Gage Skidmore/Flickr
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R)
I tend to think the conventional wisdom about Mitt Romney and the "47 percent" video is largely true: when the Republican condemned 47 percent of the nation as lazy parasites who refuse to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives," it had a meaningful impact on the campaign.
What matters now, however, is the extent to which that ideology remains a hallmark of contemporary Republican thought. Over the weekend, for example, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) declared that Republicans "are and should be the party of the 47 percent." On the other hand, the Washington Post got an advance look at Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's (R) new book, "The Last Line of Defense: The New Fight for American Liberty," and noted the familiarity of his thesis.*
"Sometimes bad politicians set out to grow government in order to increase their own power and influence. This phenomenon doesn't just happen in Washington; it happens at all levels of government. The amazing this [sic] is that they often grow government without protest from citizens, and sometimes they even get buy-in from citizens -- at least from the ones getting the goodies.
"One of their favorite ways to increase their power is by creating programs that dispense subsidized government benefits, such as Medicare, Social Security, and outright welfare (Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and the like). These programs make people dependent on government. And once people are dependent, they feel they can't afford to have the programs taken away, no matter how inefficient, poorly run, or costly to the rest of society."
Cuccinelli, the Republicans' gubernatorial nominee in Virginia this year, doesn't literally use the phrase "47 percent," but he doesn't have to -- the right-wing candidate instead complains, "Creating government dependency is the typical method of operation for big-government statists."
Meet the new conservative message; it's the same as the old conservative message.
Those who saw Romney's "47 percent" video as a "gaffe" badly missed the point. The failed candidate didn't misspeak or stumble awkwardly while trying to articulate a familiar sentiment; he created a firestorm by giving voice to a far-right ideology that condemns much of the country for being "dependent upon government" and believing that "government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."
It's the same ideology that leads Paul Ryan to disparage millions of Americans as "takers."
And it's this same approach to modern governance that leads Ken Cuccinelli to those who rely on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and food stamps, to become "dependent on government," and then vote accordingly.
Greg Sargent captured the larger context nicely:
There's been a great deal of chatter among Republicans lately that they don't really need to change their ideas; they merely need to change their tone. But as Cuccinnelli's comments demonstrate, the ideas are the tone. The basic problem here is not the rhetoric; it's the apparent belief among many conservatives that there isn't any legitimate way that government assistance can be a positive force in people's lives.
In this telling, any voter who is temporarily dependent on government in some way is at risk of suffering a kind of permanent lobotomy, in which he or she will be rendered incapable of rational political decision making or future independence. Any public official who extends the hand of government help in their direction is simply trying to manipulate these poor, lost souls.
It's become fashionable in some GOP circles (see Jindal, Bobby) to condemn part of Romney's 47 percent message -- the part in which the presidential candidate said he wouldn't even try to earn the votes of nearly half the country. Republicans now believe, at least rhetorically, that they intend to target a broader audience.
But substantively, the party's disdain for Americans they see as lazy freeloaders hasn't changed at all.
* edited slightly for clarity
Leave a Comment:
Preemptive
Shooter and his "free stuff" 3...2...1...
There's your boy hoops ...your new hero
Cuccinelli's position is classic Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers). The issue of 'big government vs. smaller, smarter government" was at the core of the tremendous Republican success in 2010. What happens when government gets smaller? It loses revenue because in order to make it smaller, taxes are cut or not increased to meet rising costs. Because it doesn't have the tax base necessary to provide basic services, it can't provide services like quality education, fire and police protection, or even trash collection. So, the Kochs and friends are willing to have those services outsourced to them, for a price.
T.E.A (Taxed Enough Already) did not rest with no new taxes, it also advocated tax cuts for "the job creators." In state after state, taxes were cut for the Kochs and friends and cuts in government funding to state and local agencies were made. The Kochs loved those cuts in taxes and spending because states were not able to enforce environmental protection laws against the Koch pollution. The Kochs saved a lot of money as they harmed areas of the environment and endangered people's health.
The focus on the 47% is a distraction, a "bait and switch" tactic. The Kochs do not want cuts in, for example, the "food stamp" Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because they make billions of dollars each year from it. The same goes for Medicare and Social Security.
The Kochs are still very powerful and were close to securing a "leveraged buyout" of the government and would have succeeded if Romney has been elected President. They still have great power in the 25 states with Republican governors and legislatures.
Cuccinelli is just one of the many mouthpieces for the Kochs.
I would suggest one correction -- the cutting of taxes actually precedes "smaller government" (if it happens at all), because the people in our political system who advocate smaller government don't actually much care about the size of government, they care about tax cuts for rich people. Republican administrations in modern times have never actually made government smaller; in fact, they've grown government faster than Democratic administrations. They cut taxes so they can howl about deficits to try to keep Democrats from implementing their policies, and so more money goes to their supporters. In addition, they gut regulation and enforcement so their corporate backers can do whatever the hell they want, but that's the only "shrinking" they do.
The "small government" argument is always a lie.
I just love it when people talk about the poor who have never known poverty in any way shape or form.
They love to pontificate about the evils of Government and people being on the Dole but they have no practical experience or even knowledge about and the programs that we as a nation have decided to provide for the subsistence of the poor so that we as a nation are not forced to live in a Dickensian nightmare.
Their ideas will never change because the vast majority of them have never had any meaningful experience with the adversities of life that those whom they condemn struggle with each and everyday.
They can change their "Tone" all they want but they will still be Deaf.
wow how true you are well said.
Agree!
So, does anyone have to read Dickens in school anymore? Do they get taught that Mr. Bumble and the board of the workhouse where Oliver grew up were public spirited private citizens doing their best to instill the virtues of industry and self-reliance on their charges these days?
Dickens understood what he was talking about because his father had been thrown into debtors prison and he himself made to go to work in a shoeshine factory at the age of 12. He didn't just write about poverty he lived it.
I think that was exactly Steve's point. Those who fail to grasp the depth of despair and helplessness that poverty forces upon you, are blithe and disrespectful of that which they truly don't understand.
I'm no fan of those who truly look to be given a free ride, but once again, this is a far more complex problem than mainstream Republicans seem to be able to grasp.
As a Virginian, Kooky-nelli is a massive embarrassment.
That. But the truth is I've finally gotten around to really reading all of that Dickens I dodged or just half-ass scanned in high school (the speed at which I tear through books since I went electronic combined with the fact that the classics are mostly on my Kindle and iPad have awakened an interest in them I never had back in the analog days) and I've just been gobsmacked at the extent to which the bad guys in his books talk just like modern Republicans. It's just stunning. The only difference between those people and today's GOP is that the people lampooned by Dickens were true conservatives defending the status quo (the Poor Law of 1834 and its underlying ideology), whereas today's GOP are radical nihilists invoking the same ideology in their effort to uproot the existing order.
that was my point earlier too. When it comes to welfare as opposed to "earned entitlement programs the right still buys into the whole "Cadillac welfare queen" BS and fails to grasp the concept of "subsistence". I find the idea that people starve to death in this country in this day and age ridiculously abhorrent and unforgivable and yet that is what these people are in effect saying and trying to justify their actions by saying it's the place of private charities and not the government. Which inversely indicates why private charities can't manage it...because people like them don't support them!
Steve...for your reading list Try some Steinbeck particularly "the Grapes of wrath" Steinbeck actually researched the book by working as a migrant worker and living with them for months. A lot of the things in the book are drawn from his real world experiences.
Perhaps the Republicans read Dickens as documentary material, and not the commentary material it was published to be! -Kevo
That would mean that they are the kind of people who thought Swifts "Modest proposal" was actuality a good idea...Dear lord
The Republicans see the world Dickens described as The Way Things Ought To Be (in fact, I think Gasbag Limpdick wrote a book with that title setting out just that argument).
Been thinking about subliminal messaging and thought of one that may have racist qualities. And that is when people think about death what is the one object that all people relate to and that is the Grim Reaper. The Grim Reaper dressed in dark clothes with a hood and blackened face. This could be too much subliminally related to a African American man or woman wearing a hoodie walking down the street as something sinister and deadly. Where the color of someone’s skin should be considered as something beautiful it is not and is considered as something bad. We for one need better images of what death and sinister really is and it does not relate to what a person’s skin color is.
Sorry, but you're looking for something that just isn't there. Not that wikipedia is a definitive source, but according to them "... Death is often given the name Grim Reaper and, from the 15th century onwards, came to be shown as a skeletal figure carrying a large scythe and clothed in a black cloak with a hood."
