I think that if you're going to protest something, please have the common decency to know what you're protesting about.
Now, the bad news. Paul Krugman (I know, I cite him a lot) claims in a NYTimes editorial today that the Teabaggers are taking over the GOP.
I can hear some of you cheering: Because of their strong-arm tactics, the GOP will be reduced to nearly nothing! But consider this: What's left of the GOP will do everything it can to immobilize our government in the middle of a recession. Let's not forget that this tiny minority would also be extremely rabid and dangerous, and the leaders that would rise up within this faction (the national GOP would also, naturally, jump on this doomtrain to get elected should it reach that point) would be unlike anything the United States has seen on its own soil. We've seen the disruptions, the angry signs, and heard the ridiculous remarks, but I remind you that up to now, no one is really *representing* the Teabaggers, they are a media creation subservient to only conservative media moguls, the names of which are familiar enough that I dont have to repeat them, who are *not* seeking elected office. This is an important point: No one holding the leash has any interest in actual policy or the procedures of government. This means that should this faction be elected to any power at all, it would act unpredictably, and probably with brutal force, should the opportunity arise.
On a higher level, however, the incapacitation of the GOP would of course lead to third-party candidates seeking election. This country needs a multi-party system, and the dissolution of one conglomerate party would lead to probably many parties. On the other hand, these parties might end up being too small to get elected to anything but regional offices, and the Democratic Party would probably maintain a very large majority of seats in Congress.
"But you support Obama! Why would a Democratic monopoly be bad!?" We can't have a single party in government. We need ideas, and if one of us gets too comfortable, who will challenge them? Would people with views different from the ruling party but not dangerous be heard?
So how would the GOP be dissolved? It's quite simple, really, as the national GOP has always been too proud of its "base." It has built its house on the ugliest and most unstable lot. For quite a while it's been holding a competition in which whoever holds the most extreme and repugnant views is the winner. This is effectively demonstrated by the 23rd district race in NY, in which Beck & Co endorsed the "more conservative" candidate, who was not chosen by the regional party chairman. The chosen candidate (the moderate) then dropped from the race and endorsed the Democratic candidate, who then proceeded to win.
You might then be asking yourself, "But if they chose the moderate candidate, then that competition for the most abhorrent views is not actually going on." Hold on a minute. The conservative candidate was endorsed by the national bigwigs. The national GOP as dominated by Fox News personalities immediately goes for the "most conservative" candidate on impulse.
It is a bizarre circus, but this proves that Fox News does have a limit on its power, as much as we think otherwise. Top-down politics can only do so much, and this actually works in our favor: The more repugnant politicians are peddled by Fox News, the more people will be disgusted, and the faster their tent will shrink. The rest of them, however, can continue to eat it up. They may win a lot of Southern municipalities, and a few states down there, but we can't be that stupid on a national level...
Can we?
1) Paranoia Strikes Deep by Paul Krugman
