Ted Frier

Ted Frier
Location
Boston,
Birthday
April 02
Title
Speechwriter
Bio
Ted Frier is an author and former political reporter turned speechwriter who at one time served as communications director for the Massachusetts Republican Party, helping Bill Weld become the first Bay State Republican in a generation to be elected Governor. He was Chief Speechwriter for Republican Governor Paul Cellucci and Lt. Governor Jane Swift. Ted is also the author of the hardly-read 1992 history "Time for a Change: The Return of the Republican Party in Massachusetts." So, why the current hostility to the Republican Party and what passes for conservatism today? The Republican Party was once a national governing party that looked out for the interests of the nation as a whole. Now it is the wholly-owned subsidiary of self interest. Conservatism once sought national unity to promote social peace and harmony. Now conservatism has devolved into a right wing mutation that uses divide and conquer tactics to promote the solidarity of certain social sub-groups united against the larger society while preserving the privileges of a few.

MY RECENT POSTS

Ted Frier's Links

MY LINKS
NOVEMBER 5, 2012 10:00AM

Republicans Want to Take Us Back, Not Forward

Rate: 6 Flag

All you really need to know about the state of American politics today is that President Obama has been pilloried by Republicans for the past four years as a wild-eyed radical because he is a staunch defender of the status quo.

In a sane world such continuity would mark Barack Obama as a "conservative." And indeed, when the political scientists at VoteView dug into the history and tallied up the score Barack Obama rated as "the most moderate Democratic president since the end of World War II," while George W. Bush came out as "most conservative."

As Obama's place in history testifies, what's changed over the last 30 years has not been the behavior of Democrats or even the pedigree of their ideas but rather the lens through which we now grade our political leaders.

Weighed according to the metrics of the documented history Americans have actually lived, President Obama is exactly what the good folks at VoteView say he is: a thoroughly conventional, mainstream, even conservative Democrat.  

Viewed through the prism of a radical right wing Republican Party that has never made its peace with the New Deal, nor with settled American law and practice over the past 50, 70, even 100 years, President Obama becomes some scary Euro-socialist intent on preserving a centuries-old status quo that conservatives despise.

New York Times conservative David Brooks perfectly illustrates the intellectual muddle now so prevalent on the Right.  

In a recent column, Brooks perpetuates the right wing pretense that the conservative ambition to dismantle the social democratic American nation-state in place since the New Deal, constitutes the sensible, centrist position in American politics while those who want to retain Social Security, Medicare, government policing of the financial markets and other worker protections that have existed since at least the 1930s have marooned themselves on some remote far left ideological island.

Brooks, for example, scolds President Obama for the narrowness of his vision these past four years, saying Obama could have been great but instead "championed mostly conventional Democratic policies" and so has limited his support to those within the President's own party.

Sure, Tea Party Republicans are a bunch of knuckle-dragging obstructionists, admits Brooks. But Obama could have "isolated" these right wing Neanderthals if he had only built "a governing center-left majority" by adopting an "unorthodox agenda" that Brooks is sure would have won over pragmatic patriots across the political spectrum who are eager to move beyond partisan gridlock and get things done.

America, says Brooks, is undergoing an economic transition similar to the one that produced the Gilded Age in the 1890s, with its widening inequality, corrupt political system, "unsustainable" welfare state and "dangerous level" of family breakdown and broken social mobility.  

And so what Brooks says Obama needed to do to win over the hearts and minds of America's Vital Center was abandon the progressive agenda Democrats used to reform the first Gilded Age, such as the activist state and Keynesian stimulus economics, and embrace instead Austrian-school austerity as a down payment on future prosperity.

It's therefore on closer inspection that one discovers the "unorthodox agenda" Brooks insists would support a new "center left coalition" turns out to be, instead, a reasonable facsimile of the Republican Party's own far right platform, with its calls for "reforms" of the tax code, reductions in "entitlement burdens," and shifts in government resources away from "the affluent elderly (read Social Security cuts) to struggling young families and future growth."  

And so, when Brooks talks about Obama "isolating" the anarchists and nihilists in the GOP what he really means is capitulating to them.

Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum makes such capitulation explicit.

