The Party of Resentment

Katherine Jean-Lopez dreams of a Dick Cheney presidential bid, noting in favor that "Bush Derangement Syndrome would be nothing compared to the Left during the 2008 campaign season — and the Left would be united in their insanity. Hillary and Obama would strike a deal. Soros and Geffen would not even hesitate." She then follows this up:

Best suggestion for optimum Left reaction:

• Cheney - Bush (Jeb) 2008.
• Secretary of State Bolton.

The idea that pissing off liberals might not be the be-all and end-all public life doesn't seem to have occurred to her. I have this notion that, ceteris paribus at least, it's a good thing to have broadly appealing figure in American politics -- people who don't go out of their way to alienate substantial segments of the population, and who try to impress the skeptics with high-level job performance once in office. If, of course, you look at things the other way and are just searching for a candidate that I'll really, really despite you're going to be stuck with a team composed entirely of fools and incompetents -- the only people with the requisite total absence of redeeming qualities necessary to produce the hatred the right is looking for.

Comments

Can we hope that the Right's leadership might be so susceptible to this dynamic that they're starting to piss off a lot of the marginal members of their base? I don't doubt that 20% of voting America lives for this type of "let's kick the liberals" politics, but I have to believe that at least a significant chunk of people who vote Republican generally want a little more out of government. Right?

Posted by MDtoMN | February 28, 2007 9:53 AM

"The idea that pissing off liberals might not be the be-all and end-all public life doesn't seem to have occurred to her."

While Cheney is obviously a bad candidate for the politics of resentment because he'd underperform in a general election, Giuliani is a perfect candidate for the politics of resentment because he makes conservatives think he pisses off liberals while not casting off moderates.

Posted by Petey | February 28, 2007 9:57 AM

Isn't K-Lo the same idiot that was swooning over Romney just six weeks or so ago? She was also swooning over Man-on-Dog Santorum. She is one creepy individual. Don't mean to rain on K-Lo's parade, but I would wager that Kucinich(sp?) would have a good shot if Cheney ran. Has she checked Shooter's approval ratings?

Posted by This Machine Kills Fascists | February 28, 2007 9:58 AM

I dare say that liberals would be ecstatic if the GOP nominated somebody with job approval ratings in the low 20s.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 28, 2007 10:06 AM

Meanwhile, there's a decent chance a guy like Obama would get the Democratic nomination.

Posted by Reality Man | February 28, 2007 10:07 AM

This post is so riddled with typos it's honestly difficult to figure out what you mean. And I'm generally not that anal about typos

In other Corner news, Mario Loyola points to a document produced by his old office at the Defense department (i.e., the Stupidest Fucking Guy on Earth plus underlings) and lauds the office for "excellent work product". The document consists entirely of bureaucratic blame-shifting of pre-war intelligence failures, mostly to Congress.

Posted by Marshall | February 28, 2007 10:11 AM

I notice how Lopez continues to be impressed with Cheney's "experience." Sweet, sweet oblivion.

Posted by Bill | February 28, 2007 10:17 AM

Matt, I heartily encourage you to follow your observation about the politics of resentment. It's difficult to exaggerate how central this is to rightwing politics these days (really, since the beginning of the Clinton administration).

But it's a little broader than what you suggest. Conservatives aren't motivated merely by a desire to piss off liberals, they take delight in pissing off experts of all kinds. Their outlandish and juvenile attacks on climate scientists are transparently motivated by a deep resentment that those guys get to call themselves "experts." Same thing with biologists who dare to call themselves experts on evolution (in contrast to the non-experts who promote creation mythologies).

Should I even get into social science?

Read the vile James Taranto at opinionjournal.com - his entire schtick, from beginning to end, is poking sticks into the eyes of liberals and experts. You can tell he has nothing substantive to offer to whatever debate he's commenting on (which is why nobody ever notices him), but his readers take great delight in watching Taranto really stick it to all the experts and liberals and generally educated people, who who possess facts as opposed to agendas.

There's more than a little pomo deconstructivism thrown in as well - creationism is another way of understanding truth, like evolution, scientists merely construct liberal worldviews under a disguise of objectivity, etc., etc.

The politics of resentment, indeed. Facts prove these clowns wrong, over and over and over, and what they're reduced to is taunting their betters. What they don't realize is this obsessive-compulsive desire to stick it to the smarty-pants validates the positions of the people they taunt - otherwise, why would they bother?

