A brutal but accurate assessment of the Republican party

Charlie Pierce does the honors:

Only the truly child-like can have expected anything else.

In the year of our Lord 2010, the voters of the United States elected the worst Congress in the history of the Republic. There have been Congresses more dilatory. There have been Congresses more irresponsible, though not many of them. There have been lazier Congresses, more vicious Congresses, and Congresses less capable of seeing forests for trees. But there has never been in a single Congress — or, more precisely, in a single House of the Congress — a more lethal combination of political ambition, political stupidity, and political vainglory than exists in this one.

We have elected an ungovernable collection of snake-handlers, Bible-bangers, ignorami, bagmen and outright frauds, a collection so ungovernable that it insists the nation be ungovernable, too. We have elected people to govern us who do not believe in government.

This is what they came to Washington to do — to break the government of the United States. It doesn’t matter any more whether they’re doing it out of pure crackpot ideology, or at the behest of the various sugar daddies that back their campaigns, or at the instigation of their party’s mouthbreathing base. It may be any one of those reasons. It may be all of them. The government of the United States, in the first three words of its founding charter, belongs to all of us, and these people have broken it deliberately.

He is right and you should read it in full. And weep.

What I am really curious is why this state has been allowed to arise. As I have said repeatedly, the US is essentially a one-party pro-war, pro-business state that has two factions that differ on social issues but are united in subservient to the oligarchy. Since this kind of political and economic instability is not usually good for business, I have been wondering why the oligarchy has not stepped in to settle the dispute behind the scenes.

When there is a serious fight such as this one that is not about social issues, that must signal that the oligarchic consensus has broken down somehow and that we are witnessing the surface effects of a conflict that is being played out behind the scenes. So we need to watch what the business community does and while there does seem to be a slight shift towards Obama it is not as yet strong enough to cause the Republicans in the House to change course.

Thanks to reader Tadas, here is senator Elizabeth Warren also delivering a blistering broadside.


  1. colnago80 says

    IMHO, the crazies in the Rethuglican party want the collapse of the US economy, which could well occur if the debt limit increase is not passed in 2 or 3 weeks, under the theory that it will be blamed on Obama and the Democrats and thus will lead to a Rethuglican triumph in 2014 and 2016. Much like Germany’s economic problems and labor unrest led to Frankenberger’s Nazi party gaining the most seats in the German legislature in the 1932 elections. This led to the appointment of Frankenberger as chancellor by the senile von Hindenburg the following year.

  2. rdmcpeek43 says

    I second the (e)motion. Wouldn’t it be something if the 2016 Democrat(ic) ticket was Clinton/Warren? AND THEY WON!

  3. trucreep says

    That’s interesting about “the Oligarchy,” I might have another theory as to why they haven’t been able to do much; this particular group of Republicans (Tea Party) is truly beholden to their constituents. When asked basically the same question (‘Why hasn’t Wall St. stepped in against this, etc.’), I’ve heard numerous arguments pointing out that they have no power over these representatives. It’s unfortunate that their constituents are stuck in an echo chamber, and have been used by the powers-that-be, but they are emphatic about STOPPING “Obamacare” and think the government spends too much. Combine this with a misunderstanding of the debt ceiling, and here we are.

  4. arno says

    I would not necessarily assume that “the Oligarchy” has the degree of organization it would need to deliberately act in a way that furthers its interests. Rather than acting as a rational agent, “the Oligarchy” would be manifest as a collection of inherent features of the political system, together with a large number of groups acting inside that system.

  5. Mano Singham says

    I think that is right. There is the financial oligarchy, that tends to operate with the top leadership of both parties but there are other factions which are working at the sate and local levels to influence policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *