The remainder of my Raw Story CPAC dispatches are here, here, here, here, and here. It was a grueling three days, and I didn't even attend the after-hours festivities like Reaganpalooza -- you can go to Wonkette for that stuff. I also recommend Charlie Pierce's dispatches, which are full of fierce indignation, unlike the measured, just-the-facts reporting for which I am known.
Overall I'd say the event was a success for its people, in that they seemed energized by it and optimistic about their chances on the hustings. Of course they had every reason to feel that way in 2012 too, and we saw how that turned out. But though CPAC is for true believers and, as you may have gleaned from the coverage, some of what they true-believe is crazy, the folks I spoke with and overheard were serious about success.
And I think for them the libertarian schtick is where it's at. The youngs who have driven the Paul-heavy straw poll results in recent years were there already; I believe the growing conservative tendency these days of portraying, for example, their opposition to mandatory insurance coverage of contraceptives and gay rights as religious-liberty issues, instead of merely denouncing birth control and homosexuality as tools of the Devil, shows that the elders are also ready to talk the talk, at least.
Also, consider: The American Conservative Union reported that in this year's straw poll, 62% of respondents said marijuana should be legal in at least some circumstances (21% approved for medical reasons, 41% in all circumstances) and only 33% said it should remain illegal. ACU also claimed that all age-groups but the oldest were broadly pro-legalization. I haven't seen any cross-tabs -- and moldy fig Patrick Brennan thinks the wording of the questions makes the survey "push-polling for libertarians" -- but I wouldn't be surprised. The Republican voters who might be turned off by a pro-legalization policy aren't going anywhere except to the grave, while there are a lot of independent voters who might be pleasantly surprised to hear conservatives want to free the weed while Democrats like Jerry Brown are much less enthusiastic.
I predict whoever gets the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016 will preach marijuana legalization and abortion bans. It may seem incongruous to you, but national politics is about coalition-building.
Where coalition building means a bunch of white guys get together and decide which of my rights they will sacrifice to get something they want.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad Diane Arbus isn't alive, she would have taken a lot of great pictures at that gathering.
ReplyDeleteGreat Charles Pierce quote:
ReplyDeleteI think that Republicans should pay attention to everything that has
been said in these panels. They should promote Florida as the beau ideal
for what our country's attitude toward firearms, and they should
campaign to bring back the old system of health-care, including chucking
all those 24-year olds off their parents plan. Creepy Uncle Sam should
be the face of the party. Do this today.
I'm not seeing much prospect for coalition building beyond the groups that are already in the tent. Unfortunately for conservatives, their most-public faces are people who are 1.) nuts, and 2.) determined to drive away everyone who is not precisely aligned with whatever the current gourpthink is.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But, I'm not sure it's much different than "our side". Adam Curtis has a great documentary, "The Power of Nightmares", on the BBC archives.org site, that helped me understand why we can't have nice things any longer.
ReplyDeleteOh, they'll happily sacrifice all your rights because the something they want is for you to have NO rights.
ReplyDeleteThat's modern libertarianism for you. My rights are natural rights; your rights are distractions. It would be funny if so many liberals didn't fall for it.
ReplyDeleteThey're probably optimistic because they're thinking of 2010, not 2012. That's the comparison I'm making, with considerably less optimism. (Sorry for stealing your shtick, mds.)
ReplyDeleteI don't think there will be such a bloodletting in the house simply because there aren't any seats left to take. The Blue dogs were all wiped out in 2010 and 2012, and their own gerrymandering has meant there aren't many marginal seats left to flip. The senate is worrisome, but 6 seats is a big number in any given year: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia all look like juicy targets, but can they go 6 for 6? Last election they didn't even come close, and that was with a bunch of non-incumbent races in places like Indiana and North Dakota. The governors' races will be more interesting: I've been hearing for four years now how crashingly unpopular Kasich, Onorato, and Rick Scott all are among their constituents. Well, time to put up or shut up.
It's easy to dismiss the fact that the whole GOP is full of crazy people who can't keep their mouths shut, because the media will always cover for them, etc. But the crazy factor is, I think, why they lost so badly in 2012. Akin, Mourdock, etc. were big news, not to mention Mitt Romney's constant stream of Mr. Burns-ian bullshit. Now, our friends on the right, judging by the last year, haven't figured that out, but the million-dollar question is: will enough people pay attention to make them pay for it in an off-year?
