Translating the News, and the GOP

How do conservatives hate their government? Let us count the ways...

The Washington Post gives us a nice run down tonight of the multitudes of disaffected conservatives who are clambering for answers after more than a decade of their own party's control of the United States government.

Lest those sad conservatives worry, the Post throws this bone to them, in the form of a last paragraph (so I guess... SPOILER ALERT, if you haven't read the piece. Or been paying attention to Rove Republicanism® for the last six years):
Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and GOP leaders are well aware of the problem and planning a summer offensive to win back conservatives with a mix of policy fights and warnings of how a Democratic Congress would govern. The plan includes votes on tax cuts, a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, new abortion restrictions and measures to restrain government spending.
I find a couple of things about this paragraph interesting. And by interesting, I mean amusing.

First, Rove is promising "policy fights", not policies. This is key to Rove Republicanism®, because policy is something you have to stand by (and Rove's White House will stand by a policy until the end of time), whereas a policy fight is simply an ideological statement that individual candidates can disavow if, say, they live in districts that don't particularly care about people coming across the border to work. Also, policies produce government action in one way or another, whereas policy fights simply define how the parties would respond if a policy were to be enacted.

It all goes back to the hypothetical governance espoused by the party that doesn't believe in government to begin with. They seem to believe that not governing has served America so well that promising more of less governing will bring back the people who actually wanted more of less government. Are you following?

At the same time, something like 186% of self-described independents are now telling pollsters that if they were close enough to George Bush to shake his hand, they'd punch him in the jaw instead. (I made this paragraph up, but there are more polls out due out anytime, and it's funny how fiction becomes fact in George Bush's America.)

Which brings us to the second item in the paragraph, and this one really cracks me up. Rove plans to keep hold of congress by issuing "warnings of how a Democratic Congress would govern."

The issue isn't so much how Democrats would govern, but the fact that Democrats would actually govern. This puts them odds with Rove Republicanism's® hypothetical governance theory that has brought us such technicolor masterpieces as Attack on New York and Losing New Orleans.

So let's rewrite that final WaPo paragraph, shall we?
Karl Rove, [DE FACTO US PRESIDENT], and GOP [LEADERS?] [KNOW THEY DON'T DESERVE THE TITLE 'LEADERS'] and [ARE DESPERATE TO MAINTAIN WHATEVER BARE MAJORITY WILL PREVENT ANY KIND OF OVERSIGHT OR ACTUAL GOVERNANCE] with a mix of [EMPTY PROMISES] and [REMINDERS THAT THE OTHER PARTY ACTUALLY GOVERNS]. The plan includes [PAYOUTS TO THE RICH], [USING HUMAN BEINGS AS WEDGE ISSUES] and [ADDITIONAL EMPTY PROMISES].
And these are your options, America. Hypothetical policies and warnings about hypothetical leadership, or actual policies enacted by people who actually lead. This Rove Republicanism® thing isn't so hard to figure out after all. Thanks WaPo!

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus