Thu Oct 18, 2012, 02:03 AM
eridani (51,896 posts)
Frank Rich: The Tea Party Will Win in the End
I think he's UNDRestimating the possible real power of a second New Deal, though.
This is a nation that loathes government and always has. Liberals should not be deluded: The Goldwater revolution will ultimately triumph, regardless of what happens in November.
Such is the power of denial that we simply refuse to concede that, by the metric of intractability, at least, conservatives are the cockroaches of the American body politic, poised to outlast us all. And so, after Obama’s victory in 2008, the Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg spoke for sentimental liberal triumphalists everywhere when he concluded that America is now “in a progressive period” and that “the conservative movement brought about by the Gingrich revolution has been crushed.” That progressive period lasted all of a year, giving way to the 2009 gubernatorial victories of the conservatives Bob McDonnell (in the purple state of Virginia) and Chris Christie (in blue New Jersey), as well as that summer’s raucous Obamacare protests. Few Democrats had imagined that the new African-American president would be besieged so quickly by a conservative populist movement whose adherents dressed in 1776 drag and worshipped the frothing-at-the-blackboard Glenn Beck. Or that such a movement would administer a “shellacking” in the midterms.
Such a comeback won’t happen easily, or overnight, or without a major purge of the nativists within conservative ranks. But if history has taught us anything over the past half-century, it’s that the American right’s death wish is a figment of the liberal imagination. For Obama’s supporters, even a 2012 victory is likely to prove but a temporary high.
8 replies, 2165 views
Frank Rich: The Tea Party Will Win in the End (Original post)
|Champion Jack||Oct 2012||#1|
|Live and Learn||Oct 2012||#8|
Response to eridani (Original post)
Thu Oct 18, 2012, 02:17 AM
JohnnyRingo (11,479 posts)
2. Frank Rich underestimates the pendulum effect.
American politics swings back and forth, depending on current events. After 9/11, the political heartbeat was on the far right. It wasn't long after, however, that the sentiment swung back to the left, and we saw a Nancy Pelosi Congress.
After that, the Tea Party pulled the momentum back to the right in 2010, but that cycle was also more shallow and short lived. Now we're seeing a swing back to the moderate left, where America finds it's happy medium.
Republicans like to say we're a "center right" country, but I believe America finds itself most comfortable in the moderate left, and it drives them crazy.
Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #2)
Thu Oct 18, 2012, 02:29 AM
Selatius (20,441 posts)
5. Most Americans are center-right, imho.
People reacted to the sheer disaster called the Bush-Cheney presidency even if they were center-rightists, and the only reason I think is the most convincing as to why the 2010 midterms turned out so bad for Democrats is because of the fear of Obama as a foreign agent and, for the racists, because he was of the wrong skin color. They energized their base that year painting him as an extreme far left Muslim president.
I don't think the pendulum swung that far between left and right, though. The real swing of the pendulum occurred after the re-alignment of both parties following the 1960s. It became a choice between centrism and extreme right-wing nuttery. In that respect, of course Obama was the natural choice of the left compared to McCain-Palin. Nobody wanted George W. Bush Redux.
Response to eridani (Original post)
Thu Oct 18, 2012, 02:28 AM
Cha (188,235 posts)
4. WTF! Sure as hell don't need Frank Rich's
doom and gloom about braindeadwashed teabaggers winning anything but a trip to the deprogramming station.
We The People Are Going To Persevere.
Response to eridani (Original post)
Thu Oct 18, 2012, 02:46 AM
graham4anything (11,464 posts)
6. Used to say Frank Rich was 100% correct...now 98%..I have read this article three times
and it is written in an issue of NEW YORK MAGAZINE (not the new yorker which is another)
which is a 2016 issue more than anything else.
Frank Rich likes high drama.
I used to say Frank Rich was 100% correct, but then he quit (was canned?) the NY Times and has practically disappeared writing once or twice a month in the magazine, and sometimes adding stuff on line.
I read this 3 times, and also read the Hillary 2016 article and the Jeb 2016 article in the same issue, which really was more about 2016 than 2012...I think both John and Frank take it as a given that Obama will win.
this article has to be taken into that context.
I myself think Hillary45 will defeat Jeb (two titans, the Kennedy/Reagan match we never got).
That will be the biggest election ever (if you can believe there is a bigger one than this year.)
This year we have one Titan(Obama) and one lightweight poser (Mitt). We have not had 2 titans since???
LBJ/Nixon never happened in 1968.
it has been 1 titan/ 1 lightweight each cycle now (lightweight is not necessarily a bad word either but by Titan I mean game changing different between each person of equal stature in their power to get their fans to vote and have their unconditional back because they are such opposites. OR the party fractures itself, turning a heavyweight into a lightweight
(in 1968 we saw that happen, and in 1980 we also saw it happen.)
United each side stands, united they win (and having someone the vast majority of the party likes vs. having a candidate just to say they don't like the other guy).
Reagan Vs. Teddy would have been just that. (1984 would have been the perfect time too, not an innerparty war like 1980 turned out to be. Teddy should have made a deal with Jimmy
and had the party been united, Jimmy would easily have beaten down the actor.(and I love Teddy).
And Rich is 100% correct, if you consider the Bushfamily the cocharoaches of the world.
Because thank God Jeb isn't running this year.
Compared to Mittens, people are pining for W of all things (it was a great debate moment when Obama KO'd Mitt using the logic that Mitt/Glove are even more draconian than bush was.
So by 2016, with Glove(Ryan) getting blamed for Mitt's lose(they will say if only Mitt wasn't forced by the farright that Ryan leads...
Jeb will be the "sane" one (with the minority wife to attempt to get the Hispanic/Latino vote)
(which is why President Obama in 2013 needs to spend a good heapin' hunk of his capital and get amnesty/citizenship (then also have millions of new taxpayer dollars to get the deficit down)
leading to the battle of the next 8 years.
When Hillary45 wins, we will own the courts, the house, the senate and WE MUST WIN THE GOVERNORSHIPS in every state we can, then we decide how the election boards are run
and the Jim/Juan Crow bullshit will stop.
That is what Frank Rich in the political issue of NY Magazine is talking about.
Not 2012 at all. Because you gotta read the whole issue.
(also remember John Heillerman(MSNBC, writer in NY MAG) and Rich both were major Hillary supporters to start off with.
And remember for those that are not from the NY area, Frank Rich started off a a Broadway play reviewer, perhaps the single biggest one ever, and his words made or broke a million dollar production instantly. A bad review from him closed the show.
So Frank Rich knows and loves drama.
I used to say Frank Rich was 100% correct til he left the NY Times. Now it's just 98%.
But I do love reading him and his views.
just my opinion.