Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Republicans are Devolving and Trying to Drag Society Back With Them
By: RmuseDec. 8th, 2012more from Rmuse
There is a process of gradual, peaceful development that occurs in nearly all social or economic structures or institutions known as evolution, and as a motion it is incomplete in itself, but when combined with coordinated motions produces a single action over time. Unless a society is isolated from outside influence and new ideas, changing sensibilities eventually contribute to a culture’s evolution over time and has contributed to both good and bad results. Conservatism, by its nature, is resistant to change and because conservatives’ deep-seated ideological beliefs are cemented in stone, they have serious issues adjusting to societal evolution. Unfortunately for America, conservatives have rejected the idea of the country’s progress into the 21st century and by their own admission, Republicans are devolving and attempting to drag the entire society backwards.
The announcement Thursday that South Carolina Senator and teabag hero, Jim DeMint, was resigning his Senate seat to take the reins at the Heritage Foundation was another bit of evidence that the American conservative movement is devolving into libertarianism. DeMint’s resignation was good news for the Senate and the country because, as a legislator, his mission over the past four years was obstructionism for the sake of hindering President Obama. Indeed, DeMint himself evolved over the course of a year into a Koch acolyte intent on crippling the government, destroying social programs, and government’s ability to protect the people. It is safe to say DeMint never met a social safety net he didn’t hate, or a tax cut for the rich he didn’t love, but it was the Affordable Care Act that brought out the monster in DeMint the Senate and country can do without.
DeMint’s hatred of the President’s healthcare law is legend, but in 2007, he had an entirely different opinion when he supported Willard Romney’s candidacy for the presidency, and he cited the Massachusetts healthcare law as a crucial reason for his endorsement. The Affordable Care Act is modeled on the Massachusetts’ law, and Romney praised the Heritage Foundation for its valuable guidance labeling them “a quintessentially conservative group that recognized the principles of free enterprise and personal responsibility were at work” in devising the Massachusetts health law. Romney was proud of the individual mandate and healthcare exchanges devised by Heritage’s health-care expert, Stuart Butler, who argued that, “Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.” The Heritage plan was the Republican alternative to President Clinton’s health reform bill in 1993.
The 180-degree shift from DeMint and the Heritage Foundation from fierce advocates for an individual mandate and insurance exchanges to Heritage’s claims the President’s health law was “intolerable,” ”unprecedented and unconstitutional” and a “growing government control over healthcare” was a maneuver to inflame the public that President Obama was imposing socialism on the nation. Just two short years earlier, Heritage heaped praise on the Massachusetts health law as an “innovative mechanism to promote real consumer choice,” “reduce the total cost to taxpayers,” and “clearly consistent with conservative values.” Conservative’s values are historically never-changing, but the outrage and opposition to the President’s healthcare reform was the impetus to change conservatism into Koch-inspired libertarianism.
The new conservatism advocates for the Koch brothers “free market solutions to the nation’s problems” which is code for no regulatory agencies and tax-free status for big business, and integral to their goal is privatizing government whether it is the National Park system, highways, or Social Security and Medicare, and in order to garner electoral support for enacting their agenda, they have to convince the public they are wrong to believe government plays an important role in their lives. DeMint said that was his reason for quitting the Senate and moving to Heritage; “After this last election it’s apparent that we need to do more as conservatives to convince Americans that our ideas and our policies will make their lives better. I can do that better at Heritage.” Heritage communications director Dan Holler said, “Republicans were reelected in the House to stop Pres. Obama’s agenda, not figure out creative ways to fund it” in assailing Speaker Boehner’s pathetic proposal to avoid the impending fiscal cliff, and the conservative’s main objection to Boehner’s counter offer was that it was not exclusively spending cuts.
President Obama won re-election because the people felt he was looking out for their best interests, and because Republicans campaigned on protecting the wealthy and corporations with tax cuts and deregulation. DeMint is certain that at the Heritage Foundation he “can do more good for the conservative movement outside of the Senate in leveraging the assets of The Heritage Foundation to communicate a more positive, optimistic message to the American people,” and that the “problem is, as conservatives, we have not taken enough control of our message and our ideas and communicated them directly to the American people.” DeMint is wrong. Republicans did communicate their message and ideas to the American people and they rejected them in favor of the President. Republicans’ message was that minorities, the poor, students, Veterans, and the elderly are a drain on the country and that government’s role is co-opting Wall Street and corporations at the expense of 98% of the population.
According to Judge Napolitano, hardline conservatives love DeMint because “he is a real Republican and conservatives don’t want middle of the road compromisers, and because he will bring the libertarians back in the Republican Party. Jim DeMint is a classic, traditional, conservative Republican, none of this George Bush compassionate conservative mealy-mouth stuff. He really believes the individual is greater than the state, and that the government should shrink.” Sheer, unadulterated libertarianism promoted by the Koch brothers, and now the Heritage Foundation. Heritage is the policy driver of the Republican Party and they have devolved into the message machine to convince Americans that “free market solutions to the nation’s problems” will benefit their personal lives. It is doubtful many Americans will appreciate a government that exists solely to serve big business, but that is where the Republicans are heading as they abandoned any pretext of government for the people.
