I think this sums up the way many Republican feel

[red-beard]

Am I a lock step, the President is always right, etc, Republican? Nope. Would I prefer a Republican led congress over a Democrat one? Sort of. I would really prefer a congress of leaders and a President who put aside the politics to do the right things, instead of a bunch of attacks on "the other side". I prefer direct, unambiguous wording to "interpretation". If you don't like what it says, change the words, if you have the support. I’m pragmatic, not idealistic.

It seems to me, both sides are campaigning on "We're not them!" To this, I'd prefer to see them all sent home and both parties declared enemies of the state.

DECLARATIONS

Is There Progress Through Loss?
By PEGGY NOONAN
October 28, 2006; Page P16

A year ago I wrote a column called "A Separate Peace," in which I said America's leaders in all areas -- government, business, journalism -- were in some deep way checking out. They saw bad things coming in the world and for our country, didn't think they could do anything about it, and were instead building a new pool or buying good memories for their kids. Soon after I was invited to address a group of Capitol Hill staffers to talk about the piece. When the meeting was over a woman walked up to me. She spoke of what was going wrong in Washington -- the preoccupation with money, a lack of focus on the essentials, and the relentless dynamic of politics: first thing you do when you get power is move to keep power. And after a while you don't have any move but that move.

I said I thought the Republicans would take it on the chin in 2006, and that would force the beginning of wisdom. She surprised me. She was after all a significant staffer giving all her energy to helping advance conservative ideas within the Congress. "Yes," she said, in a quiet, deadly way. As in: I can't wait. As in: We'll get progress only through loss.

That's a year ago, from the Hill.

This is two weeks ago, from a Bush appointee: "I hope they lose the House." And one week ago, from a veteran of two GOP White Houses: "I hope they lose Congress." Republicans this year don't say "we" so much.

What is behind this? A lot of things, but here's a central one: They want to fire Congress because they can't fire President Bush.

Republican political veterans go easy on ideology, but they're tough on incompetence. They see Mr. Bush through the eyes of experience and maturity. They hate a lack of care. They see Mr. Bush as careless, and on more than Iraq -- careless with old alliances, disrespectful of the opinion of mankind. "He never listens," an elected official who is a Bush supporter said with a shrug some months ago. Along the way the president's men and women confused the necessary and legitimate disciplining of a coalition with weird and excessive attempts to silence Republican critics. They have lived in a closed system. They now want to open it but don't know how. Listening is a habit; theirs has long been to suppress.

In the Republican base, that huge and amorphous thing, judgments are less tough, more forgiving. But there too things have changed.

There remains a broad, reflexive, and very Republican kind of loyalty to George Bush. He is a war president with troops in the field. You can see his heart. He led us in a very human way through 9/11, from the early missteps to the later sure-footedness. He was literally sure-footed on the rubble that day he threw his arm around the retired fireman and said the people who did this will hear from all of us soon.

Images like that fix themselves in the heart. They're why Mr. Bush's popularity is at 38%. Without them it wouldn't be so high.

But there's unease in the base too, again for many reasons. One is that it's clear now to everyone in the Republican Party that Mr. Bush has changed the modern governing definition of "conservative."

He did this without asking. He did it even without explaining. He didn't go to the people whose loyalty and support raised him high and say, "This is what I'm doing, this is why I'm changing things, here's my thinking, here are the implications." The cynics around him likely thought this a good thing. To explain is to make things clearer, or at least to try, and they probably didn't want it clear. They had the best of both worlds, a conservative reputation and a liberal reality.

And Republicans, most of whom are conservative in at least general ways, and who endure the disadvantages of being conservative because they actually believe in ideas, in philosophy, in an understanding of the relation of man and the state, are still somewhat concussed. The conservative tradition on foreign affairs is prudent realism; the conservative position on borders is that they must be governed; the conservative position on high spending is that it is obnoxious and generationally irresponsible. Etc.

This is not how Mr. Bush has governed. And so in the base today personal loyalty, and affection, bumps up against intellectual unease.

The administration tries to get around this, to quiet the unease, with things like the Republican National Committee ad in which Islamic terrorists plot to kill America.

They do want to kill America, and all the grown-ups know it. But this is a nation of sophisticates, and every Republican sipping a Bud at a bar in Chilicothe, Ill., who looks up and sees that ad thinks: They're trying to scare the base to increase turnout. Turnout's the key.

Here's a thing about American politics. Nobody sees himself as the base. They see themselves as individuals. And they're not dumb. They get it all. They know when you're trying to manipulate. They'll even tell you, with a lovely detachment, if you're doing a good job. (An unreported story this year is the lack of imagination, seriousness and respect in the work of political consultants on both sides. They have got to catch up with American brightness.)

The Republican establishment, the Republican elite, is quietly supporting those candidates and ideas they think should be encouraged. They are thinking about whom they will back in '08. But they're not thinking of this, most of them, with the old excitement. Because they sense, in their tough little guts, that the heroic age of the American presidency is, for now, over. No president is going to come along and save us, and Congress isn't going to save us. Events will cause a reckoning, and then we'll save ourselves. And in this we will refind our greatness.

The base probably thinks pretty much the same. They go through the motions, as patriots are sometimes called to do. As for the election, it reminds me not of 1994 but 1992. That year, at a bipartisan gathering, I was pressed for a prediction. I said it was a contest between depression (if Republicans win) and anxiety (if Democrats win). I said Americans will take anxiety over depression any day, because it's the more awake state.

Al Gore was later told of this, and used it on the campaign trail. Only he changed "anxiety" to "hope." Politicians kill me.

[Jim Richards]

Great article! Two things I wanted to comment on are:

Republican political veterans go easy on ideology, but they're tough on incompetence.

The move towards ideology first, and everything a distant second has scared me away from the GOP. I am more of an Eisenhower or Nixon Republican. The neocon ideology is too "fascist" for me and the big federal spending to achieve the goals of their ideology are going to ruin this country if not halted.

But this is a nation of sophisticates, and every Republican sipping a Bud at a bar in Chilicothe, Ill., who looks up and sees that ad thinks: They're trying to scare the base to increase turnout.

I'm not so sure about this. There are many sheep who will follow the GOP/neocons where they lead. We see some of that here. And the GOP/neocons are reinforcing this behavior with their alliance with the religious right. They use hot button issues to great effect to keep the sheep on board.

I will be back in the GOP fold myself when the neocon ideology is repudiated, out of control spending is halted/reversed, and they get the federal gov't out of the business of legislating "family values." Oh yeah, and the power of the executive branch is returned to a more balanced state with respect to the two other branches of government.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by red-beard
Am I a lock step, the President is always right, etc, Republican? Nope. Would I prefer a Republican led congress over a Democrat one? Sort of. I would really prefer a congress of leaders and a President who put aside the politics to do the right things, instead of a bunch of attacks on "the other side". I prefer direct, unambiguous wording to "interpretation". If you don't like what it says, change the words, if you have the support. I’m pragmatic, not idealistic.

It seems to me, both sides are campaigning on "We're not them!" To this, I'd prefer to see them all sent home and both parties declared enemies of the state.

I wish they were enemies of the state, but alas, they are not. They love the state.

They are in fact enemies of America and Americans, and we must be rid of them.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Party politics serves nothing but itself. It is a dead idealology that should no longer play a part in our system.

One of the problems with both parties is they reject the more moderate positions (which in fact are closer to their core nature) in order to rope in more fringe/extreme groups (e.g. the religious right & neocons on the GOP side and the ultra-liberals on the Democratic side). NOTHING is going to change until there are either more political parties (I figure about three more) or the emergance/acceptance of non-party affiliated candidates as real contenders.

Sadly, most people are frankly too stupid to choose candidates on individual merits/issues and they'd be helpless without a "label". As with most things, this is another example of America and its people being their own worst enemies due to either their own hubris, laziness, or both.

[Jim Richards]

yep.

[fastpat]

"if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

[Taz's Master]

I hope for both parties to share equal power at the federal level. Neither would let the other accomplish anything. The less the federal government is able to do, the better off we are.

[Nathans_Dad]

Good article. Unfortunately the Republican party is fresh out of leaders with any sort of principles. They have become too interested in cementing their own power to make the changes needed to get this country moving forward again. Cutting bloated federal spending isn't popular. Scrapping the medicare drug benefit isn't popular. Privatizing social security isn't popular. Unfortunately our country has come to expect a hand out from the government and those in power feel obliged to pay up or risk being voted out. It's a tough situation, but I would hope someone up in D.C. will eventually choose country over personal gain.

[Seahawk]

The article hits many points that resonate with me, but misses the central issue that POP wrote about: an ignorant, apothetic America.

If 75% of this country voted, got engaged and cared to enough to place an informed vote at all levels of politics (local, state and federal), then the extreme factions would be rendered mute.

Combine that with term limits and a strict interpretation of constitutional powers and we're back to being a republic.

[sammyg2]

I kind of scanned the first part and then realized there was nothing of interest there for me.

What I did get was that some republicans are not happy with Bush, but support him because they are deathly afraid of the alternative. That's me.
The idea of the bleeding heart nutcase libs having another chance to destroy this country is a great motivator.
Gore is a freaking lunatic and is worse than any nightmare I can come up with.
I just saw a commercial with slick willy (clinton, bill that is. the one with the smaller dick) He was claiming that eithanol is 1/3 the cost of gasoline and our entire country should switch to it and eliminate the use of gasoline.
Now, is he really that stupid or is really that bad of a liar?
First, ethanol is every bit as expensive as gasoline, and that is AFTER all the government subsidies that help lower the cost. Without the government's meddling the cost of ethanol would be substantially higher than gas.
Second, if the US switched all crop production to corn instead of anything else, there still would still not be enough ethanol produced to completely eliminate the need for gasoline in this country. Probably only cover about 1/3 of it.
What a tool.
You think bush is bad? I'm convinced that either Clinton or gore is the anti-christ or they took lessons from him.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by sammyg2
I kind of scanned the first part and then realized there was nothing of interest there for me.