The reason Americans should vote for Mitt Romney, says Frum, is that Congressional Republicans "have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics" and will only get worse if President Obama is re-elected.

If anything, says Frum, electing Obama to a second term will aggravate and empower these extremists, perhaps even provoke them into causing another impeachment crisis. By electing Romney, says Frum, we can avoid all that and discourage Congressional Republicans "from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013."

Holy cats! says Mother Jones' Kevin Drum, that's "the most overt form of the surrendering-to-terrorists argument that I've seen yet."  Vote out Obama, Frum seems to be saying, or else "Republicans will go completely ape and destroy the country."

As they have shown again and again, today's Republicans no longer want to govern America so much as radically remake it.

Political "saboteur" is not an imprimatur I would have imputed to Republicans until the summer of 2011 when their hostage-taking of the debt ceiling in stubborn defiance of even the anguished alarms of their own conservative economists not only put the full faith and credit of the United States in Harm's Way but also provoked the first credit downgrade of US debt in the nation's history.

That was the turning point for me. It was then I realized all bets were off as a self-righteous, radical right Republican Party had somehow managed to convince itself that its utopian vision of a "severely conservative" future was worth every sacrifice, however destructive.

The debt-ceiling crisis was also the moment when the scales finally fell from President Obama's eyes, says Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, as Obama "relinquished his last illusions that the current, radical version of the Republican Party could be dealt with as a governing partner."

The needless fight over the debt ceiling was the "breaking point" when Obama finally awoke to the fact that Republicans were willing to endanger even the nation's financial standing to achieve its ideological aim of  dismantling the federal government and putting Wall Street oligarchs in charge of America's economic destiny, says Dionne.

As Dionne correctly points out, the blame lies in the rebirth of the old far right from John Birch Society days in the re-packaged form of the so-called "Tea Party movement."

Peal away the colonial costumes and Founding Fathers rhetoric and the Tea Party is nothing more than a "partisan movement seeded by right-wing billionaires, and a cry of anguish from older, middle-class Americans fearful over the speed of social change," says Dionne 

The GOP establishment rode the Tea Party's temper tantrum to victory in 2010 but then paid the price as one well-respected Republican veteran after another endured humiliation and defeat at the hands of right wing populists simply because these "establishment" Republicans were patriots who preferred governing responsibly to treating our President as "a subversive figure."

And rather than take ownership for the failures of the George W. Bush presidency, Dionne says Republicans have disowned Bush along with their own culpability for the nation's downturns, preferring instead to take their party's setbacks "as an imperative to radicalize."

The good news, says Dionne, is that Obama, better late than never, now understands he is fighting for his political life and the nation's progressive legacy against a Republican Party "determined to bring the Gilded Age back and undo the achievements of a century."

The re-appearance of issue after issue once thought to be safely settled - from contraception, to abortion, to Social Security, to state-federal relations, even to torture - points to the revolutionary nature of a radical Republican Party that has little tolerance for compromise with Democrats (despite Mitt Romney's 11th hour appeals to bipartisanship) and even less for dissent among its own party members.

Democrats, at least, still believe in democratic politics and so regard trade-offs on such issues as taxes and spending as being a normal part of governing, writes Dionne. Yet, since Republicans only care about dismantling government and the taxes that go with it they are "prepared to accept standoffs -- and crises -- to reach those goals."

The big choice in this election, says Dionne, is between a return of the kind of government more suited to the Gilded Age than the 21st century and the "long consensus" Obama is battling to defend that has guided the American government since the Progressive Era - one "based on the view that ours is a country whose Constitution begins with the word we, not me."

There is another aspect to Republican extremism that Jonathan Chait of New York magazine raises when he says "barely any points of contact remain" between the Republican Party's economic doctrine and the consensus views of economists and other experts.

That is why, for example, Senate Republicans recently forced the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to pull back a report that demolished supply-side economics by documenting that, since 1945, there has been no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts for the rich.

With their signature economic doctrine now in tatters, Chait argues that Republicans have lost the "capacity to respond to the conditions and problems that actually exist in the world."

