I wish I could attribute this idea to someone, but its conception is shrouded in many years, perhaps even a century or more, of wide spread use. But even without attribution, if there was ever a time and a circumstance when it applied it is now. Eric Cantor is a staunch Republican conservative, and his persistent wish seems always to have been for his party, and hence its platform, to achieve political hegemony. The quest for such power was a shared endeavor among his peers as well, and in pursuit of their ascent to power, they basically cooked the electoral books whenever they got the chance, that is, whenever redistricting occurred after a census...once every ten years. And gradually, through the process of "gerrymandering" in states like Texas...and Virginia...conservative Republicans were grouped together in electoral districts enabling them to elect officials of their ilk. It is an unnatural process, gerrymandering, and as inbreeding generally does, it has led to some ugly mutations. The Tea Party is the most recent one, and now it is devouring the party that spawned it, and it just devoured Eric Cantor as he lost the party primary for the seat he now holds in Virginia's seventh congressional district. So to Cantor one might say, "be careful what you wish for, for you will surely get it," and the admonition would be indubitably apt. I've heard the saying many times, and it has been attributed in one form or another to sources as diverse as Isak Dinesen, Lewis Carroll and James Baldwin, but the verity of the idea is indisputable. Republicans have, over the course of many years, concerted their efforts to maximize their political power by concentrating it in electoral districts, but the result has been a localized fortitude for conservatism that does not translate into anything meaningful other than obstruction of the will of the overall majority. The consequence is inertia on the national level and inbred partisanship on the state level, so while many states wax conservative at the level of governor and even legislator, on the national level conservatism may be favored when it deals with personal values, but it is eschewed on matters of broad policy because it tends to favor the few rather than the many. Thus, on account of issues like the minimum wage, tax advantages for those who don't need them and immigration, nationwide office--that is, the presidency--has eluded them, and my guess is that it always will until they undo what they have done by sequestering conservatives in electoral districts.
If conservatives continue their iron fisted, and often manipulative fulminations aimed at getting their way not just for themselves, but by forced imposition for everyone, they will always have enough loyalty among the electorate to get some people elected, but they will never have control of government in the way in which presidents like Lyndon Johnson and FDR did. There will never be sufficient support for the kind of sanctimonious positivism that they ooze to result in a generalized prevalence of their creed, and thus, they will never be able to muster the political power needed to move the nation in their chosen direction. Johnson and Roosevelt had moral authority behind them, and they achieved profound change that continues to serve us all. But while the call to egocentricity may be heard by the callous and the obdurate, the rest of us will always chafe at efforts to rein us into it. Thus, Seattle has passed a $15 per hour minimum wage, largely because President Obama couldn't get enough support from Republicans to pass a $10.10 minimum. The conservative forces within the Republican Party wished for the president to fail, and they got their wish but it will be a Pyrrhic victory in the end as others follow Seattle in doing the right thing. The Tea Party opposes immigration reform out of isolationism and Chauvinism, and it looks like they will succeed in preventing it, but the consequence has been the ever dwindling pool of workers who are willing to do the kind of work that immigrants have done in the past. That may be a good thing in the end because it seems only fair, but not for the reasons that conservatives raise. It may have the effect of driving wages up and leveling the economic stratification that more than thirty years of "Reaganomics" has wreaked upon us, but it will also result in exportation of jobs, businesses and industries...even agriculture...to other countries, and maybe it's only fair that we export some of our standard of living to others who have so little when we have so much. But I don't think that is what the conservatives in America have in mind. The list of paradoxically adverse effects of the kind of conservatism that has emerged in American politics may be long, or it may be short, but in the end, it will profound and it will result in decline in America. We are not headed in the wrong direction in consequence of conservatism, but we are standing still because of it, and the world is overtaking us, and frankly, I'm not sure I mind. My wife and I are doing alright, and fortunately, our grown children are well on their way. So, the dwindling of American hegemony that seems to be contemporaneous with the reemergence in America of jingoism and unabashed self-interest of the kind that was rampant in the "gilded age" may be a good thing in terms of international equity, but it won't hurt us for the foreseeable future. However, it will be painful for us at some point...for all of us...if it isn't already. Thus, we ascribe to the wishes of the Tea Party at our peril, because as their wishes become the wishes of more and more of us, it becomes more and more likely that we will get the things they are wishing for. However, I for one don't particularly wish to live in the wonderland that they envision for us all. Make sure you vote.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment