Monday, August 9, 2010

Globalization and the GOP's "Response"

Glenn Beck, John Boehnert, Mitch McConnell, Bill O'Reilly, Texas, Tennessee, and the Teabaggers are arguably some of the most influential entities in the Republican party as they gear up for the coming midterm elections. They tout the same message: limited government, less taxes, privatized social services, and a decreased deficit. However, one message rises above all the others in terms of its repetitive, frequently out of context, boiler plate usage: “states’ rights”.

But why this message now?

Conservatives, by definition, are champions of the status quo, yet one can hardly argue that states have had reign over political decisions in the past few years. The largest expansion of the Federal government in history came under George W. Bush after all.

Furthermore, simply making themselves the anti-Obama (and inherently anti-liberal government) party doesn’t seem like a marketable platform to me. Despite the obvious benefit of the message for conservatives, the “states’ rights” message still has to resonate with the Republican demographic in order to gain any traction (even in the face of a massive media manipulation).

Liberal/Progressive misgivings to their policies help clarify the picture. The most poignant complaints are that Republican policies ignore the little guy, take advantage of the defenseless, ignore the collective well-being of society for the betterment of a few privileged nobles, and impose niche "morality" and religion on all people without exception. What it boils down to is this: “states’ rights”, limited government, less taxes, and privatized social services all point in one obvious direction.

Leave me alone.

So the question is where does this come from? What external force evinces this fingers-in-ears reaction that so pervades the GOP these days? Furthermore, what is the basis of liberal/progressive concerns with conservative policies?

If we read between the lines, the answer becomes clear. The Internet has allowed ideas to cross borders, forums have allowed the masses to critique these ideas, pushing some to the fringe and others to the forefront, and 24 hour news networks and blogs have shed light on atrocities previously unseen and unnoticed by the public. In addition, the globalization of business has raised the question: what are the borders of esoteric, religiously defined morality? Where do religious mandates end and legal protections begin?

The shuffle is as prominent as it is pervasive. Old ideas, once hidden in the shadows, are being thrust onto the examination table: racism, working conditions, religion, environmentalism, welfare, and the boundaries of responsibility are no longer confined to geographic borders, but are instead being redefined as we analyze them as a global community. Old, hackneyed ideas are under duress as European multiculturalism and social responsibility rise above the fray.

In other words, the Right’s southern, racist fringe, aloof elite, religiously petulant, and overall ignorant carefree are falling, kicking and screaming, in the face of redefined global standards for humanity. In response, the Left's, more compassionate, more collective, and more human concept of the state gains traction with Liberal/Progressive voters.

So, in fact, nothing has changed about the Conservative movement. They’re still vehemently defending the status quo. The problem, for them at least, is that the status quo no longer defends them. States’ rights, as it turns out, is the only possible Conservative message.

So the obvious question then is what happens next? Can a party, fighting against the forces of globalization of business and culture possibly survive? How long before the Republican party is forced to morph into a Progressive party with alternative solutions to our country’s obvious issues? When will the old guard die enough to allow the greater majority of the Republican party to make their own decisions? come to their senses? Stop obstructing the inevitable?

I'll be in Germany when it does.

3 comments:

John B said...

A lot of good thoughts in there. Don't be fooled by the states rights talk. In reality it's all about results for them. If the GOP has power at the national level it's the appropriate place to enact their policies--witness the entire GW Bush Administration. If something they oppose has traction in Washington it's all about states rights. IMO they won't change, either. All of their policies are either about controlling morality or favoring the wealthy. Neither of those things works for the majority if described accurately, so they dress them up in sound bites, strawmen, and phony arguments. To change as a party they have to change who they serve. Since that's where the money is coming from I don't see that happening.

Ian J Barker said...

Oh, I agree! I don't think they'll ever change. But I do think that states' rights became a more important argument with the advent of globalization. Before, you could keep homosexuals from marrying on the basis that the local culture was super-religious. Now, if you oppose gay marriage in Wyoming, people hear about it in France, England, China, Chile, and South Africa.

I think you hit something that I neglected though. That first idea isn't in the forefront of the minds of the people who are CREATING the message. Instead, they just know that if they get a few racists and bigots riled up then they're sure to make inroads.

TylerD said...

I know I'm quite late to the party, but did you know that "States Rights" originally started out as Republican code to talk about ending the laws enacted during the Civil Rights movement?

http://www.slate.com/id/2178379/

Post a Comment