Poll of Republicans Confirm 'Intellectually Disconnected' Status

Using labels in the course of political discussion typically heralds the demise of substantive discussion into the inevitability of Godwin's Law. Here's a thoughtful and persuasive analysis of the use of labels in modern discourse by an academic conservative (I've discovered that's not an oxymoron):

From the start, Republicans had been labeling Clinton a radical leftist, when he was on the whole the most “centrist” Democrat in the White House since Grover Cleveland. The 1994 result itself was the product of a number of factors, including a huge number of retirements in the House, but these included the demoralization of union members and party activists in the wake of NAFTA and the failure of health care legislation. I very much doubt that the midterm elections are going to be anything like ‘94, but one similarity that exists is the disillusionment and loss of enthusiasm among party activists and rank-and-file voters. On the whole, aside from a few badly-handled, largely symbolic culture war controversies, Clinton governed as a “centrist” more or less from the beginning, and he moved even farther away from liberals after 1994, which did not stop the charges that he was a huge leftist.

Many progressives always remained cool to Obama throughout the primaries and the general election, and many netroots and other activists on the left never really embraced him as one of their own. They discerned correctly that Obama was running a primary campaign that put him to the right of his other two main rivals, and the best observers on the left realized that Obama did not have a record of challenging entrenched interests. As Election Day approached, Obama pursued the safe course of becoming ever more conventional and comfortable with the ideas of the Washington establishment, and his most prominent economic advisors and Cabinet members were mostly drawn from the friends and disciples of Rubin. As the health care debate continued, progressives kept losing ground, and the rank corporatism of the Senate version finally precipitated serious protests and discontent on the left. This was not a case of ideological activists and voters making even greater demands on an administration that was already doing what they wanted. It was instead a sign that some progressives were losing patience with the substance of the bill and the nature of the reform being proposed. Whatever else the last year has shown us, it has not shown us that the administration and the Democratic Party is currently in thrall to the left.

The impulse to label an opponent as an extremist is a common and tempting one. It is a very easy thing to do, provided that you are not concerned with accuracy or persuading undecided and unaffiliated people that you are right. These labels are not descriptive. They are a way to express the extent of one’s discontent and disaffection with the other side in a debate. When some Republican says that Obama and his party have been governing from “the left,” he might even believe it inasmuch as Obama and his party are to his left politically, but what he really means is that he strongly disapproves of how Obama and his party have been governing. He may or may not have a coherent reason for this disapproval, but declaring it to be leftist or radical leftist conveys the depth of his displeasure. That is, it is not analysis of political reality. It is therapy for the person making the statement.

The author goes on to demonstrate that progressives are no stranger to this habit. And indeed, we here at 43sb embrace our inner snark. In fact the title of this post could easily exchange 'bat shit crazy' for 'intellectually dishonest'. But I digress, not to admit to some hypocritical transgressions, but to segue into the fact that we, at least, try to back up our assertions with facts.

In this case Republicans bank on the fact that they can convince a sizable portion of their base on things that just aren't true, enabling the use of labels as a political tools, just as Orwell observed and predicted. As proof Kos commissioned a poll from a non-partisan independent pollster which queried self identified Republicans on a huge variety of issues. And for anyone clamoring for bipartisan solutions, the results are concerning and distressing. The New York Times has already completed a list of the ten most alarming results:

10: Thirty-six percent don't believe Obama was born in the United States, and 22 percent aren't sure. This would be more alarming if we weren't numb to this stat by now.

9: Only 36 percent say that Obama doesn't hate white people. Chris Matthews might want to rethink that thing about our post-racial society.

8: Only 7 percent support same-sex marriage. Not surprising, but still disappointing.

7: Sixty-eight percent don't think gay couples should receive any state or federal benefits, while 21 percent are not sure. This is more surprising — it's not even marriage, just benefits. And not even every benefit, necessarily, just some.

6: Thirty-nine percent believe Obama should be impeached. For what, exactly?

5: Twenty-three percent want their state to secede from the union. The number rises to 33 percent in the South. Good luck on your own, Alabama!

4: Twenty-four percent claim that Obama "wants the terrorists to win," while 33 percent are not sure. Really?

3: Only 24 percent say they definitely don't believe that ACORN stole the election. Did ACORN fake the hundreds of polls that had Obama trouncing John McCain as well?

2: Thirty-one percent think contraception should be outlawed.

1: An astounding 73 percent believe that openly gay men or women should be prohibited from teaching in public schools, and 19 percent aren't sure. That puts them at odds with Ronald Reagan, who openly opposed a measure trying to do just that. Over 30 years ago.

How exactly are Democrats supposed to sit down and negotiate with this? Is it elitist to expect the other side to be rational? Is the answer to this bipartisan conundrum to dumb ourselves down or become so cynical we wash our hands of it. As an example, witness what happened to Obama when he met with Republicans last week:

One of the most interesting moments of President Obama's tete-a-tete with House Republicans on Friday was when he said, "I'm not an ideologue." He was greeted with laughter, which led him to reply, somewhat incredulously, "I'm not." I'm personally sure that what was going through his head when he heard the snickers was, "Are you frackin' kidding me?" -- yes, he's a sci-fi geek -- "How many compromises do I have to make before you people stop thinking I'm a socialist?"

In our common parlance, an "ideologue" isn't just someone who has an ideology in which they believe firmly -- it's someone who is blind to practical realities and the power of reason and simply pursues that ideology to extreme ends. I happen to think that no reasonable observer of politics could conclude that Barack Obama is an ideologue. To take the example most readily at hand, a liberal ideologue would have insisted that if we are to reform health care, it's single-payer or nothing. And yet Obama advocated a reform that would give private insurance companies millions of new customers (rather than putting them out of business) and doesn't fundamentally alter the employer-based system. He made all kinds of compromises along the way, including jettisoning the public option (just as progressives feared he would), in order to achieve some kind of reform, even if it was far less than he might have liked. That's pretty much the opposite of how an ideologue acts.

I have no answers. Just lots of frustrating questions on how to dance with a partner who is insane.