Posted by Slippery Pete | February 28, 2007 10:27 AM

In other Corner news, Mario Loyola points to a document produced by his old office at the Defense department (i.e., the Stupidest Fucking Guy on Earth plus underlings) and lauds the office for "excellent work product".

I'll bet there wasn't one typo in that sucker.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 28, 2007 10:28 AM

You'd think it would be a good thing to have broadly appealing figures in politics, but the rabid right simply won't let the country enjoy that kind of respite - Bill Clinton was as close as you're going to get to the ideal, and even though his numerical popularity was always strong, the haters raised such an incredible ruckus that the whole era felt like one long political headache. Obama is the closest thing in this election, a Democrat who goes out of his way to talk nice and to avoid poking Republicans with sharp sticks, and in return they've practically labeled him a terrorist. I just don't know how we'll achieve Matt's ideal until these people are as marginalized as they deserve to be.

Posted by Steve | February 28, 2007 10:31 AM

I just don't know how we'll achieve Matt's ideal until these people are as marginalized as they deserve to be.

They're taking care of the marginalization even as we type. Another couple years of this, and "conservative" will be one of those words one can use to discredit an opponent instantly.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 28, 2007 10:36 AM

"I just don't know how we'll achieve Matt's ideal until these people are as marginalized as they deserve to be."

This is the audience for the politics of resentment on the left...

Posted by Petey | February 28, 2007 10:41 AM

On the one hand, a broadly appealing figure who doesn't piss off the other side might seem like a good idea. On the other hand, we probably shouldn't forget who said: "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."

There's a difference between trying to govern well and not caring if you piss off the other side, and governing in a way designed to piss off the other side. However, broad appeal isn't an end in itself. One doesn't govern well by building consensus, one builds consensus through governing well.

Posted by DJAnyReason | February 28, 2007 10:41 AM

Another couple years of this, and "conservative" will be one of those words one can use to discredit an opponent instantly.

for some, it already is.

Posted by cleek | February 28, 2007 10:43 AM

You all sure she was serious? I'm not.

Posted by Swift Loris | February 28, 2007 10:44 AM

This is the audience for the politics of resentment on the left...

Petey, I'd be interested to hear your case that the conservative noise machine is not toxic to our national discourse.

We had a good eight years under Clinton, a moderate Democrat who doesn't sling partisan missiles, and these guys acted like he was Satan. People have every right to their opinion, but why does this one deserve mainstream currency?

Posted by Steve | February 28, 2007 10:50 AM

Isn't the debate over? K-Lo is an idiot. We should be so lucky if Republicans actually followed her advice. And if she's pumping up Cheney in '08 does that mean she's no longer enjoying the Romney train?

Posted by Jake | February 28, 2007 10:52 AM

I'm not so much non-plussed by the Cheney idea as I am the notion that anything submitted to the National Review blow at 2:30 in the morning after drinking box-wine via a Blackberry is worth responding to.

Posted by The Left | February 28, 2007 11:05 AM

i for one would be overjoyed to have cheney be the republican nominee. talk about an easy win...

Posted by upyernoz | February 28, 2007 11:11 AM

Sweet indeed. Even Congressional Republicans can't stand Cheney, what with his dismissive bullying of them over executive privilege and the war. Imagine the coattails in Congressional races across the country ...

Posted by tequila | February 28, 2007 11:17 AM

Wireless technology has come a long way if you can drink a box of wine through your blackberry.

Posted by Njorl | February 28, 2007 11:18 AM

If Democrats had any strategic IQ points, they'd stop sniping at each other (looking your way, Carville) and start buzzing for the "draft Cheney" movement. There are few Republican candidates who could conceiveably lose 45 states to the Democrats.* Bob Dornan is one; Dick Cheney is another.

*everything but Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, and North Dakota.

Posted by Dave Weigel | February 28, 2007 11:27 AM

I'm a liberal, and you know what would really tick me off? A Republican who ended this war, rescinded Bush's tax cuts, gave us universal health care, and rebuilt American greatness. Boy, nothing would make me madder than that--'cept being thrown in that briar patch...

Posted by dj moonbat | February 28, 2007 12:00 PM

Apparently, Kathryn Jean Lopez's long-obvious daddy-fixation has become a grand-daddy fixation. Is her apparent sexual repression the source of these sexualized obsessions?

