Setbacks All Over: Bad Election Day for the Far Right

As of Sunday, November 13, 2011

I tell you, I wonder sometimes if it’s a sickness.

Election night 2011, an off-year election, no less, and I’m up till all hours, flipping back and forth from website to website, channel to channel, checking the results from races all over the country.

But politics is my football. Where some guys obsessively follow the stats of the Giants or the Panthers, searching for news on the health of their favorite quarterback’s throwing arm and trying to pick next Sunday’s winners, I amuse myself by pondering the broader implications for 2012 of city council elections in Cincinnati. OK, I’m exaggerating, but not by much.

So what can we glean from the results of this week’s voting? Well, mostly, it was a bad day for the far right.

One big story was a referendum in Ohio to repeal a law that stripped public employees of many of their collective bargaining rights. The embattled law was championed by conservatives, including Republican Gov. John Kasich. It was repealed by a margin of 62 to 38 percent.

In Mississippi, voters considered a so-called “personhood” law, which would have declared that human life begins at the moment of conception and which would have outlawed abortions in all cases, even of rape or incest. Anti-abortion forces had high hopes that the measure would pass in conservative Mississippi, setting the stage for a march to the Supreme Court and an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. Republican gubernatorial nominee Phil Bryant told a rape victim who questioned him at a rally that if the law failed, “Satan wins.”

The people of Mississippi didn’t buy it. The measure lost in a landslide vote, 57 to 43 percent. The Prince of Darkness could not be reached for comment.

In Arizona, the man who wrote and championed one of the nation’s most controversial and Draconian immigration laws became the first sitting Senate president in the nation and the first Arizona legislator ever to lose a recall election, according to The Arizona Republic.

The right did have a couple of small victories. In Ohio, they passed a law stating no citizen of the state will be required to buy health insurance, which would essentially nullify the individual insurance mandate in the federal Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately for the supporters of the bill, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (you know, the document the wingnuts claim to love but seem to know next to nothing about) is pretty clear that you can’t just nullify federal law like that, and the measure will almost certainly be overturned.

In Virginia, the election left the state Senate divided 50-50, with ties to be broken by the Republican lieutenant governor. Face it: When the victories you have to crow over are a symbolic measure sure to be thrown out and a tie, you had a bad night.

So what does it all mean? The key word is “overreaching.” The Republicans in these states got in power based on anger about the economy and the jobless rate, but instead of doing something about that, they went right to the radical union-busting and culture wars.

That may have played to the Teahadists who have the Republican Party in thrall, but the majority of the people were having none of it. On the other side, the vote against the individual mandate could be seen as a reaction against what the people see as overreaching by the federal government.

So the candidates who do well in 2012 general election will be the ones seen as moderates. Only Romney and Huntsman seem to have a chance at this on the Republican side. But they infuriate the tea party “base,” just as Obama’s mostly moderate stances infuriate the actual left (as opposed to the Obama-loving left that exists only in the imagination of the demented right).

The key to victory will be for a candidate to convince the center that he or she is the reasonable one, with reasonable policies aimed at benefiting them, while getting enough of the party’s far-right or far-left wings to put aside their distaste for moderation long enough to get out and vote.

So far, the person best positioned to do that is Barack Obama, because Romney’s still trying to pander to the True Believers who hate his guts, and Huntsman’s practically invisible.

But please, Republicans, as an Obama supporter, I urge you: Keep up with the overreach and the radicalism. Double down on the crazy.

In fact, I think I’ll go send a donation to the Cain campaign.

Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

More like this story

RadioNC 1 year, 6 months ago

Dusty… you keep right on trying to convince yourself, and the other weak of mind, that Obama has a chance of winning in 2012. I've got news for you, the Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis losses will pale in comparison to the defeat that Obama will suffer in 2012. People are fed up with the entitlement mentality of the Democrats.

sgmartin 1 year, 6 months ago

The 2011 elections restored my faith in American voters. But I continue to be anxious about 2012

fugitiveguy 1 year, 6 months ago

What do the liberals think the endgame for the national debt is going to be? Is anyone on the left following what is going on in Greece and Italy? We were headed for a cliff with GWB driving, now Obama is driving toward the cliff with the nitrous on. How many tens of millions did organized labor pour into Ohio to win the day? Do labor unions obviously flush with cash pay taxes?

blake 1 year, 6 months ago

Ah yes, restricting collective bargaining rights of public employee unions is such the right wing radical idea, supported historically by other right wing radical wingnuts like FDR. I too recognize the broader implications of that night, the voters are still capable of making momentous mistakes at the ballot box that can cripple a state or even a country's future. I concede President Obama has a chance of winning a second term---- to the detriment of us all.

OldSpook 1 year, 6 months ago

Thus once again, we have the impartiality of the press as presented by a lawyer. Can we say “questionability credibility”? I think we can.

And now for the disclaimer: Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, nothing contained herein constitutes nor is intended to constitute an offence to the writer, inducement, promise, or contract of any kind. The data contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not represented to be error free. Any links to Mr. Rhodes diatribe is provided as a courtesy. They are not intended to nor do they constitute an endorsement by any person or persons living or deceased.

Tatoosh 1 year, 6 months ago

In the 1700's, the founders were already forward thinking in their discussion regarding how this fledgling democracy might self destruct. The demise of this republic was predicted to be realized when individuals become cognizant that they can vote themselves personal gain (benefits, pensions, salaries) from a portion of the treasury. When the takers exceed the doers, democracy will come to an end. We are watching the current administration orchestrate the destruction of this republic.

JimHeim 1 year, 6 months ago

If your thesis was correct, the poor would vote in great numbers to get their share of the gravy train. In reality, the poor have a record of low turnout.

The rich, however, are avid voters and the laws enacted on their behalf are showering them with enormous wealth.

Perhaps the (wealthy, land-owning) founders knew exactly what they were doing.

Tatoosh 1 year, 6 months ago

The thesis was not between poor and rich. The thesis was "when individuals- poor or rich" realize that they can vote themselves personal gains (early retirement, pensions exceeding the private sector, bonuses) from the U.S. Treasury, the republic will come to an end.

JimHeim 1 year, 6 months ago

Sorry Tatoosh, it won't wash. Your quote specifically mentioned "benefits, pensions, salaries," strongly suggesting that the people at the lower end of the scale would be benefiting. None of those categories clearly fits the rich. They benefit from low taxes and government bailouts; quite a different thing.

DoubleZ 1 year, 6 months ago

Dusty, you are correct with your summary. I have a position that permits me to travel our country and Obama is still a big favorite in the Western states and the New England states. As you have pointed out in the past, it is about the Electorial College; not the popular vote. We like to chew the fat and complain about government policies but very few of us start with a "call to action." Maybe it is because we assume that everyone dislikes unions and universal healthcare. But there is an equal amount of folks that believe in them. And they vote too!

FightFireWithFire 1 year, 6 months ago

OldSpook,

Thank you for your service. And thanks for a Monday night chuckle. Stay safe.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 6 months ago

I've got news for you, the Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis losses will pale in comparison to the defeat that Obama will suffer in 2012.

Yeah, this guy's really gonna give Obama a shellacking:

I can't wait to see "I've got all this stuff twirlin' around in my head" in a hundred Obama campaign ads. This is the guy you want answering that 3 AM phone call? Do you hate America that much?