I guess I'm not as sanguine about the whole hip-new-conservative-movement thing as some people. I see a twenty-two year old who likes pot and applauds everything Sarah Palin says, I don't hear a new wave of libertarianism. I hear someone who's a couple decades away from turning into the stodgy old guard. Seriously, half the speakers were like these kids at some point...
ReplyDeleteGov. Brown was never as liberal as repugs insisted he was or is. He's OK with fracking, raising tuition in colleges, and the greatly feared & loathed "Return of The Peripheral Canal" which will destroy the Sac river delta/SF Bay.
ReplyDeleteFlorida, Texas and Wisconsin, Beau ideal of repugs.
ReplyDeleteReally? I'm really certain its "much different on our side."
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of evidence that the GOP is focusing more on state and local elections than national ones, at least in the upcoming cycle. Some people think this is because they're trying to game future elections, which may well be true, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're focusing on elections that they can plausibly win. Fortifying the rearguard, as it were.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of how it's going to pay off for them...It's hard to say at this point, really. Yeah, they have an "energized base," but that doesn't mean as much as the pundits seem to think. In the US, you win elections by winning the middle, and that's going to be a long shot if they keep leading with crazy people. Course, that might be another reason to focus on the states - the craziness of the national debate doesn't hurt too much at the local level. Put it this way - there's a local Republican I always vote for because the Democrat who always runs against him is bugfuck insane. I'd never vote for an R at the national level, but this is one D who should never ever hold office.
And regarding the hip young things, it's practically a tradition now for Paulites to make big noise in meaningless straw polls and then do nothing in presidential races, for the simple reason that there aren't as many of them as their numbers would suggest. It's easy to swarm straw polls to make yourselves look good. It's also easy to spam YouTube comment sections and buy bumper stickers and yard signs, which they also like doing. When it comes to the actual business of convincing enough people to win an election why your guy deserves their vote, not only do they not have the manpower, I think a lot of people in the movement think that stuff is beneath them.
ReplyDeleteHell, both can be true. Judging by all the gerrymandering, voter ID crap, and Rick Snyder-esque overriding of local left-wing governments, I'd say a lot of Republicans see the point of getting elected as ensuring continued Republican rule even when Republicans lose elections.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they can pull it out with this new coalition. Sure, there are lots of 22 year old libertarians but they aren't any more excited about politics than any other 22 year old. You still have the problem of pulling and pushing them to the polls. If I know my republicans, and I do, they think that Obama did it on star power alone so they are looking for someone with star power--but they are like the drunk looking under the lamppost because its where the light is. They insist to themselves that the kind of people they want to have shilling for them also can have star power enough to pull a sufficient number of white youth into the Republican camp as active voters. I don't think thats true for the kinds of people they are throwing up (Rand Paul, Rubio, Christie, etc...) and I don't think its sufficient given changing demographics. Because the dems can win without winning 100 percent of the white vote (since this has been true for several election cycles) and the Republicans can't for much longer win without 100 percent white vote and some sliver of the black/hispanic vote.
ReplyDeleteAt the presidential level if most of these hipster/libertarians live in urban areas and blue states then the republicans are just shit out of luck because their votes will not be numerous enough to matter.
I'd like to point out that Sarah Palin is still, six years after she hit it big, the number one reason I get from ex-Republicans as to why they're not Republicans anymore. My takeaway from that is that a lot of people can be sold a bill of goods on more technical stuff like taxes or health insurance, but there is a floor level of flat-out stupid that anyone who considers themselves smart is reflexively repulsed by, no matter their politics.
ReplyDeleteSome pot in every kettle and a bun in every oven!
ReplyDeleteCould you elaborate a bit?
ReplyDeleteI take your point but do you seriously think the "pot for me" group are going to outnumber "oh thank Obama I have healthcare" group? Especially since the war on pot specifically seems to be winding down nicely on its own-indeed, there is nothing preventing the democrats from capturing that vote quite handily by simply capitulating on the war on drugs that white guys like to use. The NSA stuff is more complicated for the party in power to renounce since even if they do no one will believe them. But that just means that as soon as a Rand gets into office he, too, will dissapoint those starry eyed young libertarians and thus lose their votes next cycle.