Posted by Ryan Scott | February 28, 2007 12:01 PM

It stings a bit that Republicans are trying to craft their message to appeal to as few liberals as possible while Democrats are crafting theirs to appeal to as many conservatives as possible. I suppose that the Democrats have a better strategy, but 'none of the above' might also work well.

Posted by neil | February 28, 2007 12:03 PM

*everything but Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, and North Dakota.

Hey, ouch. Both of ND's senators are dems.

Posted by DJ Ninja | February 28, 2007 12:04 PM

Sign me up for Draft Cheney. I'd go door to door.

I'll buy into Dave's 45 state mandate, plus I'd be willing to wager that the down-ticket benefits for Dems would be astronomical. We'd cement our senate and house majorities (though I'm pretty sure it's a near impossibility to reach 60 in '08). And that's all even before the press finds out he eats babies.

Posted by b.d. | February 28, 2007 12:06 PM

Unfortunately, those Pioneers and Rangers and assorted fat-cats who write big checks to get people like George W Bush elected aren't as stupid as K-Lo. They are all about tax cuts, deregulation, and graft, and aren't about to let the juvenile fantasies of K-Lo (shared by nearly the entire righty blogosphere) derail the gravy train.

Posted by kth | February 28, 2007 12:20 PM

I think Katherine Jean-Lopez might have been joking. If so, the humor was pretty dry, but it just barely might exist.

I mean, no one could say that stuff and be serious, could she?

Posted by Julian Elson | February 28, 2007 12:39 PM

"Bush Derangement Syndrome"? Doesn't that have symptoms identical to the polling and recent voting patterns of most of the American people?

Posted by aleks | February 28, 2007 1:01 PM

Draft Dick '08 for America's Glory Years.

Join The Movement!

dailydick.blogspot.com

Posted by Dick | February 28, 2007 1:02 PM

Bring him on. It was reported long ago that uncle Dick was dubyas preferred successor. I don't think it will happen but we can always hope. After all his approval rating is in Jeffery Dahmer territory. Then again, why assume there is going to be an election. The jury is out as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by rapier | February 28, 2007 1:16 PM

Please please please K-Lo! Make that dream ticket happen! Not even the most revanchist Cubans (well, ok, a few maybe) of Miami will support that ticket! When was the last time that the House was 100% Dem?
Has K-Lo been a secret Dem agent all this time? Brilliant!
Seriously this is her mostest bestest idea ever.

Posted by tiptap | February 28, 2007 1:24 PM

The idea that pissing off liberals might not be the be-all and end-all public life doesn't seem to have occurred to her.

Geez, Matthew, constructing a giant straw man aren't you?

I mean, nobody ever said that pissing off liberals is the "be the be-all and end-all public life". She's just having a little fun!

Posted by Al | February 28, 2007 1:24 PM

"After all his approval rating is in Jeffery Dahmer territory."

Which is really unfair, considering their respective body counts . . .

Posted by rea | February 28, 2007 1:29 PM

Agree with Petey re. Giuliani. In fact, every Republican President since Hoover who was loved (rather than simply accepted) by the party faithful had "pisses off liberals" really high on their list of qualities. Eisenhower and HW, didn't get nearly the partisan love that Nixon, Reagan, and W got. Nixon, Reagan, and W had wildly divergent policy focuses, but they pissed off the left, so hooray! It's not the policy; it's the enemies one can create.

But I also definitely agree with Weigel: Cheney would be an historically awful nominee. We should support this whole-heartedly.

Posted by jhupp | February 28, 2007 1:53 PM

There are few times when you can look at commentary, or just the blogs, and find an example of how one side of the discourse is clearly worse than the other. Usually there is someone of the left or whatnot that said something just as bad, if you look hard enough, and you get into murkey quantitative comparisons. Rarely can you find a qualitative difference.

But here we can. Everyone knows that nothing would infuriate Republicans more than a Hillary Presidency. Their 20 year hatred for her in insatiable and ineffable. Do any left-bloggers use that as a reason to nominate her? NO! The left vociferously argues against her for just that reason.

Posted by Tony V | February 28, 2007 2:27 PM

Part of the reason that Clinton ticked off conservatives is that he was a classic issue stealer. People who are into politics not only want to do certain stuff, they want to be the 'hero' that does it too. Nixon ticked off liberals so much for pretty much the same reason, ask some old liberal if they give Nixon any credit for ending the Viet Nam war or creating the EPA or imposing wage and price controls (though libs aren't really into stuff like top down price regulation anymore) or 'detente' and I'd doubt that any of them would.

