Republican Party: Stabbing Rightward
April 26th, 2005 | by Tom Harper |How far to the Right has the Republican Party moved? President George Bush Sr. used to refer to the Neocons as "the crazies in the basement." Fifteen years later George Jr. is not only in bed with the Neocons, they’re doing kinky perverted things with him that Hustler Magazine couldn’t even imagine.
Tom DeLay and some of his fellow reactionaries are threatening to impeach Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Who appointed Kennedy to the Supreme Court? Ronald Reagan.
A lot of environmental and civil rights legislation was passed during Richard Nixon’s presidency. How’s that for contrast? Nixon signed the law creating the Environmental Protection Agency, and Tom DeLay has repeatedly compared the EPA to the Gestapo.
Now check this out:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children….This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross.”
Wondering which tree hugging socialist said that? Would you believe — World War II general and 2-term Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Eisenhower also said:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Again, Eisenhower was a Republican.
When the CIA was first created — at the end of World War II — Republicans were the biggest opponents of the idea. They were leery of having a government agency with so much power and secrecy. Talk about a Big 180. Sixty years later the Republicans are trying to expand the Patriot Act, and anyone who disagrees with them is a wuss and a traitor.
President Theodore Roosevelt was an environmentalist (even though that term didn’t exist then). During his presidency he established five national parks, 18 national monuments, 51 wildlife refuges and 150 national forests.
Roosevelt also stood up to Big Business. He said: “We Republicans [must] hold the just balance and set ourselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” What, no genuflecting and groveling every time a corporate lobbyist comes a-bribin’?
He tried to balance things out between organized labor and the robber barons: “My appeal for organized labor is two-fold; to the outsider and the capitalist I make my appeal to treat the laborer fairly . . . That is one-half appeal that I make. Now, the other half is to the labor man himself. My appeal to him is to remember that as he wants justice, so he must do justice.” Again — as hard to believe as this may be — this was a Republican president.
Just try to imagine a Republican today — surrounded by Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum and that ilk — expressing concern about the military industrial complex, the environment or world hunger. The shock! The fury! It would be like a tie-died peace demonstrator walking into a boardroom meeting at Halliburton.
If you’re young, or haven’t followed politics very long, you probably think the Republican party has always been this nutzo band of Taliban wannabes. What — previous Republican presidents cared about the environment? They cared about people and not just multinational corporations? They weren’t trying to smother the judiciary and establish a Christian theocracy? Who knew?
Something has happened to the party of Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Sometime after the 2000 election, the Far Right fringe oozed its way into the Republican party, and took control. And every time there’s any discussion of the party platform, the people in charge call out “Yo! A little more to the right!”
How much further to the right will our government go? This is almost too scary to contemplate, but: in twenty years, will we be looking back with nostalgia at the moderate, benevolent polices of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?
cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country
28 Responses to “Republican Party: Stabbing Rightward”
By chris on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
It is amazing that people can’t see ‘the forest for the trees’; these people are about as Republican as much as Bill Clinton was a Republican.
Some people are too easy to play off of their egos, their need to be accepted, etc; then they will do anything for you, blindly follow you where ever you want them to go.
What ever happened to small government? What ever happened to personal responsibility? I was under the impression that these used to be core Republican values. Not any more.
It’s not that the Republican base themselves have changed; it’s just that they have allowed these people to play them; they blindly follow party lines without looking inside to see what their own values are. They can’t imagine thinking that maybe, just maybe their party is corrupt and wrong.
President Bush said it best “You’re either with us or against us”, that is the new mantra of the Republican Party. I for one hope the base of the party can reign in the zealots so we can get back to being civil again.
I will not let these people hijack my country as they have hijacked the Republican Party.
By tomharper on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
That’s exactly right, Chris. The party has totally surrendered itself to religious crusaders and people who want to dismantle every social/safety net program invented in the last 70 years.
These groups have always been a significant minority, but their power is way out of proportion to their numbers. I hope their 15 minutes of fame is almost over.
By sally on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
“Power corrupts. Absolue power corrupts absolutely”
By Dr. Forbush on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
The really sad thing is that we need to keep pointing out these FACTs. The average American has no idea about this history or even the difference between left and right politics. Given that it is quite easy for politicians and talk radio to distort the facts and win the support of the people based on lies it may be impossible for a true democracy to survive in America.
But this isn’t new at all. Nixon promissed the American people that he had a “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War in 1968. Many people voted for him because of this promiss, but in 1972 the War was still going strong. People vote for what they believe, but deceptions are not easy for the people to see through.
By pia on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
Dr. Forbush took the wind out of my sails.
Thanks Tom for a really great history lesson.
The sad part is that so few people are willing to learn.
By Jet on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
This was a great reminder of how the country FELT when I was growing up. Sure, there was political opposition, but it was mannered discourse, not the ranting we’re accustomed to today. If you go back a watch older presidential debates, it was all about topic rather than personality.
I disagree with your statement that the Republican base has not changed. I think a better statement might be that the base has been augmented with groups that don’t share traditonal core tenets of the Republicans of the 50’s - 80’s. With this augmentation came a subtle power shift along with a significant shift in tone.
