our politics. One party, the Democrats, suffers from the usual range of institutional blind spots, historical foibles, and constituency-driven evasions. The other, the Republicans, has moved to a mental Shangri-La, where unwanted problems (climate change, the need to pay the costs of running the government) can be wished away, prejudice trumps fact (Obama might just be Kenyan-born or a Muslim), expertise is evidence of error, and reality itself comes to be regarded as some kind of elitist plot.

Like the White Queen in her youth, the contemporary Republican politician must be capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Foremost among these is the claim that it is possible to balance the federal budget without raising taxes. Most Republican politicians are intelligent enough to understand that with federal revenues at 14.4 percent of GDP and expenditures at 25.3 percent, it is, in fact, impossible to close the fiscal gap with spending cuts alone. But GOP candidates acknowledge this reality at their peril. Grover Norquist, the right-wing lobbyist and former collaborator of Jack Abramoff's, has appointed himself chief enforcer of the party's anti-tax catechism. If Republican candidates won't sign his no-new-taxes pledge, Norquist and fellow inquisitors at the Club for Growth threaten them with excommunication, social death, and the punishment of being "primaried" by a well-funded conservative challenger.

Reality-denial is not limited to the Republican inability to utter words like evolution and revenue. The long-range forecasts in the Paul Ryan plan, which show spending falling to 3 percent of GDP to allow for additional tax cuts, express an impossible libertarian fantasy. So too does the current Republican effort to bring this utopia about by refusing to raise the federal government's credit card limit. It is not a matter of conjecture, but something closer to a universal understanding among economists, that failing to raise the debt ceiling could cause another global economic crash. The plutocratic populist Donald Trump recently answered this objection on behalf of the party. "What do economists know? Most of them aren't very smart."

Another series of Republican fictions relates to climate change. This starts, at one extreme, with the outright denial of Michele Bachmann, progressing through the various "not-man-made" and "the jury's-still-out" dodges offered by the likes of Sarah Palin and John Thune. Christie handled this issue in the same evasive way he did the evolution question, albeit with less aggression, shortly after being elected. "I'm skeptical—I'm skeptical," he said. "And you know, I think at the end of this, I think we're going to need more science to prove something one way or the other." The conservative press has gone after Newt Gingrich merely for saying the country must do something to address climate change. But if you're one of the conservatives who had the misfortune to accept science during the pre-Tea Party era, don't worry–you can still escape extinction by expressing doubt about any possible solution. This describes the position of Mitch Daniels; Mitt Romney; and Tim Pawlenty, who once supported cap-and-trade but has simply reversed himself, offering a self-flagellating apology and confession ("it was stupid").

Then there are all the mundane, material facts that Republicans choose to "doubt." The market in Obama lies has moved in rough parallel to the recent silver bubble. Over a period of months, the paranoid and foolish bought in, driving up the price. Republican candidates tried to find sly ways to signal skepticism about the President's American-ness and Christianity without sounding like complete imbeciles. Then Donald Trump, for whom that's not a problem, started buying in bulk. This infuriated the outflanked Sarah Palin, who used to have this wackadoodle territory to herself. Then President Obama released his long-form birth certificate, the bubble burst, and Trump was publicly ruined at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. With birther sentiment deflated, Palin has moved on to a new, no less idiotic slander, that William Ayers*, the former Weather Underground leader, might have written Obama's memoirs.

Even after the release of Obama's birth certificate, however, nearly one-quarter of Republicans still refuse to believe that the president was born in the United States. Conspiracy thinking is flourishing on the right like no time since the McCarthy era. The GOP rank and file is in desperate need of a cold shower, a slap in the face, a wake-up call. But instead of telling the base to get a grip on reality, the party's leaders are chasing after the delusional mob. To get to the front of the line in 2012, Republican candidates must pretend to believe a lot of nonsense than isn't so. Or do they actually believe it?

[Danno 1,228]

Are Republicans losing their grip on reality?

Are Democrats losing their grip on political power?

At last count: YES

[scandal 951]

Are Republicans losing their grip on reality?

Are Democrats losing their grip on political power?

At last count: YES

Nothing about the substance of the OP?

E.g., Republicans' insistence that the debt can be balanced by touching only expenditures and not revenues?

And more troubling - the orthodoxy that prevents people such as Chris Christie from daring to speak their minds into an open mike?

Republicans like to mock "the Left's" political correctness, often very appropriately. What's bizarre is how PC they are within their own camp and on their own talking points.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Nothing about the substance of the OP?

Danno doesn't do substance.

[Danno 1,228]

Nothing about the substance of the OP?

E.g., Republicans' insistence that the debt can be balanced by touching only expenditures and not revenues?

And more troubling - the orthodoxy that prevents people such as Chris Christie from daring to speak their minds into an open mike?

Republicans like to mock "the Left's" political correctness, often very appropriately. What's bizarre is how PC they are within their own camp and on their own talking points.

- We have a spending problem... to even speak of extending more credit (tax increase) before we treat the problem is to simply apply grease to the skids.

-The only ones ever raising such questions in politics is the Left and the media.

