The Slow, Agonizing Death of the Republican Party


Everyone says the transformation of Senator Arlen Specter from a Republican to a Democrat represents the frustration of a political moderate in an arch-conservative party. This misses the point, because there is nothing moderate about Arlen Specter’s political beliefs. Like Joe Lieberman, he has reserved for himself the right to vote his conscience, which means he will hardly be a staunch Democrat in favor of workers rights against corporate interests, or even in favor of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. What Arlen Specter does have, along with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and a few other Republicans, is a last little shred of sanity and rationality. These people are not at home in a party that is suffering from mass delusions.

We also hear that the Republican Party is shrinking into a Southern redoubt as a marginalized, regional party. This is true, but something much more interesting is going on here. We are watching a major national political party disappear from the American scene. The Republicans are in their Cheshire Cat phase – all that is left to see are the inane grins of politicians who have lost all connection to the real world. They wear the rictus of a doomed and dying political force that is paying the price for decades of hypocrisy and deceit. They have peddled the elixir of deception for so long that they have begun to drink heavily from their own product, and now it is too late. There are barely any Republican politicians on the national scene who are not irrevocably disconnected from reality.

This has been a long time in coming. It might have begun during the 20 years of exile when Roosevelt and Truman held the White House, and the Republicans had nothing to offer the American people. They discovered they could engineer a comeback by selling fear – fear of the Commies and the Red Menace. Fear brought votes and power, and it helped even more if you could generate fear of internal enemies – fifth columns of traitors working to deliver America into the hands of the Kremlin.

Senator Joseph McCarthy’s campaign against Commie traitors in our midst was the first real political witch hunt in 20th century American politics. The traitors weren’t just Communist sympathizers or soi-disant members of the Communist Party, they were intellectuals, fellow-travelers, and – most interestingly – homosexuals. Senator McCarthy wrapped all this up in one descriptor – “pinkos”. What was interesting about this pogrom of government pinkos was that McCarthy’s aide-de-camp was a lawyer who was himself a closeted homosexual. Roy Cohn certainly knew where to find hidden homosexuals in the federal government – they went to the same bars and cocktail parties he did.

And so the hypocrisy began. Do what I say and pay no attention to what I do. Senator McCarthy’s counterpart in the House was the young California congressman Richard Nixon, who internalized all the wrong lessons from the hysteria he and McCarthy stoked up. The darkness of Nixon’s soul compelled him to see enemies all around, and not just Communist sympathizers. There were liberals and Jew lovers and Harvard educated snobs and phony union leaders who pilfered union dues to live in luxury; these people needed to be watched and could never be trusted. By the time Nixon reached the presidency, he had the tools to do just that, and if the CIA and FBI wouldn’t accede to his demands for illegal spying on Americans, Nixon had the Republican National Committee to do it for him.

Hypocrisy took what appeared to be a harmless turn under Ronald Reagan, who had a habit of saying preposterous things like trees cause pollution. He also campaigned as a moral crusader, when his personal family situation was classically dysfunctional. Some of his children sided with his first wife and wouldn’t even speak to Ronald or Nancy Reagan. Reagan had a collection of favorite stories he would tell on the campaign trail, like the one about the welfare queen who would cash her welfare checks every month driving up in a Cadillac. These stories simply weren’t true; they were urban myths that fostered class and racial resentments. They cemented yet again the doctrine of “do as I say, not as I do.”

We now know Reagan was showing early signs of senility even before he became president. When Reagan was near the end of his second term, he had advanced to first-stage Alzheimer’s. He needed cue cards and stage directions for even the simplest functions, and it’s no wonder people like his vice president George Bush, or administration officials like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, developed the attitude that there was a hidden government behind the public façade of governance. Reality, in other words, was to be kept behind a curtain.

As president, George Bush pere furthered the illusion by pardoning all eleven convicted felons involved in the Iran-Contra affair, including the former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. The message was that those who operated a parallel government and broke laws in the process would suffer no penalties. The lessons of Watergate – that no man is above the law – were completely overthrown in the Iran-Contra scandal, but even at this stage there was still hope for the Republicans. Reagan at the start of the scandal said “we do not trade arms for hostages,” but by the end he had to admit on national television that the United States did indeed trade arms for hostages, but he as president didn’t know about it.

It was left to the administration of George Bush fils to complete the disconnect from reality, by operating under the belief it could create its own realities. “Intelligence” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction would be manufactured out of thin air. False allegations that he had ties to Osama bin Laden would be extracted by torture, while the president would insist all along “we don’t torture.” Orwellian double-speak became the favorite method of communicating with the public, as seen in Bush’s actions to gut environmental protection laws by introducing regulations with such titles as the “Clear Skies Act” and the “Healthy Forests Initiative.”

The Republicans in Congress eagerly went along with everything Bush proposed and did. It didn’t bother them that they were forced to disavow everything they said and stood for in the 1990s when Clinton was president. Back then fiscal deficits were horrors and big government was anathema to decent Republican conservatives. Under Bush, record-breaking deficits were embraced and defended vigorously as necessary for the security of the country, while expansion of federal government programs run by Homeland Security and the Department of Defense was seen as a sign of good government. One of the most remarkable things to observe about the Republicans now that Barack Obama is president is how quickly they have gone back to deriding big government and deficit spending, as if the entire eight years of the Bush administration never occurred.

This is a party that isn’t merely trying to erase the past; it honestly does not recognize it had anything to do with the Bush administration. Republicans have retreated to the 1990s and the glorified days of Reagan in the 1980s. They have stepped up the class and racial warfare to levels so absurd and unbelievable that no one is paying attention to them. Calling Obama a Magic Negro or a socialist or a Communist doesn’t frighten the public because the words are meaningless, and Americans have learned what real fright is having lived through eight years of the Bush administration.

With Arlen Specter’s departure, we now have prominent Republicans like Senator Jim DeMint saying this is proof that the party is ready for a resurgence of public support. He thinks losing a senator from a large northern state is a positive thing, and the intellectual stalwarts of the party such as Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh are urging Specter to take RINOS like John McCain, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe with him (a RINO is a Republican in Name Only).

This is a very odd spectacle. You would think that a party that has lost the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, plus multiple governorships and state legislatures would seek a way back from the political wilderness. Instead, the Republicans are folding up their big tent and eagerly embracing oblivion. Senator DeMint has said this week he would rather have 30 senators who are true to the Republican cause than 60 who are wavering in their political principles.

Some Republicans are fighting back. Putative party leader John McCain, oratorical disaster Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and dynastic standard-bearer Jeb Bush have formed something called the National Council for a New America. They are joined by Republican Congressional leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boener in hosting a series of town hall meetings designed to listen to Americans and their concerns in order to re-brand the Republican Party.

There are two problems with this. As John McCain well knows, the people who attend Republican town hall meetings – the rank and file of the Republican Party – are the disaffected and marginalized middle class – almost exclusively white – who respond to the Republican fear-mongering. These are the people who are afraid of immigrants, who think liberals are traitors who should be swinging from lampposts, who believe the left has destroyed the moral fiber of this country, and who have a profound distrust of government. Because they are the base of the Republican Party, their own disaffected and marginalized status has come to define the position of the party in this country.

The second problem has to do with re-branding the party into some other image. Republican leaders don’t recognize that George W. Bush destroyed the brand. It is permanently identified with incompetence, corruption, religious fanaticism, crony capitalism, deficit spending, and the utter abandonment of the people’s constitutional rights. The realization is slowly sinking into the national consciousness that Republicans should never, ever be allowed to wield political power at any level lest they bring even further ruination to the country.

You can expect the National Council for a New America to fade into oblivion, as the Republican Party does the same. In this sense, Republicans like John McCain and Jeb Bush are just as delusional as any of their colleagues, because they don’t see that the people who now identify with and vote Republican blind themselves to reality just as they blind themselves to the failings of their own party. These people now number less than a quarter of the national electorate, yet they represent 100% of those who vote in Republican primaries, and what they want is purity rather than power. They want those who represent them to be as righteous and delusional as they are, and they don’t care if their candidate loses in the general election. The majority of their representatives still in Congress believe the same.