While most economists agree monetary easing is needed to "pump liquidity into a shocked market," Republicans have embraced the gold standard and warn of imminent inflation. In the face of a consensus for short-term fiscal stimulus, Republicans "have turned back to ancient Austrian doctrines and urged immediate spending cuts," says Chait. In the face of rising global temperatures and a hardening scientific consensus on the role of carbon emissions, Republicans plan to "dig up and burn every last molecule of coal and oil as rapidly as possible." Confronted by skyrocketing income inequality, Republicans insist on cutting taxes for the rich while slashing Medicaid, food stamps, and children's health insurance.

And Republicans call Obama radical?

What stands out about all these Republican positions is that, looked at another way, they are not about economics at all but rather are the psychological manifestations of white survivalist fears - political positions you'd expect from people who are hunkering down in their bunkers, overcome by their primitive terrors of changing demographics that challenge the historic dominance of white Christians, and white Christian conservatives in particular.

Conservative attempts to paint President Obama as a radical leftist are "a myth," says John Avlon, former speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani. Such character assassination is the result "of hate-fueled hyper-partisan projection" much more than President Obama's actual policies or record.

In a more sane age, says Avlon, the fact that Obama embraced health care ideas proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and put in place by a Republican Governor would have been seen as triangulation and bi-partisanship. "But with President Obama, it is reflexively viewed as socialist instead of centrist," says Avlon, who adds: "This says more about Obama's overheated opponents than his presidency."

Yes it does. And by mistaking the most moderate Democratic president of the last 60 years for a radical socialist, today's reactionary Republicans may have finally earned the epithet given to them by the late, great historian Richard Hofstader more than a half-century ago when he called the radical right "pseudo-conservative" in order to set it apart from "the temperate and compromising spirit of true conservatism in the classical sense of the word."    

These purveyors of hate on the radical right had little in common with the dominant practical conservatism represented by the Eisenhower Administration, said Hofstader, and "their political reactions express rather a profound if largely unconscious hatred of our society and its ways."

Super-patriots who hate their country and don't even know it. And these are the people so-called Republican moderates like David Brooks and David Frum want to empower? Since when has negotiating with terrorists ever been a winning long-term strategy?  

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Brooks is an apologist utterly divorced from reality, and that makes him a perfect spokesman for the once Grand Old Party. How he keeps his job while puking up such drivel is beyond me.

I realize the NYT is desperate to maintain the illusion of being fair and balanced, but the simple truth is no one on the Right is willing to speak the simple, ugly truth: The Republican Party has devolved into the Dixiecrat/American Independent Party.
Brooks is an apologist utterly divorced from reality, and that makes him a perfect spokesman for the once Grand Old Party. How he keeps his job while puking up such drivel is beyond me.

I realize the NYT is desperate to maintain the illusion of being fair and balanced, but the simple truth is no one on the Right is willing to speak the simple, ugly truth: The Republican Party has devolved into the Dixiecrat/American Independent Party.
Brooks is an apologist utterly divorced from reality, and that makes him a perfect spokesman for the once Grand Old Party. How he keeps his job while puking up such drivel is beyond me.

I realize the NYT is desperate to maintain the illusion of being fair and balanced, but the simple truth is no one on the Right is willing to speak the simple, ugly truth: The Republican Party has devolved into the Dixiecrat/American Independent Party.
Brooks is an apologist utterly divorced from reality, and that makes him a perfect spokesman for the once Grand Old Party. How he keeps his job while puking up such drivel is beyond me.

I realize the NYT is desperate to maintain the illusion of being fair and balanced, but the simple truth is no one on the Right is willing to speak the simple, ugly truth: The Republican Party has devolved into the Dixiecrat/American Independent Party.
Brooks is an apologist utterly divorced from reality, and that makes him a perfect spokesman for the once Grand Old Party. How he keeps his job while puking up such drivel is beyond me.

I realize the NYT is desperate to maintain the illusion of being fair and balanced, but the simple truth is no one on the Right is willing to speak the simple, ugly truth: The Republican Party has devolved into the Dixiecrat/American Independent Party.
Brooks is an apologist utterly divorced from reality, and that makes him a perfect spokesman for the once Grand Old Party. How he keeps his job while puking up such drivel is beyond me.