His face is not blackened, it is a skull in shadow, and his cloak predates the modern hooded sweatshirt or hoodie, by several centuries - to attribute racial undertones to the appearance of the Grim Reaper is quite a stretch. Similarly, such phrases as "black magic" "dark arts" "dark or black hearted" "white knight" equate black or dark with evil and white with good not because of skin pigmentation but because of night and day.
Now if there was a modern depiction of the Grim Reaper looking like a rapper, with massive gold chains and his pants on the ground, I would agree that that would be racist - but overtly so and not subliminally.
What you say may be about night and day, but day and light was always good and night and dark were always bad. There is a lot of racism in our language. White is good black is bad. People are blackballed. There are white papers to explain the good. People are blackmailed, blackballed, blacklisted, etc.
Brewer Patriot, I think your very much wrong on your thinking, since too often you never see a skull at all with the Grim Reaper, except that something that looks like a black mask. And no matter how you may want to define the Grim Reaper, it is how it is interpreted in people's minds.
I agree Afairhope and there is a lot of changes that need to be made to change the negativity applied to someones skin color.
You know that very strange view of Heaven; the one where the enjoyment of Heaven is made sweeter since the blessed enjoy the spectacle of the damned being tormented in Hell?
The Repubs want the other half of the country around for their enjoyment.
It's not such a strange view of Judeo-Christian heaven. It's a very mainstream view.
As in this quote from the very benign 23rd Psalm:
"Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies..."
Please drop the "Judeo" in your description of the "Christian" heaven. It's not at all accurate. The Jewish and Christian concepts of "heaven" are quite different.
Shalom.
Point taken. But the schadenfreude of seeing God punish ones enemies seems to be common to both traditions.
Graychin, I think that schadenfreude is tied to our common human condition, not to any particular religion.
Joan, you are undoubtedly correct about that. But it's unfortunate that even our sacred texts sometimes indulge in this moral weakness rather than leading us to aim higher.
Not that I'm one to brag about being above schaudenfreude. I'm the guy who changed the channel to Fox News as soon as Ohio was called for Obama on election night. The schadenfreude there was delicious!
Several years ago, the pastor of a successful and crowded local Christian megachurch started preaching that Hell did not exist - that ALL were saved by the Blood of Jesus! All but a handful of his congregants abandoned that church, leading the church to declare bankruptcy and the pastor to leave town. After all, what's the point of being "saved" if you can't consider yourself superior to the unsaved?
I'm a little confused. If making people dependent on government truly affected the way they vote (to any relevant degree) wouldn't most of the southern states be blue? I mean, most of them get far more back from the government than they contribute, many have high unemployment and rates of people on welfare, food stamps, etc.
Am I missing something here?
Yes. Conservative "us vs. them" logic. In the makers vs. takers game, everyone wants to pick a side, and who int the self-sufficient, "I could live off the land" blue states is going to admit they're a taker?
You saw it here in Redneckistan central Florida . Raggedy old cars and single wide dumps ...all with Romney Ryan stickers. They should have just cut to the chase and used the confederate flag with Romney Ryan on it
Dave, I don't think you are missing anything, the people in the states you are referring to are more racist than some states. Most of the people in those states think that all the takers are Black or other Minorities. They are Democrats, Republicans don't get welfare. So Blacks are in the minority and consequently are out voted. I know a lot of whites who get or have gotten benefits and still rail against government handouts.
This is just a question, not related, have you ever seen a BMW, Mercedes or a Lexus with a rebel flag placard?
The people in those states are the ones descended from the morons dumb enough to go fight Ol' Massa's war for him. Actually, the South is really useful - as a supply of cannon fodder.
Pretty ironic to see the Cooch and lobotomy mentioned in the same sentence. ;-)
No, not really, not at all in fact.
The guy's awful.
As opposed to the Republicans. Why buy votes when it's so so much more lucrative to sell them?
Shhh, let's not mention Newt's moon base, or Romney's promise to increase military spending. When the 'makers' take, it's NOT 'taking.'
The love that Americans have for the Medicare program makes this whole meme fall on it's face. Erick Erickson started this 47% nonsense, so we should thank him for his misguided take on what really matters to people. Only a filthy rich person is wealthy enough to not value Medicare, because their money will protect them from bankruptcy. Thats the rub of the Ryan Budget, that America would pass a budget that brings medical bankruptcy to senior citizens. Get sick, lose your house...
One more example of the Republican's flawed understanding of human psychology.
-- People who receive government services become dependent.
-- People are either good guys or bad guys (gun debate)
-- Teenagers won't think about sex unless they receive sex education
-- Our enemies will shrink before our military muscle flexing
-- Talented individuals will refuse to work if their taxes are increased by 4%
Everyone knows the poor work harder when you cut their benefits and the rich work harder when you cut their taxes.
Of course corporate welfare doesn't count since the recipients are much whiter. It must be that giving to people who don't need it is somehow much more noble. Plus they not only give you their votes, they give you lots of money as well.
Section 8, medicare, and food stamp monies end up in the pockets of landlords, hospitals, and Pepsi.
We put people out of work to increase profit, we defund the welfare state to decrease taxes. Good for corporations, bad for communities.
Gee, I thought the GOP was already the party of the 47% -- who voted for Mitt Romney. It was a lovely, ironic final tally, wasn't it?
Why do politicians keep equating SS and Medicare as government paid programs. These are programs administered by the government, paid for by direct taxes for those programs. It's true that Medicaid was lumped into Medicare, so those who pay for Medicare support a welfare program, instead of the government. Medicaid should be paid from the general fund and not the Medicare fund. In reality SS and Medicare, with the exception of Medicaid are actually paid for by the people who benefit from it. So when politicians talk about entitlement programs, we should tell them they are not general fund entitlements.
It's unfortunate that when people speak of government welfare they are generally speaking of the programs that help individuals. Most politicians only want to cut welfare for the individual, and not corporate welfare which cost the government a lot of money. We still subsidize tobacco production. We spend untold billions on agricultural subsidies, many to large corporate farms. The sad fact is that when most are speaking of welfare users they are speaking of Blacks and Minorities. Most republicans act as if only democrats get government assistance.
One example of corporate welfare is the money given to corporations to build in their areas. I can't tell if there is any federal money involved, but I suspect that there is. For example, Georgia and local governments gave Kia about $500,000,000 to locate a plant in West Point. That is just one example in GA. There are others in other states. Alabama has given billions to foreign companies to locate in the state. AL has given to Mercedes Benz, Hyundai, Nissan, Honda, ThyssenKrupp(a German steel co.), Airbus and others to locate in AL. South Carolina gave huge subsidies to BMW, Freightliner trucks, ( owned by Daimler, owner of Mercedes Benz). Tennessee gave to Toyota, Volkswagen to locate in their state. These are just a few that I can think off the top of my head. Large corporations all over the country get huge tax abatement's.
We the people need to let our elected officials know where we stand, and stop letting politicians give us a bunch of bull with no consequences. Let's stand up and be counted
Also remember back to the Obama/Romney debates where the billions of dollars of subsidies to Oil Companies was broached. Romney made it a point to say that these were so that the Oil companies would do business with smaller American businesses. So in Romney's world, it's okay to hand out cash to big corporations making billions of dollars in profit on a quarterly basis in order for them to kneel down and do business with other smaller businesses? Why can't they just do business with a small business without the tax payers having to underwrite the business transaction.
there is another side to this- the targets of this message are people who receive a great deal of government benefits and persist to condemn the poor for the same conduct. Ryan was the poster child for this hypocrisy social security was critical to his path; but the voters who "buy in" get subsidies too- big ones- public gold courses, marinas, exceptional care of streets and cleanups; exceptional police and fire protection, world class hospitals-- all of these things are subsidized not to mention the business side- judicial enforcement of intellectual property, protection of creditors rights-- all of these things to which the wealthy feel entitled, not dependent, and really in this age seem to constantly ask/demand more-- people in Detroit pay property taxes through the nose and can barely get trash pickups, potholes that loosen fillings. It is the overall hypocrisy of the message that makes it fail-- derivatives trades and traders get more government benefits that people on welfare by far-- they have a protected/sheltered enterprise bigger than the economies of most countries. There are lies and then there are damned lies, and people have a way- like a sensitive sense of smell- to detect the rottened GOP core here...hdm
The rich need more. That is the only absolute philosophical truth I know for sure.
You can never be too rich.
The two Kochs today are worth a combined $90 billion. You can never be too rich. They are tied for 6 and 7 on the richest billionaires list.
Am I a "taker?" I've had need of social services in the past... when ill (believed terminal- I recovered), unemployed, and when badly injured (nearly killed). Such services have helped me along so that I can get back to being a productive and contributing member of society. I DON'T WANT to be dependent, and any dependency I've had has never encouraged me to remain that way. I WANT to be out there, doing my fair share... and I am, because such services helped me get back to a position where I could.
Glad you are better.
Don't forget Alan Grayson's description of the Repubs' health care plan: "Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly."
The only people that really profit from food stamps is the grocery and banking industries. JP Morgan makes a tiddy little sum handling all those EBT cards.
Food stamps were originally in a farm bill to support food prices. I suspect even Repub farmers today support food stamps.
Repub farmers today support food stamps? You wonder. Those rural folk overwhelmingly vote Republican who promise to "cut spending". Those guys think "cut spending" means cut spending on someone else and pass the farm bill handouts please.
God damn lazy bums living on food stamps! Now give me MY welfare! It's all they know.
Aside from banks making big bucks from the EBT cards, food stamps have always covered soil, seeds, livestock and feed for them as well. They still do to this day.
It's not very well known especially since these types of purchases don't make grocery stores, Tyson, Kraft, or Coke any money at all. Also, if one lives in an apartment or a city/neighborhood with restrictions that prohibit having a couple of hens & roosters, this won't work.
My next door neighbors, who are elderly and disabled, told me about this and take advantage of it. I absolutely don't mind their chickens or their beautiful vegetable gardens. They have taught us some of their gardening skills and we trade pecans and tomatoes from our yard for their fresh eggs, spinach, and squash.
It's also eco freindly. Therefore my tea party parents almost never visit our house. My mom says that we live in a neighborhood, not on a farm and they shouldn't be able to do that.
Don't misunderstand, our neighborhood is comprised of late 1940s G.I. bill houses - old, but with charachter - but when they built it, they didn't cut down the 150+ year old trees. It's really a small, lovely oasis in a very ugly, industrial area.
A swing and a hit!
I live in an area that actually encourages having chickens, gardens, goats etc. And unbelievably enough its mostly Republican! Though it's definitely not Tea Party. So I live with mostly sane Republican neighbors. My next door neighbor's goats just gave birth to twins. Their from Germany so they called the goats Hansel & Gretel. Too cute.
There will always be crazies in the GOP. It is quite the cycle. Does anyone remember when S&H Green Shield Stamps were called socialism by "Joe" McCarthy and his GOP followers and wanted to make sure women whose husbands were in the miitary were not allowed to save and use them?
I'm not sure is the Cuch talking about the 1%. I think that some of them are the ones getting the hand outs. They seem to be the ones crying the most. Oh my gosh, he has to be talking about all those lazy 47%ters. Taking their $200.00 ck. and their $150.00 food stamps a month. They are taking away from all those hard working 1%ers. Now they won't be able to take that 1,000th trip to "DREAM" where ever. Hey they can talk to Mitch McConnell he knows some great beaches in France.
Who pays Cooch's salary? We do, you know, the gubmint. So look in the mirror when you talk about the 47%. Politicians, voting themselves pay raises, frequent recesses, questionable "fact-finding" junkets. Lazy parasites indeed.
The irony to all this is .... the 47% living off the government dole is the republican base. The only folks I know who take government handouts are lower class white folks. They take-ith for the lack-ith of family planning while loudly complaining about the folks who are dependent on the government. I have pointed this "shoot yourself in the foot' philosophy with very loud, negative, irrational responses.
The 'Cucci', (appropriately nicknamed) is a wing nut. Bolling who is much more moderate may have stood a chance but the Cucci hasn't a prayer.
Rachel - did you just show a graph (love your graphs!) that underscaored how DEPENDENT the US economy is on Defense spending? If you put the $ spent on defense next to the $ spent of the "47%" what does that look like?
All my life I thought the expression was: NO MAN IS AN ISLAND UNTO HIMSELF.
Now I know better. In GOPland it is: EACH MAN IS AN ISLAND UNTO HIMSELF.
I stand corrected.