ReplyDeleteYou have just given me the fastest ever swoop from hilarity to despair:
ReplyDelete'Hahaha Reaganpalooza that's hilarious... Oh. It's actually a thing [sobs, beats face against monitor, etc]'
do you seriously think the "pot for me" group are going to outnumber "oh thank Obama I have healthcare" group?
ReplyDeleteWhat worries me is that not enough people will make the connection: Call it "Get government out of my medicare" syndrome. They'll be grateful for the changes in health insurance, but not quite realize that Obama and the Dems are to thank, and not grasp that if they keep Dems in power they might see similar beneficent changes in student loans or wages. Sounds stupid, but there's a lot of stupid people out there. I'm sure you've some polls where the pollsters can talk people into supporting 'The Affordable Care Act' but opposing 'Obamacare.' (Of course, the Republicans have done their best to remind people who's to thank by using 'Obamacare' in every other sentence, so there's that.)
This is tangential to your point, but I think "the war on drugs that white guys like to use" is not a good way of putting it. White guys also like to use cocaine and meth-- and that includes plenty of Republican voters. There is no effective political movement toward legalizing cocaine and meth. People regard pot very differently from other drugs these days and it's not because the demographics of its fans have changed all that much over the decades.
ReplyDeleteI should say "Upper class White guys are not ashamed of using."
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part was this, but I really thought it should have said "Because they're the ones with the money" on the back.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping that in the face of the more recent extreme manifestations of neo -confederate horseshit, the natural divisions between corporate Dems and progressives can be smoothed over enough to prevent a damn catastrophe this year.
ReplyDeleteSince corporate Dems are guaranteed Hillary as president. They ought to be using some of their bankroll to lay the groundwork for a congress that isn't so goddamned stupid.
We've got a corporate Dem at the state house level. My wife and i worked for his primary opponent back in 2010, but we're still on speaking terms. He finally saw what was at stake, but his health deteriorated, and he's not running this cycle. Here's one of the freaks running for his seat.
It can get worse:
http://www.sandraberry4nchouse.com/
The whole concept of "reductio ad absurdum" does not work on people who prefer to espouse absurdities rather than reconsider their assumptions.
ReplyDeleteYeah, selling argument-deflecting t-shirt mechandise worked so well for the Ghost Dance religion too.
ReplyDeleteThey prefer absurdities so they can commit atricities.
ReplyDeleteIt's focused on the founding and effects of the Security State. From an unofficial trailer:
ReplyDeleteInstead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nighmares. They say they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaLPFayD8FA
lepers are not responsible for their condition
ReplyDeleteLiberal.
Take that back. I'm more of a socialist.
ReplyDeleteLike this one:
ReplyDeleteClicked link. Video began playing. YouTube supplied an ad banner at the bottom: Urinary Catheter Supplies. Looked radical over Geo. Washington kneeling to pray in the snow. Sometimes you just shouldn't monetize your campaign vids, y'know?
ReplyDeletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/97/Childwithhandgrenadedianearbus.jpg
ReplyDeleteIsn't that kind of the point of the Paranoid Style in American Politics? Seems similar.
ReplyDeleteIs that a VRWC shirt on the right? 20-year-old catchphrase ahoy!
ReplyDeleteShe'd probably still kill herself. Better pharmaceuticals aren't a match for CPAC.
ReplyDeleteHey, it's the party of ideas.
ReplyDeleteI made friends with her daughter in the 80s, Amy. Very nice person and a talented photographer in her own right.
ReplyDeleteI can't get over the fetishization of George Washington. He and his class helped put down the Regulator revolt in North Carolina, which was an actual agrarian revolt against tax farmers.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's because of the whole Washington-Custis-Lee thing, which is a kind of anhistoric Nembutal to the people down here who are drowning in racist sad.
And when I say 'made friends'; I mean we had lunch and she looked at my photos. Not that big of a deal, but I appreciated her making the time.
ReplyDeleteUpper class white guys aren't ashamed of using cocaine- it's a status symbol. As dear, departed Uncle Joe put it, it's the pause that refreshes in the corridors of power.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to sour the youngun's on the Paul vote is to make damn sure that people know he was cool with his supporters stomping a young woman in his presence.
ReplyDeleteMy wife runs a food buying club because you can't get a lot of organic goodies at our local food stores. Over the years there have been a few preppers. And there are liberal preppers, too. I would count us among them, but all I'm prepping for is not having to drive half an hour to a fucking grocery store biweekly.
ReplyDeleteWe have had some Ron Paul folks, some Rand.There are disturbing stories of knifeplay among roomates.
Some of them are healthy young women who wear those titty shirts to the food pickups and it's just weird. It's like wearing an empire dress to get your car fixed. I'm not judging.
It only serves to remind me that my sexual irrelevance is paired with a tremendous intellectual gulf between myself and the borderlands of NC and VA.
I stand corrected. But I think there's a very significant difference between white guys who want an end to the drug war as it concerns themselves and an actual political stance against the drug wars against everyone else. Because at heart these guys are still "fuck you,I've got mine." If it ever came down to a kind of decriminalization of drug use for white guys only, or simply ticketing and fines that they can pay but poor people can't, they'd be fine with that. They aren't going to go to the mat for anyone's interests but their own and they can be bought off with very slight adjustments to the law.
ReplyDeleteJesus fuck. That's my id.
ReplyDeleteI dunno. So long as he's opposed to drones, in however limited circumstances or even if it's not really so, you'd be surprised what else people will put up with.
ReplyDeleteI think this footage could sink him with young women, if they ever supported the guy.
ReplyDeleteWhat does your superego look like?
ReplyDeleteYou know, it hadn't occurred to me that there might be women supporting Paul. Point taken.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure for some of them, the "outlaw chic" of cocaine is part of the appeal. "Do you know how many campesinos had to die to bring me that Andean Marching Powder?"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wikipaintings.org/en/felix-vallotton/the-rape-of-europa-1908
ReplyDeleteI bet they're far and in-between, though. Just a few Ayn Randish retrosexual wannabes...
ReplyDelete“I do not like this Uncle Sam
ReplyDeleteI do not like his health care scam
I do not like this dirty crooks
Or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals
I do not like their crummy deals…”
I do not like the way she smile
I do not like green teeth and bile...
The last few political demonstrations at which I've nearly had my head opened by cops were in towns with Democratic mayors. The biggest wave of evictions in this area occurred under Democratic mayors. The security state has grown wildly under Democrats. While the Democrats are better on many issues, when it comes to cops and spies, they have a very long way to go.
ReplyDeleteBy all means, let's elect the lesser evil, but let's not kid ourselves that we're voting for the non-evil. It's not bad guys and good guys; it's bad guys and less-bad guys.
Quickest way to steal pot as an issue for the Paulistas: for the national Dems to advocate decriminalization, now and with no waffling. Takes the issue right off the table.
ReplyDeleteI think it's the people who have the time and resources to to stick their fat asses into electoral politics. They tend to be self serving, if not completely insane.
ReplyDeleteThe best thing you can do (and it's not that hard) is insinuate yourself into the Democratic party machinery. They don't even give much of a fuck. They want bodies. Prepare for the kind of stupid you'd expect from Republicans, but with a kind of ameliorated evil.
Democrats are good people. The people who are cut out for elective office are rarely good, but there are a few who will fight your fight.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nc-senator-nesbitt-busts-gop-sneak?lite=
More to the point, the party of long-held grudges.
ReplyDeleteWell, the shirt is red, and you *know* they wouldn't want the letters to be black.
ReplyDeleteCoozledad's ego:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.staedelmuseum.de/admin/ImageServer.php?ID=748@sm&width=400
It's a non-government jackboot, so they're cool with it.
ReplyDeleteRush Limbaugh: "Illustrating absurdity by being absurd". Why yes, yes you are. And a finer example their ain't.
ReplyDeleteWith maybe a touch of misogyny. These guys kid themselves that they could vote for a Jeanne Kirkpatrick, but when it comes right down to it, the Old Boys' Club is for, you know, boys...
ReplyDeleteAnd it's easier to energize pissed-off voters, which the GOP base is, perpetually, especially since '08, and arguably since '92.
ReplyDeleteOh, they're angry even when they win, and more so when they lose. They've been that way not since `92, but at least since 1964.
ReplyDeleteAnd, remember, they're the heirs (because of shifting alliances beginning in the `60s and `70s) to the biggest loss of all, 1865.
They're congenitally unhappy people. Thus has it ever been, and thus will it always be.
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
ReplyDeleteYes, I was not fair to Rothbard in my comment. He did concede that mothers have the right to use violence in the cause of self-defense.
ReplyDeleteI think city politics are rough because of the money involved, the sheer scale, and the preference of the money holders for peace, quiet, and submission on the part of the work force and the non workers. Lots of people never turn out to vote for the kinds of positions they can vote for--such as sheriff, treasurer, recorder of deeds, and then are surprised that the "fix is in" by the powers that be.
ReplyDeleteHell, in my city we have city counselors and an unaccountable "city manager" that we don't elect and that we can't get rid of. He's gotten rid of the obvious, low level, cheap grift of the former Mayors who were distinguished by their stupidity and corruption. But he's substituted a technocrats version of corruption--do just enough to keep the populace quiet and make the big money boys, corporations, and Universities happy. Since their interests are quite distinct from our interests this can be problematic.
When it comes to class issues I see no difference, really, between the two parties and because class and race are so highly intertwined I see (nearly) the same amount of racism on the ground, in the form of refusal to ameliorate poverty, crime, and punishment issues in the two parties. But in terms of social vision and willingness to tolerate and even celebrate individualism, atheism, non conformity, equality of access, rights for the disabled, use of state law and force to enforce rights across the board, I still think the Democrats are the only viable party at the national level and pretty much at the local level.
The political class though? That's always conservative, under whatever name it runs its membership.
Yup. TPSIAP argues that both left and right can have their paranoid styles and that the paranoid style increases as people fall in perceived status relative to others. The conviction that you are engaged in a world historical and eternal struggle against a demonic other who dominates history and current events alike is the other part. So on the left,you might say, we have the Bush family and the Koch Brothers, on the right they have the entire Muslim world, communism, and the "gay agenda".
ReplyDeleteYikes! Give a little shout out before posting stuff like that.
ReplyDeleteImagine that somewhere out there she is saying, right now, "I made friends with a guy named Mark_B4Zeds in the 80's."
ReplyDeleteIsn't gourpthink for nuts?
ReplyDeleteWell, I think she falls naturally into a "helpmeet" slot that Republican women have been filling for decades. Very few Republicans ever thought she would be other than the Vanna White of the WhiteHouse, posing and turning the vowels for dyspeptic but manly John McCain. They seemed genuinely shocked and horrified when they suddenly realized that she would, in fact, be a heartbeat away from Mccain's melanoma.
ReplyDeleteI guess I think that they pretty soon abandoned the outlaw chic of bootleg liquor and resupplied their damaged manhoods with "top shelf" and single malt.
ReplyDeleteI made the samed damn argument back in college. Its also the same basic argument as under Talmudic law--the rabbis analogize the unwanted fetus to a "pursuer" who it is lawful to stop through means that even include killing.
ReplyDeleteWomen supporting men going their own galt.
ReplyDeleteThere are disturbing stories of knifeplay among roomates.
ReplyDelete...wait, what?
This week, on The Walking Dead...
ReplyDeleteBetter thee than me; although I still wanted something on Victoria Jackson, that doesn't necessarily mean that I wanted to be the one to ask it. I think that both you and Pierce got at the essential brokenness of a "movement" that on the one hand wants to be taken deadly seriously, and on the other hand still goes wild for Sarah Palin, who has become the Carrot Top of the wingnuts with her props.
ReplyDeleteTrue. It's like the line from Raising Arizona. Someone asks the father of the kidnapped baby, "Do you have any disgruntled employees?" and he replies, "Hell, they're ALL disgruntled."
ReplyDeleteWell played.
ReplyDeleteAwesome font on the lettering, too. If by "awesome" you mean "also used for filthy sayings on puffy hats worn by truckers."
ReplyDeleteRed on blue, the visual equivalent of sand in the eyes. It dares your eyes to process the visual input. They're so bad at art and graphic design I'm almost tempted to believe it's done consciously as a kind of post-post-post-postmodern deconstruction of what graphic design should look like.
ReplyDelete