DeMint is a perfect fit for the libertarian Heritage Foundation, but he may discover the people will not embrace their vision for a privatized government or corporations run wild, and make no mistake, that is the libertarian vision for America. This country is better for having Jim DeMint out of the Senate for myriad reasons, but it is troubling that he will lead the Heritage Foundation and their $80 million budget to direct Republican policies that were regressive enough in 2012, and will only get worse in 2013 as they embrace Kochism, and work to destroy worker rights, civil rights, consumer protections, and environmental laws DeMint will attempt convince Americans is an the optimistic message.
As the political winds continue to shift left even Jim DeMint can see the writing on the wall, which i ...
It has to say a lot about a candidate when the people who supported you for Governor, are campaigning ag ...
One thing I like to do is to go to conservative sites and read their diatribe. The latest site I "Liked" ...
Since I live in South Carolina, I feel it's incumbent upon me to volunteer my perspective on the Decembe ...
Tim Scott is back on the hill come 1/3/13, but he's been booted upstairs to the upper house. From a one- ...
Anne
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Yes, they ARE devolving on such things as women’s reproductive rights, racial equality, economic fairness, and tolerance of religious differences, among other things. Their vision of America is a truly scary one, and it’s just as scary that they are supported by folks who’ve never lived in the world they envision. These supporters take a lot of freedoms we currently enjoy for granted, and are in denial about the catastropies that would result if they were lost for good. Another sign of that devolving process is the desire to return to the jingoism that has cost this country so much as a leader on the world stage in the recent past. If Willard Romney had won the presidency, that process of devolution would have been greatly accelerated, and would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to reverse.
Fiona Mackenzie
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 10:59 am
It is more than conceivable the country would not have recovered after a Romney presidency. He had no interest in the job (just as he had no interest in MA except the title), and had already committed to the corporate operatives who have been working to end democracy in America.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 10:18 am
The one problem for the GOP and the Koch is that once their policys are instituted the people will understand what they are and try to get rid of them. Koch = self defeating policy.
The problem I am afraid of is once in place they will never be able to get them out. The GOP, having won critical places in government will make it impossible for a Democrat to ever win those seats again.
And the US will be a slave ownership country. Which is also self defeating. Who buys the goods?
Fiona Mackenzie
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 11:03 am
You may have noticed that Koch/ ALEC activities in the states have been directed toward wrapping and binding them so tightly that when the people finally notice, there will be nothing they can do. Read what has happened to Michigan, where the people no longer can elect local, county, and regional governments, and public education is being ended with education tax money going to for-profit chains.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 11:55 am
That is my fear. Once entrenched there will be nothing we can do. On the bright side, if they pay us slave wages, who will pay for the military they want to have? They will have to
robyn ryan
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
So you say you want a revolution?
America was under corporate control before the revolution. Colonies ran off charters with businesses and the Throne.
The Constitution was written expressly to keep corporations and businesses from encroaching on citizens.
The government is the tool designed to keep businesses out of the citizen’s pockets and lives.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 11:44 am
Uhh… there is NO SUCH THING as “Devolution”. That word is a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works… it’s not always “upwards” or positive, and can be (by human standards) quite negative at times.
I’m rather bothered by your use of the word. We have to fight against that thinking all the time… the misconceptions about evolution are myriad and troubling and lead to all sorts of errors.
The Republican party is evolving, but in a direction we think bad or negative. It’s a case of convergent evolution if anything… one species evolving so that it shares the characteristics of another.
I myself think that what is going on is the deliberate destruction of the Republican party, so the dominionist “Constitution Party” can take it’s place.
(Upon reflection, I’m really concerned that this is a way to dissuade people from keeping up their defenses. “The Tea Party is dying” meme is bullsh*t, and I think we’re seeing an attempt to encourage that meme so that people think they’ve won and become complacent.)
We didn’t win this election… the Republicans still control the house and they haven’t changed tactics. They won’t compromise unless forced to. They’re dead set on forcing their ideology (religious and economic – but in their case they’re both the same thing) on everyone else.
If you look at the local and state level, we didn’t do so great there either.
We may find that DeMoss will become more dangerous and more of a problem when he’s out of office than when he was in. For one thing, he’s not limited by rules that ordinary citizens face, and the scrutiny is far less rigorous.
Jason Easley
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Walkaway,
Devolution is a term in Webster’s dictionary.
Link: www.merriam-webster.com/d...
Definition: : retrograde evolution : degeneration
So WTF are you talking about? :)
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Just because it’s defined doesn’t mean it’s accurate or even appropriate.
I remember rants from years ago that “illegal” isn’t a real word, and yet it showed up in the dictionary (and is used regularly, although the purists I know raise hell about it). The usual comment they give is “Illegal is a very sick bird!” It’s slowly being accepted even though it’s considered a wrong type of lingual construct.