Worse still, it is not just Republicanism which is now branded a total failure, it is conservatism itself which has failed. Democrats may or may not identify themselves as liberals, but almost all Republicans identify themselves as conservatives. This might be why they are left holding nothing but delusions; if they looked deeply into their soul they would see nothing there to offer. Limited government, deregulation of markets, corporate welfare, a refusal to tax so as to balance a budget, and an unbridled defense establishment are what conservatism has offered. The failure has been monumental and quite likely brought to an end the position of the United States as the world’s sole great power.

This is what makes it so very difficult for a shining knight to arise and rebuild the Republican Party. There are no building blocks left to use as a foundation. It is a party utterly bereft of useful ideas, with a public identity as an organization destined continually to fail in governance because it lacks faith in governance. It cannot be trusted with power because it does not think or operate capably in the real world.

The critical question, therefore, is not how will the Republican Party make a comeback, but what will take its place. What will happen with the 20% of Americans who are living in a fantasy world where the rest of America are their mortal enemies out to deprive them of their livelihood, their homes, and their safety? What will happen with the corporations who still wield immense power but haven’t the Republicans around to do their bidding? What will happen with the religious extremists who expect the Republicans to save this country from moral decay?

These are forces for potential disruption and even danger to America. They need to be brought back into the body politic, given a voice, but like everyone else they should be expected to operate in the real world where compromises are required and where we all can agree on what is up and what is down. Under the best of circumstances, this new political party will offer ideas and policies that counterbalance those of the Democrats, and at some point its candidates will be rewarded national office once voters can trust in their competence and sanity. This new political party might be called Republican, though the odds from a marketing standpoint are against that, but every American will be able to sigh with relief that is completely unlike today’s Republican Party in every way possible.


Numerian May 2, 2009 - 10:52am

About half of Democratic politicians seem to live in the same reality as the Republicans, so I'm not sure that alternate is going to vanish any time soon.

Tim May 2, 2009 - 11:19am

... will be the battle being fought between true progressives and the neo-liberals. Right now the neo-whatevers hold the whip hand in about every way - Summers and Geithner are shills for the Street. Despite lofty rhetoric, Obama must still pay homage to the National Security State and and its withering demands for War, War, War: whether it's the domestic wars on drugs and crime or the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Despite their piss-ant military status, we have constant propaganda concerning the Persian and Chinese "menace". From prision guards to Washington "Think Tanks" their are just too many violent "squeegee men" out there propounding the use of force and taking my money for their useless conflicts!

jbaspen May 2, 2009 - 12:13pm

"I think the banks have control of the state." Currently, they're controlling it through the Big Money faction of the Democratic Party, which controls the executive branch.

Maybe it's time for everybody the Democrats threw under the bus to form a new party that will look out for their interests.

lambert May 2, 2009 - 8:50pm

Repubicans = Whigs
Democrats = Tories
Progressive = Greens?

Or is there another mapping. The democrats are hardly "left".

Synoia May 2, 2009 - 12:17pm

Great post all around.

Thepanzer May 2, 2009 - 1:06pm

With reference to Synoia's post above; as the Democrats absorb more and more specters of the Republican party they will shift a little more to the right, I wonder if that shift opens the door for a true progressive party with the Democrats becoming the party of conservatives?

Joaquin May 2, 2009 - 1:18pm

See my comment below about the Electoral College militating toward a two party system. If we have to have two parties, the Democrats may decide that representing corporate interests as they do presently is their best bet. Some other party would have to arise to represent the interests of everyday people, including unions. This party would likely adopt some radical policies like disestablishing the military empire, reasserting fundamental human rights, and dealing with environmental degradation.

The problem here is what to do with the South. Their votes become the electoral fulcrum between the two other parties, determining who wins the presidency. The Democrats would have to somehow appeal and appease these voters in order to gain the White House.

Numerian May 3, 2009 - 3:03am

We are just starting to experience consequences, hurricanes are but a taste, that can transcend politics and cultural differences. The South is poised to suffer no small part of the economic and social troubles that economic globalism, global warming, and energy constraints will bring. Social dislocation is a possibility and there is great danger to our Republic. The conservative culture marketed to the Southern states will not continue to pin that market segment in the face of the kind of consequences we are all likely to face. Southerners will not necessarily blame the Republicans but they will know that the synthetic conservatism of the past is not their answer. What will happen to Southern religious culture? As the Republican's hold on the media weakens, the business interests that peddle religion may go their own way thus fragmenting conservative theo-political marketing. I know some of these so called "churches", in my home state, are even now in serious financial trouble.

