the momentum map

January 18, 2006 12:37 PM

Are Conservative Republicans Now America's Permanent Ruling Class?
posted by The Jesse Helms (61 comments total)

i fucking hope not.
posted by wakko at 12:48 PM on January 18, 2006

In a word... UP AGAINST THE WALL, LONGHAIR
posted by stenseng at 12:49 PM on January 18, 2006

No more than the Democrats were in the 60's through the '80s. The pendulum always swings back.
posted by JB71 at 12:51 PM on January 18, 2006

Are Conservative Republicans Now America's Permanent Ruling Class?

They'd certainly like to think so.

If you lump in rich, centrist, corporate-friendly democrats, it's an even better argument. Permanent is a long time, though. It's going to take something pretty dramatic and/or violent to change that (and what it changes into might not be any better).
posted by doctor_negative at 12:52 PM on January 18, 2006

Yes. Thank the Lord!
posted by mad judge pickles at 12:52 PM on January 18, 2006

will any of this matter when elections are suspended in 2008?
posted by wakko at 12:53 PM on January 18, 2006

Not sure what the Economist's class mobility has to do with conservative Republicans exactly (stay on topic!) — but my other self put together a nice little post on the subject way back when if you're interested.
posted by Rothko at 12:54 PM on January 18, 2006

If only there were some conservative Republicans...
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 12:59 PM on January 18, 2006

They would like you to gag on their Republicock. NSIG (not safe in general)
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 12:59 PM on January 18, 2006

They would like you to gag on their Republicock.
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 12:59 PM PST on January 18

That had some of the most fucked up comment spam ever. horse-lover-gift-ideas-central.com?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:03 PM on January 18, 2006

At least until we firebomb their places of gathering.
posted by NationalKato at 1:04 PM on January 18, 2006

Boogieman much?
posted by HTuttle at 1:05 PM on January 18, 2006

Holy crap! The guy in Derive's link looks just like this guy.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 1:07 PM on January 18, 2006

Are Conservative Republicans Now America's Permanent Ruling Class?

Well, even still, we can all agree they're still ugly fucking lame assholes, right?
posted by Peter H at 1:09 PM on January 18, 2006

I love how #3 in the Christian Coalition platform is making permanent the Bush tax cuts.

I see their logic. Get the Feds out of the charity biz, more power to them. To do this, run the government into a fiscal ditch, presenting voters with the choice of raising taxes to pay for the Great Society, or cutting the underclass loose.

Win-win for everyone. Rich pay less in taxes, poor people get exposed to the moral education of relgious charities, and churches play a much more prominent, nay necessary, role in the community.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:12 PM on January 18, 2006

Boogieman much?

I was fascinated to learn that this term originates with an Indonesian ethnic group called the Bugi, who were merciless pirates of the high seas.

Which is ironic, given the subject matter and all.

Parents would tell their kids, "Behave and go to bed, or the Bugi men will get you."
posted by Rothko at 1:16 PM on January 18, 2006

My dad definitely is--multi-millionaire, loves listening to Rush, donated a few thousand to Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Thing is, he was a Democrat until he retired in the mid 90's. Go figure.
posted by bardic at 1:26 PM on January 18, 2006

"The pendulum always swings back."

I used to consider myself a "Conservative Republican" and it took me years to realize that I, as an American citizen, was getting screwed. Thankfully I'm better now and I think more and more people are "getting better" as well. Things will start to head back the other way sooner or later (hopefully sooner).

"If only there were some conservative Republicans..."

A dying breed indeed, few remain and they're older than dirt...
posted by MikeMc at 1:30 PM on January 18, 2006

At least until we firebomb their places of gathering.
posted by NationalKato at 1:04 PM PST on January 18 [!]
-----------------------------------

don't forget sterilzing their offspring, nothing like a good spaying and nuetering. . .
posted by mk1gti at 1:31 PM on January 18, 2006

Heywood did you just make that up off the cuff? It seems so very possible.
posted by poppo at 1:32 PM on January 18, 2006

Well, the first link certainly argues that they are not. The second link (economist article) points to a growing problem of social stratification that won't be magically reversed if the Democrats regain some political clout in the next few years, although I would expect improval. The third link (Chomsky interview) is interesting and after reading it I agree with him completely. The Christian Coalition (fourth link) would certainly turn the U.S. into a theocracy if they could, and they do have significant political clout. I've always been under the impression that many Republican politicians only consort with the CC because of that political and vote-getting clout. The fourth (theocracy watch) link is scary. I would like to think that the more power the religious right grabs in the Republican party, the less appeal the Republican party has to the majority of Americans. Anecdotal evidence consisting of a sample group of my conservative friends bears this out - they buy the economic policy and maybe still the war, but they're just as disturbed by Pat Robertson as I am. Of course, the chances of me befriending a religious fundamentalist are very small. The fifth link (speech excerpts on GOP website) doesn't indicate anything - its just generic political speech.
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 1:38 PM on January 18, 2006

I would expect improvement. gah
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 1:40 PM on January 18, 2006

from the first link: “Conservative Republicans, beset by deep ideological divisions, are not even close to becoming the country's permanent ruling class.”

So...um...no?

This could be an interesting discussion though. I think a lot of folks who were formerly my conservative wingmen now think that the ideas coming out of Washington are A-OK. So you have to question their character - that is - are you really a conservative or are you - in the words of that porn star who was running for California Governor - just hanging out with rich people to become a rich person.

Usta be it was about kicking ass not kissing it. But every fan club has their posuers.
(I understand there are folks who join protests in order to get laid as opposed to actually believing in the cause - shocking I know).

I suppose the question is - do conservative republicans WANT to be America’s ruling class? And to some degree the answer is self-evident.
The difference is between golf club hanger on types who wanna-be and guys who actually put principle first.
And even there - there are divisions. I would certainly call the religeous folks committed to principle. Unfortunately it’s religeous principle.

I have to question though if that too is a matter of social climbing.

...of course, there’s a whole slew of things to be said about the left... (but this ain’t that thread)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:41 PM on January 18, 2006

My dad definitely is--multi-millionaire, loves listening to Rush, donated a few thousand to Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Thing is, he was a Democrat until he retired in the mid 90's. Go figure.

Same with my grandfather. Pennsylvania Democrat New Deal-era farmer, never passed sixth grade but made more than anyone else in the family, is now a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican. Soon as you have some money, screw liberal values--just don't let the government take any! It annoys my liberal-as-hell mother to no end.
posted by gottabefunky at 1:42 PM on January 18, 2006

I’d add that it’s been a while since the Dems were the party of the “underclass.” If they ever truly were. And indeed, if such a thing can be said given the system we have.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:43 PM on January 18, 2006

JB71: No more than the Democrats were in the 60's through the '80s.....

Did you actually live in America in the 80s? If so, do you remember this guy named "Ronald Reagan"? Maybe another guy named "George Herbert Walker Bush"?

How about the phrase "Greed is good" -- that ring any bells?

When people tell me they don't think that America has a ruling class, I try to get them to remember the Golden Rule: Them what got the gold, make the rules.
posted by lodurr at 1:47 PM on January 18, 2006

Smedlyeman, I dont' think you've got the question quite right. It's not "do conservative republicans WANT to be America’s ruling class", so much as it is "what is a conservative republican?" "Conservative", much like "Fascist" or "Liberal" or "Love" or "Courage", is a dangerously meaningless word.
posted by lodurr at 1:50 PM on January 18, 2006

Define permanent.


Try outrunning the heatdeath of the universe you shmucks, diebold or no diebold!
posted by lalochezia at 1:52 PM on January 18, 2006

Are Conservative Republicans Now America's Permanent Ruling Class?

Yes, as long as "permanent" means "until the train they're driving goes off the cliff".

That being said, the Bush administration is not conservative, but crony corporatist with a patina of theocracy. It's a smash and grab operation, and we're all gonna be left holding the bag.

I look forward to the day when Liberals and Conservatives, both proud children of the Enlightentment, can go back to arguing about the best way to run a Republic.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:52 PM on January 18, 2006

I'm really sad at the way this FPP is worded. It's one hell of an article I'd like to discuss, but thanks to the wonderful political framing device, we'll get a Republicrat vs. Democrican debate. Can never get enough of that!

Oh, yeah, and that totally misses the point of the whole article, too.
posted by absalom at 1:53 PM on January 18, 2006

(Obviously, I was refering to the Economist article.)
posted by absalom at 1:54 PM on January 18, 2006

poppo, it's something of a synthesis, but this is obviously how the libertarian right and the religious conservatives can find common ground.

The "Got Mine, Fuck You" libertarian right can be happy with the religious types attempting to pick up the slack and looking after their own. Church-goers paying less federal taxes can invest more in their church; and of course they'd MUCH rather see their charity go to fellow church-goers rather than some single mother with 5 kids in Alabama. Plus the religious right sees FDR, LBJ, and dems in general as inherently evil for some reason.

My congressperson, who is actually a perfect combination of both of these groups, wrote the basic manifesto ten years ago during the Gingrich revolution.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:56 PM on January 18, 2006

Thank god China will rule the world soon.
posted by Artw at 2:01 PM on January 18, 2006

do conservative republicans WANT to be America’s ruling class?

What they want is to make money. And keep it. They have their private schools, their private hospitals, they don't need government services or handouts other than law enforcement and keeping the roads maintained (and they'd privatize those too if they could).

They love the 20-odd million fundies who pull the lever for Republicans, since that's 20-million+ votes that come free every four years. Fundies were Bush's strongest deme in 2004, breaking 78% for him. McCain is being groomed as the heir apparent to them, and I expect a similar break in 2008, and another 4 years of Republican looting.

Which is almost a good thing, now. Let them dig as deep as they can. The worse it gets, the more radical the change that is possible. I'm not a minority, a woman of childbearing age, or a college kid trying to get an education, so the present Republicans are welcome to do their worst.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:05 PM on January 18, 2006

I’d add that it’s been a while since the Dems were the party of the “underclass.”

Very true. I huge problem with progressive/left politics is that it has never really come to grips with the fact that it worked: the post war west is characterized as being full of middle class republics with mixed economies. A narrative based on some 19th century notion of the proletariat is problematic, to say the least. As a result, the very middle class that is the heir of previous progressive policies has turned against them.

This doesn't mean that there's not place for progressive politics. I think the solution is not that hard, really, at least in principle: you just have to realize that the middle class is the new proletariat.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:09 PM on January 18, 2006

I shouldn't pick on my dear dad so much in one day, but what the hell--it still amazes me that in terms of meme warfare, the Republicans still have the Democrats painted as "elitists." Fact is, most people who go into politics in America do it for the wrong reason, right or left (mostly for ego-appeasement, with monetary gain a close second), and getting an Ivy pedigree just greases the way--not to mention the fact that Bush himself is a Yalie/Harvard man who transmogrified into a Texan (and has an accent of no identifiable extraction that I can hear). (He was also a cheerleader red-staters--beware).

And isn't elitist just another word for driven? As in, I want to be rich, so I'll get degrees from places where the name-brand trumps whether or not I actually did good work, got good grades? But then the American penchant for skepticism (healthy) shades into the American penchant for anti-intellectualism and anti-book-lurnin' (inredibly unhealthy). Where, exactly, is that line? I have no idea.

Meh. Both sides are morally and logically bankrupt for the most part--it's just that one doesn't give a damn, while the other is actively pushing towards the ruin of America's economy, military standing, and reputation as we speak. And they have degrees from the exact same schools, and send their kids to the exact same private schools in the DC area and New England, and yet somehow the latter are more populist, because they show up at a Nascar race and/or own a gun. What a fucking crock.
posted by bardic at 2:11 PM on January 18, 2006

Making this question about Republicans rather than plutocrats moves this into the arena of SportsFilter...

