Thomas B. Edsall has an excellent New York Times Opinionator post probing the psychology underlying the modern Republican party’s sharp turn toward extremist goals and methods. Edsall’s post, “How Did Conservatives Get This Radical?” should be of interest to journalists who want to elevate the nation’s political discourse and enlighten their readers.
Many of today’s self-described “conservatives” are in reality embracing a radical extremist agenda, threatening crisis after crisis and seeking to make economic brinksmanship the new norm. Edsall quotes veteran GOP operative Peter Wehner who puts it succinctly:

This is not conservatism either in terms of disposition or governing philosophy. It is, rather, the product of intemperate minds and fairly radical (and thoroughly unconservative) tendencies.

Edsall has an eagle eye for the apt quote, and offers this from a recent Wall St. Journal editorial:

Kamikaze missions rarely turn out well, least of all for the pilots…We’ve often supported backbenchers who want to push G.O.P. leaders in a better policy direction, most recently on the farm bill. But it’s something else entirely to sabotage any plan with a chance of succeeding and pretend to have “leverage” that exists only in the world of townhall applause lines and fundraising letters.

Turning to social scientists to illuminate the underlying attitudes behind the Republicans’ abandonment of real conservatism, Edsall quotes from an email he received from University of Washington political scientist Christopher Parker, which limns the parameters of authentic conservatism:

Ultimately, a conservative — in the classical sense — wishes to preserve a stable society. Of course, this includes stable institutions and observing the rule of law. For these reasons (and several more), a conservative prefers evolutionary, more incremental change to revolutionary change: revolutionary change threatens the stability conservatives seek to conserve. Hence, conservatives reluctantly accept change — so long as it isn’t revolutionary. They do so for the sake of stability and order. Moreover, for the sake of order and stability, real conservatives are amenable to political compromise with their opponents.

But then there’s the “reactionary conservatives” of today, who Parker explains are,

…backwards looking, generally fearful of losing their way of life in a wave of social change. To preserve their group’s social status, they’re willing to undermine long-established norms and institutions — including the law. They see political differences as a war of good versus evil in which their opponents are their enemies. For them, compromise is commensurate with defeat — not political expediency. They believe social change is subversive to the America with which they’ve become familiar, i.e., white, mainly male, Protestant, native born, straight. “Real Americans”…

Edsall presents charts revealing data showing a major difference in attitudes of ‘tea party conservatives’ and and ‘non-tea party conservatives’ on immigrant equality, civil liberties and President Obama, with tea party respondents consistently embracing less humane views. He cites a test developed by psychologist Robert Altemeyer which Avi Tuschman, author of “Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us,” uses to reveal “three clusters of measurable personality traits that correlate with political conservatism or liberalism,” including:

1) Tribalism vs. xenophilia (an attraction to outsider groups); religiosity vs. secularism; and different levels of tolerance of “non-reproductive sexuality”;
2) opposing moral worldviews concerning inequality, one based on the principle of egalitarianism, the other based on ordered hierarchy, what people used to call “the great chain of being”; and
3) perceptions of human nature, people who see human nature as more cooperative vs. others who see it as more competitive.

Edsall references another study, “Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities,” which found,

Specifically, death anxiety, system instability, fear of threat and loss, dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, and personal needs for order, structure, and closure were all positively associated with conservatism. Conversely, openness to new experiences, cognitive complexity, tolerance of uncertainty, and (to a small extent) self-esteem were all positively associated with liberalism.

Another social-psychological measurement, “social dominance orientation,” explains Edsall, measures “preference for inequality among social groups,” He relates it to political beliefs, noting Parker’s data indicating that “there are more Tea Party conservatives with high measured levels of social dominance orientation (39 percent) compared with non-Tea Party conservatives (30 percent).”
Edsall concludes that “Until more white voters come to terms with their status as an emerging American minority, the forces driving voters to support Tea Party candidates and elected officials who adamantly reject compromise will remain strong — and the Republican Party will remain fractured.”

Greg Sargent’s “If Obama endorses his own impeachment, GOP will agree not to destroy the U.S. economy” at the Washington Post ‘Plum Line’ warns of a very real threat presented by the Republicans’ latest strategy:

Here’s my worry: By laying out a truly insane list of demands, Republicans could perversely succeed in reframing this battle — at least in the eyes of some in the Beltway press — as a standard Washington confrontation in which both sides are making demands and the impasse is the result of each side’s refusal to meet somewhere in the middle. You could easily see a scenario in which Republicans “agree” to drop some of their demands and argue they are trying to compromise, with some commentators then wondering aloud why the White House is refusing to negotiate in kind.
So let’s say it again: This is not a standard Washington negotiation, in which each side is demanding concessions from the other. Democrats are not asking Republicans to make any concessions. They are asking Republicans to join them in not destroying the U.S. economy. House Republican leaders — who have themselves conceded not raising the debt limit would jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. government — are asking Democrats to make a series of concessions in exchange for not unleashing widespread economic havoc that will hurt all of us. But agreeing not to destroy the economy doesn’t count as a concession on the part of Republicans, and no one should expect it to be rewarded with anything in return. Just because Republicans are trying to frame this as a conventional negotiation doesn’t mean folks have to play along with it

As Sargent concludes, “…you’d think the basic absurdity of demanding multiple concessions in exchange for not destroying the economy would be apparent enough on its face….Hopefully the outsized and buffoonish nature of this round of GOP demands will change that. Hopefully.”

Dear Readers:
The 2014 elections are now just 14 months away.
If the results go the wrong way, these elections can have profoundly negative consequences — a GOP senate could even ramp up impeachment hearings as just one more concession to the right-wing activist base.
Democrats have been slow to face up to the challenge. There have been disturbingly few articles that seriously evaluate strategies and propose initiatives to motivate and mobilize the voters who will make the critical difference on election day.
The Democratic Strategist is therefore pleased to present the first of a series of Strategy Memos on voter mobilization for 2014.
Democrats: it’s time to start thinking seriously about voter mobilization for 2014 — and particularly about the youth vote that will be critical to the outcome. But let’s start by avoiding one basic mistake.
You can read the memo HERE.
We believe you will find the memo both useful and important.
Sincerely Yours,
Ed Kilgore

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Senator Claire McCaskill shows why she may be the very last U.S. Senator Republicans ought to mess with. In this clip, she demolishes the GOP’s phony meme that members of congress are exempt from Obamacare requirements. She points out also that Republican members of congress can opt out from taking an employer contribution any time they want — but of course they won’t.
McCaskill adds, “There was an election in November and there were two candidates for president. One said repeal Obamacare; the other one didn’t. the one that said it’s not going to be repealed won. And by the way, every Democratic senator who voted for Obamacare — red state, blue state, purple state — were re-elected, many by double digits. And we added two senators…”
This is how a well-prepared, media-savvy elected official shreds her adversaries’ bogus arguments.

At the Washington Post Zachary A. Goldfarb reports on the memes and messages Dems are enjoying as a result of the latest round of GOP budget brinksmanship.’ Goldfarb shares a few choice examples:

“We’re going to make the case that 2014 is going to be a referendum between extremist Republicans and crisis and leaders with reasonable solutions,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “It does create a narrow path for us.”
…”It didn’t go well for Republicans then, and there’s reason to believe that public opinion is more likely to be against them now,” said Jennifer Palmieri, White House communications director and a veteran of the Clinton White House.
…In Illinois’ 13th District, for instance, Democratic candidate Ann Callis, a former judge, has attacked Rep. Rodney Davis (R) and other Republicans for putting “the livelihood of millions of Americans in doubt to prove a political point.”
In Minnesota’s 1st District, retired Gen. Jerry Cannon warned after Republicans voted to strip funding for Obama’s health-care law that “the paychecks of troops and other military workers would be delayed indefinitely” if the government shut down.

The usual caveats apply. For one thing, notes Goldfarb,

But despite Democrats’ convictions that they will come out ahead, there’s evidence that both sides may get blamed in a shutdown. One Pew Research Center poll this week reported that 39 percent of respondents would blame Republicans if the government shut down, compared with 36 percent who would blame Obama.

Goldfarb also quotes Democratic strategist Paul Begala, “”I’m not going to say the Democrats are going to pick up 20 seats because the 2010 redistricting redrew the districts in such a remarkable way,”
Still, the Cruz-Boehner show feeds the Dems’ GOP=Gridlock, Obstruction and Paralysis meme, and Dems are just beginning to work it. Indeed there is some evidence that the high-turnout seniors, who are often the key demographic in non-presidential year elections, are getting disgusted with Republican extremism and divisive tactics. Goldfarb also points out that polls indicate that most voters don’t support the Republican call for repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
It’s hard to see how the GOP gets positive traction with voters as a result of Cruz’s fake filibuster and Boehner’s groveling at the behest of the tea party — provided Dems do a decent job of making them own it.

The following article by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, author of “The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
As the Republicans in Congress furiously accelerate the train going down the tracks to a government shutdown, apparently hoping to do maximum damage both to the country and their party’s own political standing, some very interesting things are happening inside the Democratic party as well — the Larry Summers nomination going down, the surprise Bill de Blasio victory in the NYC mayoral race, the stunning Bill Daley decision to drop out of the IL governor’s race. These developments have more to do with each other than you would think, but not in ways the establishment conventional wisdom would be the least bit comfortable with. The difference between what is happening within the two parties is incredibly instructive as this fascinating moment in American politics.
Republicans have just lost it. Their epic leaderless meltdown with a government shutdown and an economy-derailing default on government debt looming and no endgame solution in sight is stunning and frightening. This will eventually get resolved because it has to, but who knows the amount of damage to the nation’s economy and moral standing in the world in the meantime. For the dominant wing of the Republican party, none of the damage matters. They hate government so much that any amount of pain they cause is worth it — not only worth it, in fact, but part of the plan. If our government can’t function, it is actually a good thing for these anti-government radicals, because they don’t want it to function. If the economy crashes, that’s good too, they think, because people might blame Obama for a bad economy. If chaos ensues and people don’t get their Social Security checks or food stamps or Medicare or disability support, all the better for these Republicans: the lazy leeches should fend for themselves.
This moment is the logical conclusion of decades of steadily higher levels of anti-government hysteria. The dominant wing of the Republican party is closer in viewpoint to the right-wing armed militia movement than it is to the old Bob Dole Republicanism of the last century. And as the country changes demographically and culturally, these extremist conservatives get more and more angry, bitter, and desperate. They want to wreak havoc, and because the so-called leaders of the party won’t stand up to the extremists, it looks like they will get to.

Read more…

From Paul Krugman’s “Attack of the Killer Hipsters” at his Conscience of a Liberal NYT blog:

Never mind the polls showing approval of Obamacare moving one way or the other; they are all being taken in an environment where people are amazingly ignorant about the law, with a large minority believing that it has been repealed. What matters is how the thing works — and that, in turn, depends crucially on sufficient numbers of young, currently uninsured people signing up for the exchanges. Advocates will try to get those people signed up; Republicans will try to convince them not to. So how are the two sides’ chances.

A good point. Polls and how they are spun matter less for the implementation of Obamacare than how the universe of potential participants responds to the requirements and opportunities presented by the act. Krugman correctly identifies some key demographic groups that must step up for Obamacare to succeed — the young, non-affluent and largely non-white uninsured. He quotes Jonathan Chait on the challenge:

Fortunately for Obama, this field of battle favors his side. To pass the law, he needed to win over skeptical senators. To defend it in court, he needed conservative jurists. But identifying and persuading young people is a battle Obama does not expect to lose to Republicans, and in place of the federal outreach funds, the administration is deploying a campaignlike array of weapons: microtargeting, including door-to-door outreach, and all forms of media. (A few weeks ago, Katy Perry tweeted out a link informing her 42 million followers that health care was available beginning October 1.)

No doubt the Obamacare mobilization is also tapping African American and Latino icons to reach youth of color (we hope). In any case, it’s an option that the right doesn’t have. Hard to imagine the wingnuts having the Nuge or Kid Rock doing ads saying “Hey don’t sign up for Obamacare. It sucks” persuading many youth to disobey the mandate, compared to Perry’s positive pitch.
Dems have other unique advantages, as Krugman explains:

But that’s not all: there are also channels of influence the party of Fox News simply cannot reach: Spanish-language radio and TV, black churches (which played a big role in 2012), and more.
I don’t know whether anyone thought this out in advance, but the battle of the exchanges is indeed being fought on remarkably favorable ground for the reformers. And I, for one, find the thought of conservatives humiliated by an army of tweeting hipsters remarkably cheering.

Implementing the Affordable Care Act is not going to be an easy struggle going forward. But Krugman’s and Chait’s insight that supporters of the legislation have some significant advantages makes sense — and look a lot more promising at this political moment than Sen. Cruz’s ready-for-his-close-up drama queen antics do for the right.

In his Wall St. Journal column for this week, Republican strategist Karl Rove has a warning for the wingnuts in his own party:

Today, independents look more like Republicans than Democrats, especially when it comes to health care. In a new Crossroads GPS health-care policy survey conducted in 10 states likely to have competitive Senate races and in House districts that lean Republican or are swing seats, 60% of independents oppose President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. If this holds through 2014, then Republicans should receive another big boost in the midterms.
There is, however, one issue on which independents disagree with Republicans: using the threat of a government shutdown to defund ObamaCare. By 58% to 30% in the GPS poll, they oppose defunding ObamaCare if that risks even a temporary shutdown.

Evidently it hasn’t dawned on Rove that a lot of self-identified independents are really just Republicans who are too embarrassed to admit it. But it’s interesting nonetheless that so many think defunding the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea if it risks a government shutdown.
Rove has made a lot of strategic mistakes himself over the years, as amply demonstrated by the 2012 elections. But he can still count:

After all, avoiding a shutdown would require, first, at least five Senate Democrats voting to defund ObamaCare. But not a single Senate Democrat says he’ll do that, and there is no prospect of winning one over.
Second, assuming enough Senate Democrats materialize to defund ObamaCare, the measure faces a presidential veto. Republicans would need 54 House Democrats and 21 Senate Democrats to vote to override the president’s veto. No sentient being believes that will happen.

Apart from the head counting, a shutdown would create an awful mess the Republicans would have difficulty explaining:

A shutdown now would have much worse fallout than the one in 1995. Back then, seven of the government’s 13 appropriations bills had been signed into law, including the two that funded the military. So most of the government was untouched by the shutdown. Many of the unfunded agencies kept operating at a reduced level for the shutdown’s three weeks by using funds from past fiscal years.
But this time, no appropriations bills have been signed into law, so no discretionary spending is in place for any part of the federal government. Washington won’t be able to pay military families or any other federal employee. While conscientious FBI and Border Patrol agents, prison guards, air-traffic controllers and other federal employees may keep showing up for work, they won’t get paychecks, just IOUs.

No doubt the GOP’s Kamikaze wingnuts will respond to Rove’s warning with snarkage about his disastrous outing in the 2012 elections. Unlikely as it is, if they pull off the shutdown, Rove may once again end up atop the rubble of his party. The interesting question is, has just the threat of a shutdown already done damage to the GOP’s 2014 prospects?