No, Really, Replace The Republican Leadership
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Earlier this month, I said that the Congressional Republican leadership was lacking in credibility on fiscal and economic policy, because so many of them were tainted by very public support for the former administration’s financial sector bailout, and on account of this and their subsequent political blunders I said they should be replaced. My point at the time, which quite a few seemed to miss, is that this leadership will not be able to challenge Obama’s domestic agenda effectively, because they have neither the ideas nor the judgment to do so. Now we are seeing the utterly inadequate and foolish response of several members of the current House GOP leadership to one of the first major events overseas since Obama was inaugurated, the Iranian election, which reminds us that the GOP has destroyed its credibility on foreign policy and has been reduced to irresponsible sniping as demonstrated by Eric Cantor and Mike Pence, the minority whip and conference chairman respectively. It is also a reminder that Obama has occupied the political and policy center with respect to foreign policy, and a majority of Americans (57% or 54%) apparently approves of his handling of foreign policy so far. Meanwhile, the reputation of the GOP continues to sink ever lower (25% fav/45% unfav).
One reason why Cantor and Pence have been demanding that the President take a stronger public line in support of the protesters in Iran is that supporting Mousavi’s voters openly is the emotionally satisfying, easy, almost mindless thing to do, so it is very appealing for opposition figures who have no ideas. But there is more to it than that. All of this comes back to the problem of Republican denial about why they lost power. They are supremely confident about their views on national security and foreign policy, and they cannot conceive that a majority of the country would reject them because of the policies they advocated and enacted. Worse still, they remain wedded to the hectoring, moralistic and aggressive approach of the last administration, in which sanctions and condemnation are the only “soft” tools they understand. They are so wedded to this approach that that they think this is not only the best kind of foreign policy, but that anything other than this is fecklessness and surrender. To a disturbingly great extent, replacing the current leadership may not have much of an effect on shoddy foreign policy thinking on the right, because the rot is so deep and widespread, but it is particularly important that Republicans in positions of responsibility at least attempt to play the role of credible, informed opposition, which may sometimes mean acknowledging that the President has handled an issue correctly. It will also mean building up the credibility and knowledge to challenge and resist the President if he embarks on misguided or irresponsible courses in the years to come. Cantor and Pence have shown this week that they do not have either one.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
9 Responses to “No, Really, Replace The Republican Leadership”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
it is particularly important that Republicans in positions of responsibility at least attempt to play the role of credible, informed opposition, which may sometimes mean acknowledging that the President has handled an issue correctly
You get at the heart of the matter here, which is that the Republicans have been so overwhelmingly swamped by Karl Rove political posturing they simply cannot let any hint of a conflict in another country pass without moralizing and grandstanding.
What Cantor and Pence are doing is not an attempt to affirm some deeply-held views on foreign policy, but to take a position counter to the President and have either the media or Congrees (in the form of a resolution) validate it. These men have no well thought out views on foreign policy, but they know how to counter any position held by a Democrat.
It is quite striking to see that they have learned nothing from the defeats of the past two elections.
Now if we could just get Obama to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Gitmo, THAT would be a trifecta!!!!
One upon which any foreseeable Republican leadership would also founder.
There are no R leaders in the wings, Daniel. The entire GOP is not just discredited on foreign, economic and fiscal policy, but on almost every imaginable measure of what it takes to be a creditable human being. Endemic hypocrisy will do that to a party.
There is one measure of humanity the GOP does meet – the measure of the lowest common denominator. We are all human, we are all weak, we all fail at least some of the time.
Jake
Daniel, as you yourself said the rot is deep and wide. Yes, Ron Paul is there in the Congress, but who else? The only way out is for them to go the way of the Whigs and something wiser comes out of the ashes.
Minding your own business is common sense, so I simply fail to understand this hysteria about Iran. Remember the mass media psychosis about Ukraine? I lived in the UK at that time, was traveling on business in Europe and all you saw when you turned any news channel on in any European country was the color coded revolution. As if on cue from some government bureaucrat. We now know how that “revolution” ended up, don’t we?
And to add to the farce, George Bush, the proud fool, has come out of the shadows and is “taking on Obama,” according to today’s news. For the first time, the disestablishment of the GOP is beginning to seem reasonable to me.
But Cantor et al are posturing for the crowd because that’s how they got elected in the first place. Fatuous legislative posturing is a built in feature of popular democracy. What evidence do we have that even a reconstituted GOP would be led by more serious politicians than it is now? As long as our system is run on the basis of drones selling their votes to hipsters for access to their neighbor’s pockets, our government will be a sinister joke.
Part of the problem is that modern conservatives have been so thoroughly catechized in three-legs-of-the-stoolism that it generally comes as a package deal. People who are good on economic and social issues are also “good” from the perspective of the movement cons on foreign policy. And vice versa. Those who are somewhat sensible and realistic on foreign policy are also moderates on economic and social issues. Think Powell, Baker, Eagleburger, etc. Non-interventionism has won the day on the “far right” (note Alan Keye’s failed attempt to get the CP nomination), but with that you get the rest of the far right baggage. (I’m not knocking the far right which I am happily a part of, just if the subject is politically remaking the current GOP you aren’t going to do that yet by radicalizing them across the board.) So we have to kick one leg out from under that stool of mainstream conservatism. It would help if there was some movement within and not just criticism from without. Joe Scarborough seems to be coming our way. We need more to follow. After a certain critical mass it will be impossible to just label them all as infidels who have wandered off the ranch.
Patrioteering is in their blood. Even Buchanan lapses into it from time to time.
Whatever intellectual heft they have is provided by the neocons, so they’re stuck with the Israeli albatross and muscular Wilsonianism.
The last opportunity they had was for McCain to come out against TARP. He didn’t, and the House GOP caved. Which of the two Goldman, Sachs parties is better? High populorum or low popahirum? Take your pick.
One of the things you’re missing in here is the desire of the neocons to stoke tensions with Iran because of their Israeli agenda. For the five months since Obama took office we’ve seen an attempt both by the Netanyahu govt and by their neocon spear carriers in the US to make Iran “the” issue and not the Palestinian question. This hasn’t gained much traction. By attempting to force the administration into a more forward policy over the Iranian election results they neocons know what the outcome will be. A worsening of US/Iranian relations because in the medium term at least the Ahmadinejad govt is likely to remain in power. This suits the neocon book exactly. They simply don’t a rapprochement with Iran because it hinders their Israeli agenda. US interests of course don’t come into it.
Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.
Conrad,
That, in a nutshell, is what is the matter with the mentality of the GOP today. You really think it wise to stand aside and let your “opponent” fail? I don’t think it’s so prudent to apply a principle, intended for an enemy, towards someone who is on your side and whom only holds a view point towards policy that is different from your own. A member of the loyal opposition has an obligation to voice their dissent and hope that their views are heard. Having faith in your country should mean in part that you hope your leaders will then make the correct decision for the good of the country.
ie: I never liked George W. Bush one bit, and thought he was dead wrong, but when the Iraq War started I was HOPING that he was right and that WMDs would be found. I wasn’t cheering for him tobe wrong or a failure. As long as the GOP keeps putting the power of their own party, or lack thereof, ahead of the good of the country, they will continue to lose badly at the polls.