The Party of Terror

This little GOP web video about Democratic unwillingness to agree to the gutting of the constitution is really pretty striking stuff. In essence, the Republicans are placing a heavy political bet on the idea of a terrorist attack happening some time while their "danger" clock is running. If Americans die, they'll be in a position to clean up. Conversely, if we still have some semblance of legal protections against government surveillance months from now and that clock's still ticking even though al-Qaeda hasn't slaughtered any innocents here in the U.S., they're going to look mighty silly.

That's the dynamics of this specific fight but, of course, it's also a microcosm for 21st century politics as a whole. And it's part of what makes the Republican Party, as currently conceived, so incredibly dangerous. Democracy is a highly imperfect method of getting good government. One thing that makes it work better is the general sense that if good things happen to a country, incumbent politicians will benefit from that whereas if bad things happen, incumbents will suffer. That often leads to election results that aren't really "deserved" since Jimmy Carter didn't cause the 70s oil crisis and Bill Clinton didn't cause the 90s tech boom. But it does keep the incentives where they belong -- insofar as things are under the control of politicians, the politicians try to make good things happen.

But not the post-9/11 GOP. Their political meal ticket is a population terrified of terrorism, and nothing whips that terror up quite like actual terrorism in London, Madrid, wherever. The result is a political party that simply can't adopt policies designed to ratchet-down the level of danger and anxiety.

Comments

I think the url is wrong. Thats not a republican video, but the trailer for the new Michael Bay movie coming out this summer.

Posted by joe c | February 22, 2008 8:43 AM

Since Republican also control the national security apparatus, would it be irresponsible to speculate that they'd be more willing to let an attack occur? It would be irresponsible not to.

Posted by SP | February 22, 2008 8:44 AM

This is really much worse than that.

The same people who have placed a bet on a terrorist attack are in charge of preventing a terrorist attack.

As with the question of what happens to government services when a party reaches power that believes that it's in their best interest for government services not to function, this creates massively fucked-up incentives.

Posted by DivGuy | February 22, 2008 8:46 AM

This is indeed the elephant in the room of American politics. The question is, what do we do about it, since we apparently have a high percentage of ignorant, easily frightened sheep in our population? Ultimately this IS a democracy, however imperfect, and the voters pretty much get the government they deserve.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 22, 2008 8:49 AM

Also, they have given up protecting their institutional prerogatives, sticking to partisanship instead. The GOP has hit upon all kinds of fun ways to subvert democracy and the constitutional system.

DivGuy is right; however, I don't think that it matters much, in terms of likely outcomes, whether the Bush administration is trying really hard to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil, or trying to encourage them.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 22, 2008 8:52 AM

The weird thing is that it's win-win for the GOP. If a(nother) terrorist attack occurs on their watch, they won't get called to the carpet for it. Quite the opposite. And if no attacks occur on their watch, well, they're obviously doing things right.

Posted by Kurzbein | February 22, 2008 8:57 AM

I agree that this represents a conflict of interest of sorts, but no more so than say a police officer knowing that if there were no crime, he or she would not have a job. I am absolutely no fan of Bush or the neocons or the paleocons or any kind of con. I'm a big Obama supporter too. But seriously, it is silly to say Republicans WANT a terrorist strike to take place. They just have different (and in my opinion, shallow and incorrect) ideas of what effective protection is.

Posted by szr | February 22, 2008 8:58 AM

Holy crap, that video is just unbelievable.

Posted by duffy | February 22, 2008 9:01 AM

If a(nother) terrorist attack occurs on their watch, they won't get called to the carpet for it.

Well, the Democrats COULD at least make a strong effort to pin it on them (and point out that it happened DESPITE the gutting of the Constitution). And they could hammer on Iraq hard as a distraction from (and aggravation of) real security issues. But of course, they probably won't, or will do it so ineptly it will backfire. Sigh.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 22, 2008 9:01 AM

it is silly to say Republicans WANT a terrorist strike to take place

Which is why I didn't say that.

Republicans don't WANT the government to be so enfeebled that it fails to respond effectively to natural disasters and finds themselves responsible for hundreds of deaths and lives ruined. But they didn't care quite as much about keeping it running, and the effect was FEMA, and the Republican party is absolutely responsible for the scope of that disaster.

But I guess that a terrorist attack, that would kill far fewer people, is somehow worse to be partially responsible for. Because, well... really, can someone clear that up for me?