Chomsky addresses it in a recent interview by Geov Parrish: (The rest of the interview is quite something, the tone is a little more vitriolic than normal, I think.)

How could the Democrats distinguish themselves at this point, given that they've already played into that trap?

Democrats read the polls way more than I do, their leadership. They know what public opinion is. They could take a stand that's supported by public opinion instead of opposed to it. Then they could become an opposition party, and a majority party. But then they're going to have to change their position on just about everything.

Take your pick, say for example health care. Probably the major domestic problem for people. A large majority of the population is in favor of a national health care system of some kind. And that's been true for a long time. But whenever that comes up -- it's occasionally mentioned in the press -- it's called politically impossible, or "lacking political support," which is a way of saying that the insurance industry doesn't want it, the pharmaceutical corporations don't want it, and so on. Okay, so a large majority of the population wants it, but who cares about them?

posted by Chuckles at 2:14 PM on January 18, 2006

Lodurr -

Yep, I sure did. Congress and Senate were controlled by Democrats - then Reagan and Bush got in and kicked the cart some. Congress and the Senate were STILL Democratic, though. Then Clinton got in, and, well, he managed things so well that the Congress and Senate went Republican. That took talent.

The pendulum always swings. Maybe not as fast as we'd like, but it's always in motion.
posted by JB71 at 2:25 PM on January 18, 2006

Democrats: Mildly Less Plutocratic
posted by Artw at 2:26 PM on January 18, 2006

lodurr - too true.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:27 PM on January 18, 2006

Define permanent.

Until the Rapture.
posted by tapeguy at 2:29 PM on January 18, 2006

Democrats: Mildly Less Plutocratic
posted by Artw at 2:26 PM PST on January 18 [!]

------------------
Well put. I just cant' get excited about either party when they certainly don't represent the majority of the citizenry of this country. Plutocrats, plutocrats and more plutocrats. As for the people, let them eat cake . . .
posted by mk1gti at 2:40 PM on January 18, 2006

all you need to know: http://tinyurl.com/cevvj
posted by Fupped Duck at 2:51 PM on January 18, 2006

My dad definitely is--multi-millionaire, loves listening to Rush, donated a few thousand to Bush in 2000 and 2004.

I'm a left-wing socialist with liberal tendencies. Will he feed me his republicock?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:02 PM on January 18, 2006

JB71: Then Clinton got in, and, well, he managed things so well that the Congress and Senate went Republican. That took talent.

Not to mention beating the Senate Majority Leader by a landslide. That also took talent.

One question, though -- you never said whether you remembered teh phrase "Greed Is Good"....
posted by lodurr at 3:05 PM on January 18, 2006

It's far too large for you PM. Genetics and all.
posted by bardic at 3:06 PM on January 18, 2006

No.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:08 PM on January 18, 2006

One question, though -- you never said whether you remembered teh phrase "Greed Is Good"....
posted by lodurr at 3:05 PM PST on January 18 [!]
-----------------------------------------

I remember that term. As soon as I saw those words I had the sudden urge to strangle the nearest businessman by his necktie . . .
posted by mk1gti at 3:10 PM on January 18, 2006

While the fundies are a 20M+ voting bloc, let's not forget the M-I complex's whores. $500B/yr DoD budget @ $100k/job is ~5M jobs.

So someone campaigning on an anti-Godliness and anti-Pentagon platform will be ~25M votes in the hole (and it takes ~50M to win).
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:27 PM on January 18, 2006

"Greed Is Good"

http://deloscorp.com/demo.html
posted by ryoshu at 3:54 PM on January 18, 2006

and keeping the roads maintained (and they'd privatize those too if they could).
Working on it!
posted by Thorzdad at 4:09 PM on January 18, 2006

Are Conservative Republicans Now America's Permanent Ruling Class?