The concept “devolution” itself is invalid. Evolution cannot, and I repeat CANNOT go backwards. It can only take a different direction (even 180 degrees is a different direction). The concept comes from the misconception that evolution is an “upward” or “progress” thing. It’s not. If, for instance, our environment suddenly made stupidity more valuable than intelligence, humanity as a whole would quickly become less intelligent. Or we’d go extinct.
I’m also speaking as much from a cultural as a biological perspective (remember: anthropologist specializing in studying and analyzing the physical evidence of culture – archaeologist).
The creationists grab onto misconceptions and that’s why they have been so effective. It’s also why we (scientists and educators) have struggled so hard to try to keep that word out of the language. To misuse the English language (Eugenie Scott would shoot me), “Evolution is a fact” and anything that distracts from that weakens us in the face of the creationists. That includes the concept of “devolution”.
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Welll. While I am inclined to agree with you when it comes to PHYSICAL evolution, I think he is clearly using as a social/ political term for backwards thinking.
You are correct about evolutionary theory though. It is one of the most misunderstood concepts among the general public. There is no such thing as one species being more “evolved” than another. It’s all about survival and adaption.
Crocodillians for example, are some of the most successful creatures on the face of the earth; they have been around far longer than we have, and of course famously out lived the Dinos. Natural selection has kept them this way for so long because they are so adapted for survival. No need for further evolution.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
It might make sense in this way…
Conservatives don’t like change, while we generally embrace it (if it seems to be good for people and society in general). If you look at culture in an evolutionary sense (and my discipline – anthropology – is founded on evolutionary theory and our focus is on cultures), in a sense we represent the new species, because we’ve changed. The question then becomes if the old species (the people stuck in the 50s and before) evolves – maybe on a different path than ours – or if they go extinct.
Ideologies can become extinct, in a sense. We may have records of them (fossils?) but if they’re no longer accepted…
knight4444
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
@walkaway your rant was really hilarious! the dems (WHICH I’M NOT ONE) took the whitehouse the senate and if republicans wouldn’t have gerrymandered many districts would have lost the house also. Why don’t you do yourself and us a favor!! actually research your information before you post stuff on the internet!! The dems actually got 1 MILLION MORE votes than republicans for the house. And Jim Demit leaving the senate for the INSANE heritage foundation means ZERO!! news flash!! Demit isn’t very bright!! just saying
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
I heard a rant very much like yours just before the 2010 election.
The very same person (lives in a nearby county) was saying afterward “What the hell happened???”
rick420_69
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
so, intelligent decline?
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
(LOL!!!)
clarence swinney
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
TOP 2%
own 50% economic wealth—get 30% individual income
The tax increase:
Up to $500,000 Income will pay less than 1% of income
$500,000 to $ 1 Million will pay 2.5% of income on average
$1 million up average tax is 4.8% of income.
We need that Revenue to stop so much borrowing.
2013 budget projects $3800 Spending, $2900 in Revenue and borrow $900B.
We have an Income of $14,000 Billion. Shame on us to borrow so much so the rich can get ultra rich. 1945-1980, we paid our way by taxing wealth. Conservatives started the flush up of wealth.
Reagan + Bush were major factors. Spend and Borrow let kids pay tomorrow. Shame.
Reynardine
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
As an evolutionary concept, “devolution” doesn’t exist: nothing actually returns to an ancestral form, even when a deliberate “back-breeding” program is carried out. In the political sense, it theoretically could. Yet, if feudalism or absolute monarchy were to be instituted today, it would not resemble the medieval forms. Indeed, because of enhanced surveillance techniques and environmental degradation, it would be far more crushing and dangerous.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
One could argue the GOP is going back to its neanderthal roots?
Reynardine
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
I think now you are insulting Neanderthals.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
I really have to agree with you on that one!
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
(GRIN!)
Johnee
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Not to be the shit stirrer (Ha. Ha.) but are you familiar with the experiments that they are doing with birds to activate their ancient Dino genes? These birds are growing raptor teeth and tails. So in a sense this would be a form of man-made “devolution”.
A Walkaway
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
The goal is recreating a dinosaur, but so much has changed genetically that all would result would be a new species that has some rather ancient characteristics.
Now if they could somehow re-map the genetics of a dinosaur, the equipment now exists to build DNA, gene by gene.
That would be a real dinosaur, although I think it would have to be referred to as a synthetic dinosaur.
Reynardine
Dec. 9th, 2012 at 12:27 am
Well, they are reactivating certain silent ancestral genes, but successful dinosaur recreations are likely to be scarcer than hens’ teeth.
Johnee
Dec. 9th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Ba Dum Bum! Lol
Everyday Freethought
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
You kind of hit upon one of the fallacies of libertarianism: They don’t like big government, yet they don’t seem to have a problem with Big Corporations. And, for a lot of Republicans, we can add Big Religion to the list as well.
Karen Roberts
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
We are evolving and that is why they are trying to stop it by an attempt to force us backwards. It’s not going to happen if I can help it.