This is different, because patronage and corruption are less likely to infect the intelligence community - or, better, less likely to have quite so large effects on the intelligence community - and because the likelihood of an actual attack is vanishingly small. But the problems of incentives are still there.

Posted by DivGuy | February 22, 2008 9:04 AM

The GOP is using pretty much the same tactics Saudi Arabia used against the UK government in the rather underreported BAE bribe case - go along with everything we say and do or else ... :

"The SFO's internal memos reveal the nature of these threats, allegedly originating from Bandar. The investigators recorded that they had been told of the likely loss of "British lives on British streets" and of the possibility of "another 7/7".

The implication was that, unless the case was dropped, Bandar and his father, Crown Prince Sultan, were allegedly willing to allow Britons to be blown up, by deliberately withholding intelligence about al-Qaida suicide bombers.

I hate to be alarmist but if we don't watch it, we will have a V for Vendetta / Children of Men type scenario within a decade or two.

Posted by novakant | February 22, 2008 9:11 AM

The weird thing is that it's win-win for the GOP. If a(nother) terrorist attack occurs on their watch, they won't get called to the carpet for it. Quite the opposite. And if no attacks occur on their watch, well, they're obviously doing things right.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

Posted by drjimcooper | February 22, 2008 9:11 AM

Steve LaBonne -

There's that problem but also the problem of the conventional narrative the media uses (and has used) when it comes to national defense and the political parties. That narrative is so engrained that it's a big uphill climb to reverse it. Now, Bush has done quite a bit to undermine that narrative to the extent that his administration is seen as a gathering of incompetents, so that provides a sliver of hope.

Posted by Kurzbein | February 22, 2008 9:11 AM

Most rank and file Republicans probably think as you do, szr. But a number of them feel otherwise, with rage in their eyes and their megaphones. I was shocked six months ago when the right-wing noise machine embraced the conservative Philly writer who said that another 9/11 would be good for us.

That attitude exists among the conservative commentariat, which, for ideological and psychological reasons, wants various forms of war and hatred of the other to comprise the top ten items on the national agenda.

Hopefully it doesn't bleed too far into calculations at the RNC, and therefore among the Mayberry Machiavellis at the White House, but who knows.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 22, 2008 9:12 AM

Gutting of the constitution? Good lord, they voted for it once, so WTF?

What's left with the rest? Nothing but the old meme that Republicans have bad incentives and thus can't be trusted to govern. How many times is MY going to post this same shit?

If you believe this, you might at least note that sometimes--sometimes--the same thing is true of Democrats.

As in, it was in the interests of Democrats to oppose the war in Iraq, thereby encouring the insurgency and making success in Iraq more difficult.

It is in the interests of Democrats to make the health care system worse rather than better, because making it worse (through things that increase the cost of insurance, for example) increases the political support for doing something about health care.

The same things are at work in elementary and higher education, and in the labor market.

Posted by Thomas | February 22, 2008 9:13 AM

Since the law that they're antsy about is in effect for another year, isn't the bet a little exotic?

And, of course, we needn't go into the fact that it was the GOP who scuttled re-upping the law. Man, that's REALLY trying to have your cake, their cake, all imagined and historical cake, and eating it all as well. With a gallon of sack to wash it all down.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 22, 2008 9:51 AM

Wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats would grow a set and hit back - say that it was the Republican Administration that has allowed the Act to expire by insisting on retroactively immunizing telecoms from liability for committing crimes?

I wish I could see that turn into a viral video.

Posted by Trigger | February 22, 2008 9:55 AM

Oh, hell, Matthew, you regularly speak of gutting the Constitution favorably, when it suits your policy goals, so don't get all huffy when the faction you oppose does the same.

Posted by Will Allen | February 22, 2008 10:11 AM

That is a fantastic point Matt. Very well done.

Posted by Dan | February 22, 2008 11:22 AM

Most rank and file Republicans probably think as you do, szr. But a number of them feel otherwise, with rage in their eyes and their megaphones. I was shocked six months ago when the right-wing noise machine embraced the conservative Philly writer who said that another 9/11 would be good for us.

Although there are a few whack jobs that do believe this, I don't think they are in power ... Karl Rove, maybe back in the day. OTOH it's extremely easy to gin up horrific terrorist "plots" and arrest handfuls of brown-skinned schmucks.

Posted by J Bean | February 22, 2008 12:55 PM

I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all , but the cavalier attitude towards human life of the neocon set, who believe it's traitorous to even think of civilian casualties and regularly complain about not being able to inflict more of them, makes it seem as if anything is possible.