I hope so. It'll hasten the day when the whole shell game collapses, and the rest of the world can step in and install a caretaker government.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:45 PM on January 18, 2006

Hey, I can dream, can't I?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:49 PM on January 18, 2006

Good interview linked by Chuckles.

What gives you hope?

What gives me hope actually is public opinion. Public opinion in the United States is very well studied, we know a lot about it. It's rarely reported, but we know about it. And it turns out that, you know, I'm pretty much in the mainstream of public opinion on most issues. I'm not on some, not on gun control or creationism or something like that, but on most crucial issues, the ones we've been talking about, I find myself pretty much at the critical end, but within the spectrum of public opinion. I think that's a very hopeful sign. I think the United States ought to be an organizer's paradise.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:26 PM on January 18, 2006

no.
posted by moonbird at 5:27 PM on January 18, 2006

Every so often I think to myself, "gee, self, why don't you get into local politics? You could use your genuine interest in seeing things improve for everybody and your technical knowledge to establish a relationship with local constituents that gives you direct information on what they really want -- and you can then look into those issues, present a fair and balanced assessment of the options, sit back, and see what they want to do. Real civil servant-type stuff."

Then I remember that I'll probably have to label myself as belonging to some party, or being explicitly outside of one (and be thought of as fringe); and that even with the best information possible, the masses often make the wrong choices; and people with a vested interest in seeing a particular outcome would be far better than I at manipulating public opinion (since I wouldn't be trying to manipulate it, just inform it.)

And so I say to myself, "Bah. Let's you and me go get a cupcake and split it."
posted by davejay at 5:29 PM on January 18, 2006

Lodurr -

Oh, I remember the 'Greed is Good" tagline. Oliver Stone's "Wall Street".

But I can't quite see the pendulum swing to "I'd rather be poor" on that one!
posted by JB71 at 6:26 PM on January 18, 2006

I'm glad you remember it from that movie.

I remember it from that movie, and from the budding yuppies I knew in college in th early 80s and the fully-blossomed yuppies I met at the college-friend barbecues and new years parties. I remember it from TV shows and magazine articles and from the birth of the Cult of the Donald. I remember it from before during and after the Crash of '87.

As for where the pendulum swing: It don't. Get it now?
posted by lodurr at 7:15 PM on January 18, 2006

Oh, but I beg to differ. Perhaps not in the directions you want it to, but it's always in motion.
posted by JB71 at 8:49 PM on January 18, 2006

Can we retire the pendulum platitude? It implies that politics are a linear (or at least finite) spectrum and that Democrats and Republicans are the two diametrically opposed options, which is all prima facie false.

It also helps assure people that things will go back to normal so long as you don't worry your pretty little head, which is stupid and amoral. Even if it were true and we were due for another Republican Surge in 10 years, the damages of the past are so bad that we'd never be back to level ground. The George W. Bush administration is an absolutely different beast than anything we've seen in a very long time. To start, Republican presidents from the recent past were tempered by Democrat congresses and vice versa.

To put it another way, if the American public is so short-sighted than they go, "hey! The Democrats fucked everything up, let's vote in the Repuiblicans!" then next cycle they go, "Hey! The Republicans fucked everything up, let's vote in the Democrats!" then the Great Ameican Experiment is well... fucked. If we believe that that's the cycle, then damn straight we should try to fix it.

Plus, the whole 60s-80s thing sounds like a talking point. Hyup, the democrats had us under their heel from 1960 to 1989.
posted by Skwirl at 9:50 PM on January 18, 2006

In my own defense, I'll say I was only responding the pedulum platitude. And it was wasted, because JB71 seemed to fail to grasp that I was talking about the plutocratic "pendulum" (which isn't a pendulum at all, more like a boulder rolling down a grade). So I shouldn't have bothered.
posted by lodurr at 5:08 AM on January 19, 2006