I realize the NYT is desperate to maintain the illusion of being fair and balanced, but the simple truth is no one on the Right is willing to speak the simple, ugly truth: The Republican Party has devolved into the Dixiecrat/American Independent Party.
Brooks is an apologist utterly divorced from reality, and that makes him a perfect spokesman for the once Grand Old Party. How he keeps his job while puking up such drivel is beyond me.

I realize the NYT is desperate to maintain the illusion of being fair and balanced, but the simple truth is no one on the Right is willing to speak the simple, ugly truth: The Republican Party has devolved into the Dixiecrat/American Independent Party.
Wanna say that again, Tom? (sorry, couldn't resist.)

As always, this is great analysis. The thing that always grabs and distracts me is this: Conservative attempts to paint President Obama as a radical leftist are "a myth," It seems to have become imperative to say "myth" when "lie" is the reality.
i dipped into some of the more 'active' protest organizations after i got out of the service in the late 60's. i was sure something had to be done. but to know them was to pity them: clueless children pretending to revolutionary rage.

right and left have little substance in america, because americans grow up disenfranchised from 'real' politics. voting for people is nonsense, a non-functional heritage of feudalism. as the transaction of voting for a master is nearly valueless, it is done for fantasy reasons, a hook to sustain dreams of demons and power.
This election should have been a cake-walk for an incumbent who walked such a moderate line for 4 years; ruffling few feathers among the populace.

The Republicans put up a less than sterling candidate, but one who represents the Tea Party Rs more than the Old Guard Rs.

The people of America need a landslide win for the Democrats at this time. Here's why.....

A slim win for the Dems will strengthen the Tea Party faction in the Republican party - likely give them undisputed control of it - bad for the Old Guard with their slightly more sensible attitudes towards governing in the best interests of the nation instead of in the best interests of the GOP.

A strong win for the Repubs will do the same thing as a slim win as far as the Repubs are concerned. BUT... such a win will encourage the Dems to move to the right since that will seem to be where the voters want to go.

So.......... only a strong win for the Dems offers any hope of American politics remaining at all balanced. It will weaken the Tea Partiers and perhaps let the Old Guard regain control of the GOP. It will tell the Rs that some movement toward, or compromise with, those they see as "the left" is necessary if they are to re-gain voter support.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out at the polls.

"Rated"
.
@al
Good for you for trying to change the world, but this is just another example of your cynicism: "clueless children pretending to revolutionary rage"

The truth is those "clueless children" helped bring about some of the most meaningful change in the history of this country - something they rarely get enough credit for. They helped in a dubious and costly war and helped bring about women's and minorities rights. Of course, they got an important assist from "clueless adults" who weren't among the Silent Majority. Today's "clueless children" could take a lesson, but then so could today's "clueless adults".
Since their political positions are not only detached from reality but also self-condtradictory, I think we have little choice to seek psychological explanatsions, as you do here. These pseudo-conservatives are terribly afraid but we cannot dismiss them because frightened people often do terrible deeds, acting on their fears. A wise man once asked, "what would happen if we conquered our fears instead of conquering the people we are afraid of?" [r]
@al
Good for you for trying to change the world, but this is just another example of your cynicism: "clueless children pretending to revolutionary rage"

The truth is those "clueless children" helped bring about some of the most meaningful change in the history of this country - something they rarely get enough credit for. They helped in a dubious and costly war and helped bring about women's and minorities rights. Of course, they got an important assist from "clueless adults" who weren't among the Silent Majority. Today's "clueless children" could take a lesson, but then so could today's "clueless adults".
You've sized up today's Republicans perfectly Ted. The remind me of Argentina's Peronists who, when out of power, do nothing else but try to destabilize and delegitimize whoever displaced the. the notion that Obama is anything close to a socialist is laughable. In Europe, if he held to the policies he espouses as President, he'd be a Christian Democrat. The arguments that Frum and others are now making is similar to arguments made against the re-election of Clinton in 96. If he won he'd be so tied up in congressional investigation (they just HAD to get to the bottom of that semen stained dress) that he'd have little time to do his job.