Giuliani doesn't inspire 'resentment' at least when he was mayor like you think. First of all, the moment he opened his mouth the word Brooklyn inevitably came to mind, he is definitely an outer borough kind of guy. Secondly the people he pissed off were guys like Al Sharpton and the bien pensant Manhattan types (Susan Sarandon or Arthur Sulzberger for example) who somehow thought pissing off Al Sharpton was some sort of bad thing and who understand how the world they live in works about as well as the guy who thinks food gets made in the back room of the supermarket. Doing things that piss such people off also goes by the phrase 'making the world a better place'. Such people are merely amusing as long as they don't have any effect on the world at large, when what they think matters, as it definitely does in NYC, one could get a little triumphant when the mayor ignores them.

In an aside, Sharpton and the NYT and their long running relationship is amusing in that it's just like a scene from that Borat movie, and the people who put out the NYT don't get the joke. Quite funny.

Posted by j mct | February 28, 2007 2:59 PM

I voted for Giuliani for mayor. I wouldn't do it for President. I don't trust that guy with the Bomb.

Posted by SFG | February 28, 2007 3:02 PM

Republicans are mean. It is something in their programing.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | February 28, 2007 3:16 PM

If K-Lo wasn't such a fat pig she'd be as rich and famous as Anne Coulter.

She should get a gastric bypass and consider it carrere investment.

Posted by Chad Okere | February 28, 2007 7:28 PM

Whenever I think about Hillary, I resign myself to the fact that she's probably going to win both the nomination and the Presidency, to the good of no one except herself and the rest of the cynical Democratic consultant hacks. The one silver lining that I enjoy giddily is that it will piss off conservatives to no end. Heheheheh, my heart starts throbbing and chills go up my back at the thought!

Perhaps that's why Republicans are focused so much on the politics of resentment. They know their leaders are really just out for the powerful and for the rich. When it comes to cultural issues like abortion, they know that these "conservatives" are just waving a bloody flag and really don't care about that silly stuff. They know Republicans are just taking advantage of them like frat boys do to roofied sorority girls at a frat party. In that light, what else do they have to expect and hope for from politics except the joy of seeing their despised enemies crushed and ruined?

Posted by Zephyrus | February 28, 2007 7:33 PM

"Isn't K-Lo the same idiot that was swooning over Romney just six weeks or so ago? She was also swooning over Man-on-Dog Santorum. She is one creepy individual. Don't mean to rain on K-Lo's parade, but I would wager that Kucinich(sp?) would have a good shot if Cheney ran. Has she checked Shooter's approval ratings?"

To continue on, I'd love if it Cheney ran. The only way the Democrats wouldn't automatically win is if their ticket was made up of O.J. Simpson and Paris Hilton, and even then, it'd be competitive.

Posted by Brian | February 28, 2007 10:20 PM

Their 20 year hatred for her in insatiable and ineffable. Do any left-bloggers use that as a reason to nominate her? NO!

It's crossed my mind as the only redeeming feature of her as a candidate.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 28, 2007 10:26 PM

Cheney-Voldemort 2008

Posted by VOR | February 28, 2007 11:59 PM

I would vote for Hillary just for the pleasure and joy of hearing "conservatives" scream about illegal wiretapping.
Because you know they will change their collective mind about about the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Bullshit".

Posted by merlallen | March 1, 2007 3:53 AM

Why are there so many stupid fucking DJs posting on this site? Go spin the latest Fergie record, you chumps! You chumps, you chumps you chumps you chumps, you loathesome lameass chumps!

Posted by DJ Gregorio | March 1, 2007 6:07 AM

"ask some old liberal if they give Nixon any credit for ending the Viet Nam war"

Well, we would have, if he ended it in 1969, like he promised in his '69 campaign . . .

Posted by rea | March 1, 2007 12:15 PM

you loathesome lameass chumps!

This is so sexist. What about the female DJs? Nary a chumpette to be found in your rant.

Posted by keatssycamore | March 1, 2007 12:23 PM

And I misspelled loathsome! For shame. Remind me not to read blogs when I'm up at 3 in the morning, congested and febrile out of my goldurn mind. If only Matt had a thread about this...

But on a serious note, "chump" is totally unisex, you cad!

Posted by "Slam Poet" Gregorio | March 1, 2007 1:44 PM