Joaquin May 3, 2009 - 11:01am

religious fervor and frenzy to a more subdued but peaceful relationship with religion is not an easy one (for those that are religious).


Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.

adrena May 3, 2009 - 11:17am

Agreed, it may channel itself in a fragmented way. These social marketing firms, "churches" as some call them, will have competition to worry about once they loose their national voice.

Joaquin May 3, 2009 - 12:30pm

..but my gut reaction is: they're gonna start inching back when the next election rolls around. The Great Recession has only begun to bite, and Obama's solutions, while a step in the right direction, aren't enough. Maybe even can't be enough. If the GOP finds some youngish white guy who sounds halfway-sane (Petraeus is the obvious choice), they even stand a chance of beating Obama the next time around.

geoduck May 2, 2009 - 1:19pm

One possibility of the direction the conservative base could take.

Bolo May 2, 2009 - 1:21pm

You can re-brand under the same name. My grandfathers were Dixiecrats in the 1940s and 50s. In those days, the Democrats were the party of the southern white land-owners. They vehemently fought against civil rights and were considered old-money conservatives. The idea that the Democratic Party would run, successfully, a black candidate for President, I guarantee you, would make them turn over and puke right in their graves, and they were lifelong Democrats.
.
In the 1960s the Democrats re-branded themselves, eventually leading to what we have today. The name never needed to change.

The Greens have a long way to go. The brand-name battle does matter. Think about it: there's Pepsi and there's Coke, and then there's...having trouble remembering who else?

The Greens will have to keep adding to their numbers and expanding their appeal until at least the last-half of the 21st century before they can even think about running a serious Presidential contender.

It's possible, but it won't happen in 2012 or 2016. They do have the correct name for a third party, as the environment is constantly becoming a bigger and bigger issue for all Americans, whether the self-identify as Repubs or Dems.

They can connect their name with common-sense economic policies that will define the 21st century, which, of course, will necessarily be more green technologies.

The drawback is that the image of the old "environmental activist" left over from the 20th century is detrimental. As long as conservatives can cast "greens" as being spoiled suburban brats with weird haircuts who blow up animal shelters, smoke dope, and eat only tofu products, the Greens are going to have a tough battle to establish their brand.

It can be done, but the Greens have to show they are a party of serious business people with a no-nonsense, solid plan to get the American economy positioned where it needs to be in the 21st century.

Sorry, but the dreadlocks and reefers, along with those great photos of hippies riding up to whalers, in glorious third-world-pirate style, are going to have to go in order for them to do that.

Or else they'll suffer the same fate you predict for the GOP: fading into oblivion with their tiny subculture of fanatical purists.

yogi-one May 2, 2009 - 2:24pm

The Electoral College militates in favor of a two party system, especially with the winner take all approach in each state.

Numerian May 2, 2009 - 2:37pm

We have a system that entrenches and rewards mediocrity and/or appeal to people's baser natures. Under a parlimentary system, noteworthy political movements all get a place at the table, no matter whether they're raving nationalist nutjobs or just way too smart for mass appeal. Under our system, if you can figure out a way to pry off the dumbest 51% or the meanest 51% of voters, you control the whole game.

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that both dumb people and mean people are relatively easily manipulated.

Under a winner-take-all system, you get, well... folks like John Kerry and Rick Santorum. But if the USA had a system of proportional representation, Chomsky would have a party with some influence. (So would David Duke, just to be fair.) Ron Paul might make the difference between being able to assemble a ruling coalition or not.
But so might Ralph Nader.

It seems to me that such government would be much better equipped to face our current difficulties and do something about them that doesn't worsen the problems.

chalo May 2, 2009 - 6:10pm

The Israeli parliamentary system gives too much power to marginal and radical parties. Some parliamentary systems do it better and tend to gravitate toward two major parties with a minor third party occasionally holding the balance between the other two.

Numerian May 2, 2009 - 8:39pm

Holland and Germany seem to do well with a coalition government.

Not only do German and Dutch voters expect coalition governments, they appreciate them. They believe that two parties governing together moderate each other. The Dutch believe that compromises create better policy, according to Berend Jan van den Boomen, a former MP from the Dutch Labour Party. In modern, complex societies, it’s rare that one political party is completely right and all others are completely wrong, he argues. Accommodating more than one view thus results in better public policy.

.....Governments in the Netherlands and in Germany have been remarkably stable. Only one coalition government in Germany has been felled by a vote of non-confidence since World War II.

.....Coalitions are based on detailed, written, contractual agreements that commit the coalition government to a specific legislative agenda. As a result, rather than one party imposing its will and other political parties opposing its policies and taking no responsibility for them, political parties are actively involved and invested in the good governance of their country.

This can include coalitions between parties from different parts of the political spectrum. Germany’s current coalition is composed of the largest political parties on the right and the left: the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats. These so-called “grand coalitions” are an exception, rather than the rule, but Niels Annen, a Social Democratic MP, insists that the grand coalition has been important in responding to the financial crisis. It would not have been good for the country to have the two largest parties, representing two important viewpoints, fighting over the response to the crisis, he says.
More


Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.

adrena May 3, 2009 - 12:20am

The f*cker is worse than Abramoff and his gang combined. Is that system better?

creativelcro May 2, 2009 - 10:22pm

let the people you call stupid vote for different candidates. That is the beginning.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

mauberly May 2, 2009 - 10:57pm

We're used to believing that political negotiation and compromise is carried out between different parties. That doesn't seem to be a good paradigm for the current situation.

The Democratic Party leadership today is to the right of Richard Nixon, and as Synoia and Joaquin note, likely to move even farther right. That appears to mean continued enforcement of money and disproportionate contract laws to remove minimal rights from individuals. You need employment or insurance or banking services? Well, arbitration clauses pre-empt employment or consumer legal protections. Large corporations failing? Tax workers for direct payouts to management while demanding wage cuts and confiscating pension and health care funds. Or mandate that everyone buy the product from the corporation, with tax subsidies paid in lieu of the wages of the poorest (insurance, banks). The tax money is then used to lobby against worker and consumer protection, and for more government subsidy. It's hard to see how a modern, first-world nation can avoid implosion with these policies.

There's no place further right for a sane political party to rise. It may be that a new liberal party will arise on the left, but it may also be that we end up with a single political party called "Democratic" that basically just means "elective structure for all political candidates". Russ Feingold and Arlen Specter would be in the same party, but the party structure would cease any effectiveness as a governing unit. I think that may be a good thing -- it might nudge political discussion away from the "which party won this round" nonsense of the last thirty years.

nihil obstet May 2, 2009 - 2:42pm

You're seing it now among the evangelicals: the older generation - Dobson, Falwell, Robertson - are passing, to be replaced with younger moderates - Rick Warren. The hard right Republicans will be replaced with the likes of Meghan McCain, who is openly, visibly stating that there's no future in being hard right. This won't happen painlessly, as there is the Sarah Palin branch, the wild card in all of this. Revolution, anyone?

As fascinating as this is (and thanks for a great post!), I'm a lot more concerned about the fate of the Democrats. I don't want to see it devolve into some "big tent" middle of the road mediocrity, Republican Lite, now with Arlen Specter.

As Jack Whelan wrote at After The Future, the real fight is against the unchecked, unaccountable corporate power that drives both the Republicans and Democrats to do their bidding. They created the hard right phenomenon and used it to get their way, letting it destroy the GOP in the process - big deal. They have no problem doing something similar to the Democrats.

alyosha May 2, 2009 - 2:46pm

As fascinating as this is (and thanks for a great post!), I'm a lot more concerned about the fate of the Democrats. I don't want to see it devolve into some "big tent" middle of the road mediocrity, Republican Lite, now with Arlen Specter.

You seem to think this hasn't already been the case for most of our adult lives. Remember you're talking about the party of Dukakis and Kerry and-- sad but true-- the Clintons. You can think happy thoughts about Kucinich and Wellstone but the fact is that the Democrats' big tent didn't give those guys, or any actual liberals, ringside seats.

chalo May 2, 2009 - 6:21pm

20-25 % of Americans are certifiably insane.

Another 10-15% are marginally insane.

Another 10-15% are borderline.

That's over 50% in a worst case scenario.

The present GOP strategy is not only to plan for a worst case scenario but also actively to promote one. A fascist America is not only not out of the question, it may be closer than anyone suspects, given unfolding circumstances.

tjfxh May 2, 2009 - 4:50pm

It's Borg-like: "You will be assimilated".

alyosha May 2, 2009 - 5:45pm

You will be assimiliated until you get sick or old, then you will be expelled.

Synoia May 2, 2009 - 6:20pm

or turned into little green wafers? ;-)

Tina May 3, 2009 - 11:06am

"Soylent Green" Shudder.

Synoia May 3, 2009 - 4:07pm

...and I agree. The inmates govern the institution. ;-)

www.iauthorbooks.com
http://iauthorbooks.blogspot.com/

Celsius 233 May 3, 2009 - 3:23am

A 24/7 denial channel makes it easier for anybody to stay in a state of denial. No wonder Cheney said he always has his TV on FOX news.

creativelcro May 2, 2009 - 10:20pm

eom

Numerian May 3, 2009 - 2:56am

Why are we worrying about the republicans losing national party status, when we should look into a new party. :)

GOP Party Identification Slips ~ Pew Researh

Tina May 3, 2009 - 7:48am

Even has a name:

"Independant"

Synoia May 3, 2009 - 3:58pm

...and I have my concerns as well. I have a saying; "Fear is a thief, don't let it steal from you." Americans have allowed the thief to steal from them, but, they can't quite identify what's been stolen. Frankly, I think it's their souls. Shameful loss, but one cannot get back that which one cannot even identify. The fact that the Democrats are in power is of little comfort; they drink from the same kool-aid, it's just a different flavor. Yes, I'm extremely pessimistic regarding a fascist free, oligarchy free, country that can barely (if at all) claim to be a democracy. The state of denial is such, I just don't think there's a collective I.Q. of 80.

www.iauthorbooks.com
http://iauthorbooks.blogspot.com/

Celsius 233 May 3, 2009 - 8:40am


I feel the American worker has been sacrificed to the capitalist idols in the ancient Mayan fashion. - Sue Lamb, NYT reader

nymole May 3, 2009 - 9:40am

From Ron Beasley at Newshoggers
Republican Party Death Watch

big snip

And of course if you are looking for an example of the leadership void you need look no further than Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

"All you moderates out there, y'all come. I mean, that's the message," Steele said at a news conference. "The message of this party is this is a big table for everyone to have a seat. I have a place setting with your name on the front.

"Understand that when you come into someone's house, you're not looking to change it. You come in because that's the place you want to be."

Now that's going to attract a lot of moderates!

Tina May 3, 2009 - 12:16pm

it's economics.

Whatever its flaws, democracy tends to steer political impulses through compromise, with good ideas gradually rising and bad ideas being exposed.
The problem is the monetization of the economy. Money functions as a public utility, but we still, primitively, view it as private property. Those with the most money promote this belief for obvious reasons, but the result is socially and environmentally destructive. Capital follows the law of supply and demand, even though we ignore it. The result is credit collapses, as stores of hoarded wealth can no longer find sufficient borrowers to maintain their value. Even when the moneyed interests take over the government and have it borrow its own money back. Or blow up enormous bubbles of illusionary circulation. Eventually even governments borrow more than they can pay back. So even more money must be issued to keep the economy functioning. This is the source of real social and environmental destruction, as ever more value must be drained out of society and the environment in order to give value to and pay the interest on this additional currency.
Liberalism and conservatism are not the problem. They are like youth and age. As each generation gains wisdom, loses vitality and dies off, to be replaced by the next, so to do our social and cultural markers move through their ages. The real problem is this siphon of value that is created by assuming notational value is anything more than a social contract and allowing it to be manipulated by the unscrupulous.

edit) Which isn't to say that what passed for conservatism of the last thirty years had anything to do with wisdom, given that wisdom entails coming to terms which the many way in which life both gives and takes, often at the same time. To which the infantile mantra of "Greed is good,' doesn't exactly apply. It is only conservative in terms of its obsession with an idealized past, best expressed by a Hollywood actor, turned politician.

brodix May 3, 2009 - 5:15pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.