I thought this was an outstanding post, Tom, and a great reminder that the GOP used to have a completely different set of values and direction.
By tomharper on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
Sally: That’s the truth. Way too much power and corruption in this administration.
Dr. Forbush: Yeah, so many Americans have no sense of history, so we keep repeating the same cycles over and over, thinking it’s something new each time. The parallels between now and the Nixon/Watergate era are very troubling. Like someone said back in the ’70s, if Gordon Liddy had taped that lock properly, Nixon would have stayed in office.
Pia: That’s true, nobody wants to learn from history. We’ll probably go through something like this again in 30 years, and everyone will think it’s totally new and unprecedented.
Jet: Yeah, I sure long for those halcyon days when the Democrats and Republicans were just two parties who agreed to disagree. Sure they could get obnoxious sometimes, but I don’t remember this level of hatred or fanaticism. Or to paraphrase a popular saying “this isn’t your father’s Republican party.”
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
Sorry, Dr., just a little history lesson for us…who was it that ended the Vietnam war?
By Doug on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
On one hand, I respect the right of any people to redefine themselves and the fact that the Republicans have done that is fair enough. Just so they don’t expect me to keep supporting them. I feel like my relationship with the Democratic party might not have been the one night stand I’d had in mind. Hate it when that happens.
By tomharper on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
Craig: Yes, Nixon did end the Viet Nam war, but it sure took him long enough. In his 1968 presidential campaign, he made it sound like he was just gonna go right in there and end it (”I have a plan,” etc.). The war raged on for most of his 5-1/2 year presidency.
And yes he inherited the war from previous administrations. So history will give him credit for ending the war that was started by…Eisenhower, Truman, FDR?
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
Well yes, but then we had a future Senator taking secret trips to Paris and meeting with the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Government representatives, then returning with the grand plan that America withdraw immediately…with the promise, of course, that our war prisoners would be released just as soon as we were gone. Quite reasonable, I think, considering that it was the Communists’ plan. I can’t understand why we didn’t follow it.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
I thought that the war was started by the French, no? Er, well, started by the North Vietnamese actually, but wasn’t Vietnam under French occupation at the start of hostilities? This is probably ignorance speaking but that was my understanding.
By tomharper on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
Craig: I’m not gonna bother defending Tom Hayden, if that’s who you’re talking about.
I’m not clear on how the Viet Nam war actually started, but my understanding is that Eisenhower first sent “advisors” to South Viet Nam in order to honor treaties already signed by Truman or FDR.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
Thank you Tom. He didn’t really need defending on that question. That was really just for information purposes. The question about who ended the war, of course, was snarky on the face of it and he did just fine with it.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
And the Kerry reference was pretty snarky too, I guess, but I couldn’t resist.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 26, 2005 | Reply
Way off topic but I was wondering what people here thought about Kerry as a candidate. Not so much was he better than Bush–I think I know the answer to that–but about his candidacy.
By The Bastard on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Ummm……….He was the better of two evils!
By The Bastard on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Sorry, Kerry that is, Kerry was the better of two evils.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Another ringing endorsement.
By Dr. Forbush on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Craig:
History lesson:
Richard Nixon’s resignation August 8, 1974
US pulled out of Siagon April 30, 1975
I guess that would mean that President Ford would be president at the end of the Vietnam War.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Dr. Forbush,
History lesson:
The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27k, 1973 which officially ended US involvement in the Vietnam conflict.
Richard Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.
Gerald Ford may have been President when the troops completed the pullout but Nixon/Kissinger were responsible for ending the war.
By The Bastard on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Oh my God, why are we still arguing the Vietnam war? Kerry went, Bush didn’t end of story (snicker)!
By The Cranky Liberal on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Actually wasn’t it the North Vietnamese who ended the war by winning it?
The Kerry comment was snarky Craig, and a bit misleading.
As for his candidacy, I knew we were screwed the moment he wsa nominated. We “lost” the 2000 election in part because we had a guy so wooden Pinochio looked real compared to him so what do we do? We find a guy that looks like that old he’s from the petrified forest. I never heard so many people wish for Al Gore’s charisma in my life.
By Dr. Forbush on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Craig wrote:
” I was wondering what people here thought about Kerry as a candidate.”
Actually since I would like to be lead by a person who has guts to stand up for what he believes in. Kerry was the hands down winner. Kerry came back from Vietnam knowing that the war was not being handled correctly, and US involvement was wrong and he fought against it. Bush on the other hand has no idea what is right or wrong, instead he has advisors to tell him what his supporters think would get him re-elected. He reads speeches written win support. He has no idea of how to answer questions honestly when he is put on the spot. I could go on, but I won’t.
Clearly there are other people who are better than both of these guys, but they weren’t on the ballot.
By sally on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Petrified forest…HAHA!
Kerry was not charismatic and that made whatever he was trying to say just…thud. Even though I live in Ma I was not enthralled with Kerry. He always seemed too handled for me. But, he could and would debate any issue. He knew what he was talking about without having to be told.
By tomharper on Apr 27, 2005 | Reply
Unfortunately, there’s one person in the world who’s more wooden that Kerry — Gray Davis, California’s recalled governor. Maybe the Democrats could nominate him in 2008