I'm not surprised. The article was at least partially about you.

What I did get was that some republicans are not happy with Bush, but support him because they are deathly afraid of the alternative. That's me.

Yet, you got exactly what you were afraid of, think of the irony.

The idea of the bleeding heart nutcase libs having another chance to destroy this country is a great motivator.

Bush is all the above and more, much more. He's an admixture of Wilson and F. Roosevelt.

Gore is a freaking lunatic and is worse than any nightmare I can come up with.

You can't name one thing Gore would have been able to accomplish that Bush hasn't done. Bush is Gore as far as government is concerned.

I just saw a commercial with slick willy (clinton, bill that is. the one with the smaller dick) He was claiming that eithanol is 1/3 the cost of gasoline and our entire country should switch to it and eliminate the use of gasoline.
Now, is he really that stupid or is really that bad of a liar?
First, ethanol is every bit as expensive as gasoline, and that is AFTER all the government subsidies that help lower the cost. Without the government's meddling the cost of ethanol would be substantially higher than gas.

Here's a hint, Bush has already mandated ethanol be put into gasoline in greater amounts, and the Republican controlled congress has expanded the subsidies for ethanol, costing us all money, and increasing the use of fossil fuels which are required to make ethanol. Now that's stupid. An additional free hint: Clinton is no longer president.

Second, if the US switched all crop production to corn instead of anything else, there still would still not be enough ethanol produced to completely eliminate the need for gasoline in this country. Probably only cover about 1/3 of it.
What a tool.

Again, Bush ahs signed the new legislation concerning greater use of ethanol, and again, Clinton isn't the president and hasn't been for five years.

You think bush is bad?

The fact that Bush is a bad president is self evident, in fact he's far worse than Clinton was, and certainly no better than Al Gore. The fact that the Republican congress would have stimied Gore in most of his policies would have been a plus. That same congress has repeatedly written Bush a blank check, and Bush wrote in huge amounts.

I'm convinced that either Clinton or gore is the anti-christ or they took lessons from him.

You're not watching the Bush'ists bend you over then.

[Moneyguy1]

There is indeed a disconnect.

Here in so. AZ we have a race for Jim Kolbe's House seat (he is retiring) between Dem Gabriele Gifford and Rep Randy Graff. Kolbe will not campaign for Graff, stating he is too radical. However, McCain and Kyl jump right in and back Graff as if he is the best thing since sliced bread. Graff is and has been a firebrand and some of his stands are not those Republicans eschew. So, once again party trumps principle. I commend Congressman Kolbe for holding to his principles re: policy. If we had more elected officials who felt this way, we might just have a less "broken" bunch of people in Washington.

[drauz]

Noonan combines naivete & great wordsmithing. She has yet to accept the meaning of the unholy alliance among political hacks, Bushists, necocons, and fundamentalists upon the GOP.

Anyway, while I agree that we get the gov we deserve, allow me to defend the Average Amercian of today a bit...

First, quality public education (and educators) on citizenship and American history is practially non-existant, has been for decades. Without shared memory, and promulgation of a central theme, the social contract disolves. The Founding Fathers provided us a great start, but we're blowing it after 220 yrs - a great run while it lasted. So, ignorance has been self-imposed from the top down (thanks AEA, HEW & LCD philosophy).

Secondly, we have lost our shared cultural experience (unless you count watching reality TV). The draft was the last institution that demanded that we are bound together as active citizens, regardless of background. This has enabled the Exec Branch to use the military on a nearly personal and ad hoc basis (lack of checks and balances helps). Collectively and individually we yearn to particpate in national responsibilities. But no leader will call for required national duty (not limited to military) in the course of one's career - they ignore a compelling need and desire.

Third, the People are busy... very busy. Modern life is complex and challenging. Taking care of a family's material, physical & spiritual needs is demanding. Delivering kids safely and prepared for independent life is nerve-wracking and expensive. Yes, personal selfishness and materialism plays a role (as has capitalism and mass marketing techniques, but hey, nothing is perfect). The overall effect has made it less likely for the citizenry to participate in civil culture (note the decrease in eligible voters voting). Not to mention, this trend is welcomed by those who find it easier to manipulate gov processes when the citizenry is otherwise occupied.

Absent a recasting of our major Parties (which is a very long shot), I have hoped for one or both to implode in order to rid ourselves of the unelected hacks who control them - at least for awhile. Yes, it would be nice to have quality leadership of a centrist political movement in America - one that would engage citizens in an optimistic yet pragmatic way. Faint hope.

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by Seahawk
If 75% of this country voted, got engaged and cared to enough to place an informed vote at all levels of politics (local, state and federal), then the extreme factions would be rendered mute.

Combine that with term limits and a strict interpretation of constitutional powers and we're back to being a republic.

Absolutely right on target.

Originally posted by sammyg2
I'm convinced that...

...sammyg2 is just the kind of fella the GOP/neocons are counting on.