However, at this point, I think the "silver lining" to any attack would be that the gross incompetence of this administration is so well known, they might actually get blamed for it. I certainly think Obama is a skilled enough communicator that he could do that without seeming inappropriate or unpatriotic. They'll scream otherwise, but after Katrina, it's become pretty clear to the public that the Bush crowd is neither good at, nor terribly interested in, keeping ordinary Americans, let alone foreign civilians, safe.

A lot of people think it was the war that turned public opinion around, but I think we all underestimate the importance of Katrina. It was like the first in a chain of firecrackers.

Posted by Bob | February 22, 2008 1:05 PM

Glenn Greenwald points out that the video seems to have been cribbed from the trailer for season 7 of "24."

Heh.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 22, 2008 1:07 PM

Last Sunday's Parade magazine listed the world's 10 worst dictators and #4 was the Saudi king. You know, Bush's handholding special friend.

Now Bush is pushing Pakistanis to keep Perv the Mushie in charge, in complete defiance of the popular will of democracy. The guy who harbors AQ Khan and can never find Bin Laden or Zawahiri.

And doesn't Bush's highly publicized convert, Moammar Gaddafi, already have American blood on his hands, at least in the Lockerbie bombing?

Why more's not made of facts like these by the Dems continues to baffle me.

Anti-terrorists? The GOP swaps spit with their leading sponsors.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | February 22, 2008 1:32 PM

Will Allen --

Oh, hell, Matthew, you regularly speak of gutting the Constitution favorably, when it suits your policy goals ...

What is this bit of nonsense supposed to mean?

Posted by m | February 22, 2008 3:57 PM

What is this bit of nonsense supposed to mean?

It means this "Will Allen" is a R*n Pa*lbot. Only they are supporters of the Constitution, as far as they're concerned -- 7% of the Republican party, or maybe 3% of the electorate. Everyone else is in favor of "gutting the Constitution."

Posted by eyelessgame | February 22, 2008 5:25 PM

If a(nother) terrorist attack occurs on their watch, they won't get called to the carpet for it.

Another attack already happened on their watch. As President Bush said himself, the anthrax attacks were "a second wave of terrorist attacks upon our country."

Under Bush, Republicans are 0-2 in preventing terrorist attacks in the US, and 0-2 at punishing the people behind them.

Posted by croatoan | February 22, 2008 5:51 PM

It's intellectually dishonest to set up an entire thesis on the Republicans using fear in politics without bringing up the equally hysterical Democratic / Liberal use of climate issues and "the sky is falling" rhetoric surrounding it.

You would have to admit that had he wanted to, Al Gore could have made a run for the White House riding almost solely on his climate fearmongering in the same way that Bush pushed the War on Terror.

One thing stands out: So far, Manhattan isn't under water, but it is missing a couple of buildings.

Posted by tbrosz | February 22, 2008 10:43 PM

One thing stands out: So far, Manhattan isn't under water, but it is missing a couple of buildings.

Wow. I haven't seen tbrosz around on the internet for a long time. I'd forgotten how excruciatingly stupid he is.

Posted by grh | February 23, 2008 4:54 AM

What's wrong with pointing out that some of the Republicans would want another terror attack, because it likely wouldn't hurt them personally and would help them politically. It's true after all.

And the video is on www.gop.gov.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | February 23, 2008 12:44 PM

Karen totted. Patly wincing, jurors
balled or held. And Callum fetched the burgers.

What a trial to abrupt your carnage,
bollock your fleering, vindicate village.

Hardly trivial the trouble gone to;
more effort than pillage – I am can-do!

Pranking flitterns collar wit; all malkins
burgeon here without the mank and flirting.

Of and Love sound well together: f f
(those fs assonate with ‘well’ and ‘-ether’,

if distracting rhyme). Was bacon weather
reasoned answer? gillyweed for plan’s death?

plaque to pardon flivver? • Don’t assess that
stonecold headcase, mushless rampick, boggart

– that eructing chancre – man! And proudly
disassemble, and resort, to carry

through which upgrades and inflations badger.
Please, K totted. Know the national flower

wants a gardener’s lidless watch to flourish.
Watch the watching slugs we have to banish.

• Both so tenderly intent, the flower
cannot know the watcher from the watched-for.

Posted by B (Stevensian) | February 23, 2008 2:28 PM