I have yet to hear one fundamentalist harp on about the question of evolution. I have yet to see one right-wing voter guide with -Candidate believes in evolution Y or N.

This is silliness.

Q: What Obama honest when he claimed to support -1 man & 1 woman for marriage?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Reality:

- You don't need to 'raise taxes' to balance a budget. False premise. The false premise is a guaranteed revenue stream from raising taxes. There isn't one. Just as there isn't a guaranteed one when you lower taxes (it's relies on a growing economy). At the end of the day, 'it's the spending stupid' and nothing changes unless that does drastically.

- Climate Change in government is nothing more than a way to try and tax the people and business in order to continue to grow government. It's a big fabricated lie that somehow having carbon offset taxes will change anything and everything. The reality of the scenario is, is this is government once again destroying small business and propping up big business. After all, who's going to be the one to be able to afford to buy more 'carbon credits' as well as own the 'exchanges' and other energy entities. If the government really cared about the environment, they wouldn't play politics at all and would search for actual evidence that AGW is happening. The truth is though, they cannot prove it any more than we can prove exactly where the next bolt of lightning will strike. The data doesn't go back far enough and it's all a guess where there are big profiteers at the end of every tunnel.

- Evolution? Who the ** cares either way?

[slim 1,530]

it is, in fact, impossible to close the fiscal gap with spending cuts alone.

Maybe it won't close it completely, but it would be a great start!

"Honey, I don't think we can afford groceries next month. But, if we were to cancel our 9-year-old daughter's cell phone, we could maybe use that money to buy her some food."

"That's just crazy talk, dear. Cutting her cell service won't fix our financial problems. What are you thinking? In fact, we should get her a better phone!"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The federal budget isn't a household budget. It's more like a business. The question is whether we invest to be viable tomorrow or cut back to the point were we shut our doors since we didn't manage to keep up with the competition. A business - and a nation - can save itself to death. Does that mean that there isn't any fat to trim? Not at all. The defense budget which nearly doubled over the last decade is a good candidate for fat trimming. But the deficit hawks - I threw up in my mouth a little just typing that patently false description they've assigned themselves - won't hear that. As is that whole Homeland Security bureaucracy that today's self-proclaimed deficit hawks built entirely on borrowed money over the first part of the last decade. And then we need to take a look and ask whether that trillion dollar benefit program known as Medicare Part D that the supposed deficit hawks passed should perhaps get a revenue stream rather than being entirely deficit financed. And we ought to ask why these supposed deficit hawks didn't spent a second finding a single budget cut - not a dime - to finance trillions of dollars in tax relief that they passed - you guessed it - entirely on borrowed funds. And they really want to be taken seriously?

[wshc 46]

I really don't understand why the OP doesn't mind the Republican's approach to the defense of Israel so strongly in another thread, but then is critical of Republicans in this thread. Is it not possible that the same beliefs that ensure the existence of Israel the Republican's hold will also prove effective for the economy? There appears to be such a love/hate relationship between the Jewish population in the US and the Republicans that is it difficult to understand why one chooses to "bite the hand that helps them" so to say.

Edited May 25, 2011 by wshc

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I really don't understand why the OP doesn't mind the Republican's approach to the defense of Israel so strongly in another thread, but then is critical of Republicans in this thread. Is it not possible that the same beliefs that ensure the existence of Israel the Republican's hold will also prove effective for the economy? There appears to be such a love/hate relationship between the Jewish population in the US and the Republicans that is it difficult to understand why one chooses to "bite the hand that helps them" so to say.

W-w-w-w-whaaaaat???

[scandal 951]

I really don't understand why the OP doesn't mind the Republican's approach to the defense of Israel so strongly in another thread, but then is critical of Republicans in this thread. Is it not possible that the same beliefs that ensure the existence of Israel the Republican's hold will also prove effective for the economy? There appears to be such a love/hate relationship between the Jewish population in the US and the Republicans that is it difficult to understand why one chooses to "bite the hand that helps them" so to say.

Well, I'm the OP so I suppose this is intended for me. Though I don't quite follow the point you are trying to make.

First of all, this thread has nothing to do with Israel. It's an article I found interesting about the mental gymnastics that modern Republicans who seek high office are forced to go through if they don't want to be ostracized by the right fringe of their party. I think that topic can stand on its own, without having to bring Israel into it.

But, to try to answer your questions -

For one, I don't hate Republicans. There are many, past and current, that I admire, even if I may disagree on various points of policy. The GOP used to have principled leaders like Jack Kemp and Arlen Specter. What saddens me is that the GOP today is no longer the party it was, and that men such as Specter are forced to leave it. The party I fear has become narrower and less tolerant of dissent within its ranks, which I think is bad for it and bad for America. Having said that, I think most Republican officeholders do honestly wish to serve the nation well, just as most Democrats do. If the article I quoted in the OP criticizes the GOP, which it does, then let me say my intent in citing this criticism is to point out the flaws in the Republican party as I see them (intolerance to dissenting views within the ranks) in the hope that the party improves in this regard. It's intended as constructive criticism, not mockery.

I would say that I do dislike arrogant, rude and self-aggrandizing Republicans. Oh, you know, Jon Kyl, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum - that sort. But I also dislike arrogant, rude, and self aggrandizing Democrats - Charlie Rangel, for example.

For another topic, since you raise it, Israel. And the question of Republican vs. Democratic support for Israel and its people. US support for Israel has traditionally always been bipartisan. Every Democratic and Republican President, from Truman to Obama, has always declared strong support for Israel, and the special bond between two democratic republics founded on the ideals of liberty and free expression. I would even include in this category Jimmy Carter while he was in office, although I don't feel that way about Carter in more recent years. Furthermore, Democratic and Republican members of the Senate and House, throughout the decades, have always strongly reinforced that same solidarity and friendship with Israel. In other words - for those of us Americans who support Israel we are fortunate that we can (usually) safely vote for EITHER the Democrat or Republican in our state or congressional district and feel that we are voting in solidarity with Israel. We don't need to choose, and we certainly don't need to choose Republican (unless we wish to).

Finally, you mention Republicans and effectiveness for the economy. Well, I think there are Republicans with good and interesting economic ideas. I don't reject their views out of hand. In particular, during the final months of the Bush administration I give much credit to President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson for taking courageous action in getting bailout legislation through Congress for AIG and Lehman, and for passing TARP. Had they not done so the results would have been disastrous - far worse than the very bad outcome we've had. However, having said all that, I in general disagree with much of the economic theory I hear coming from Republicans these days. Their focus solely on spending reductions without being willing to consider tax increases on those in our society who can afford to pay more and who have benefited greatly from the 10 years of Bush tax cuts they've enjoyed and which are greatly responsible for our current deficit, seems to me unfair and unwise. I believe that a combination of cuts and tax increases is warranted. Most economists, including esteemed Republican ones like Alan Greenspan, agree. So too did the bipartisan Simpson Bowles committee, and the Rivlin -Domenici plan. Republicans like Pete Domenici and Alan Simpson who are retired and no longer seeking high office can afford to say the plain truth - tax hikes are a necessary part of debt reduction. Any Republicans who are still in the game (e.g.Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie) had better stick to the Ryan gameplan of turning Medicare into a voucher system with not one dime of tax increases. Otherwise - out they go. And that is sad.

I hope that helps to clarify my views.

[wshc 46]

Well, I'm the OP so I suppose this is intended for me. Though I don't quite follow the point you are trying to make.

Yes, the post was meant for you. I must not have made my point as clearly as you have just made you point. (And one should read your other comments from the post about the right wing and Israel today to put my comments in context.)

But first, about your excellent description of your views. I would have to say that I agree with you on most of what you say and we have a lot of common ground. I feel the same as you about Republicans as well as Democrats. Where are the politicians that want to do the right thing for the country, not just hold the party line? Unlike most traditional Republicans, I agree with you that if President Bush had not acted and the banking system collapsed things would be much worse now. We would have gone in to an abyss that would have been almost impossible to come out of.

As far as Israel and the point I was attempting to make, I simply don't understand why so many people in this country think the Republicans are on the right track in their approach to Israel and their strong support for Israel, but in the next breath criticize the Republicans with vigor on every other matter. For that matter, why do the Jews seem to almost be a voter block for the Democrats, but don't object when the Republicans support Israel.

That is all I was trying to say.

Thanks for the intelligent discourse, it is very interesting and yes it does help explain your views.

Edited May 25, 2011 by wshc

[dalegg 143]

http://www.slate.com/id/2295128/

Fantasy Island

Are Republicans losing their grip on reality?

By Jacob Weisberg

Like the White Queen in her youth, the contemporary Republican politician must be capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Foremost among these is the claim that it is possible to balance the federal budget without raising taxes. Most Republican politicians are intelligent enough to understand that with federal revenues at 14.4 percent of GDP and expenditures at 25.3 percent, it is, in fact, impossible to close the fiscal gap with spending cuts alone.

What? This is actually scary that people believe this. Impossible to cut spending is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course you can. It would be painful to a lot of people, but to suggest it can't be done is moronic.

[slim 1,530]

The federal budget isn't a household budget. It's more like a business.

Can you name me one business where folks manufacture nothing, sell no services and the only thing they have to do in order to be "successful" is grow?

It would be painful to a lot of people, but to suggest it can't be done is moronic.

I don't even think it would be all that painful. I think the average American wouldn't even notice and those that do would figure out a way to make up the difference.

We keep hearing all this, "Well, you can't cut out this program or that program because it would hurt people." Why? How does requiring someone to be responsible for themselves hurt them? How does holding them to the same standard as everyone else hurt them?

From what I can tell, the government does nothing to help people - only weaken their position and build their dependence on further government assistance programs.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Can you name me one business where folks manufacture nothing, sell no services and the only thing they have to do in order to be "successful" is grow?

Don't ask him that. I question whether he even has a job or works for a functioning company.

My guess is government employee at this point.

Anyone who has even done basic accounting should understand why the government is messed up in the way it's being handled.