Going Darkly Into That Good Night

By Charles Cullen

Anyone who knows me knows I’m hopelessly addicted to work of the Coen brothers. My addiction goes beyond nodding when someone mentions that “the Dude BWB34abides.” I can quote nearly the entire movie. I believe “No Country For Old Men” is a piece of art that could never be replicated, and I’m shocked by how closely the Republican Party now comes to resembling Homer Stokes (the KKK, “is you is or is you ain’t my constituency?” political candidate of O Brother, Where Art Thou?) “Is you is or is you ain’t my constituency,” Homer pleads with a booing crowd.

“Is you is or is you ain’t my constituency?” Speaking for myself, Homer, I ain’t. I’m not accusing the GOP of being entirely made up of bigots. Though they mostly are exactly as racist as old Homer, they’re much better (with some spectacular exceptions) at hiding it.

The fact that an entire party can be represented by a single slow-witted racist is what makes the following question so fascinating; what happens when the Republican party can no longer rely on racist and/or stupid Caucasians to mindlessly back them? In many areas the white majority is quickly disappearing, and the old trick of just saying something hateful and getting white voters to vote against their own interests is growing more and more difficult.

The GOP has long been able to count on a certain portion the Latino population to help them over the hump, but they’ve been so hateful toward Latinos that that population is rapidly disappearing. Without these voters the highest office Republicans can realistically hope for is the House, with a few Senate seats scattered from still extremely white districts.

And that’s what makes things so interesting: the GOP can still count on the very deep South, but one can’t win a presidency without contesting swing states. Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, and North Carolina, will become reliably Democratic as long as GOP Republicans have to out-crazy Tea Party challengers to win primaries.

Hateful and lunatic comments have a way of following one into general elections. And this becomes more and more true the higher the office one is aiming for.

The American people seem to like to switch presidential parties after roughly two terms, but the Republicans simply aren’t offering them anyone to vote for. From disastrous Republican SOTU speaker (rebuttal) Bobby Jindal, to Donald Trump, to “Awww Shucky-Ducky” Herman Cain, the Republican brand has never looked so weak. Marco Rubio would probably be an attractive option, were the footage of him guzzling gallons of water nearly as viral as the Star Wars kid.

It’s a bad time for weakness, too, as the United States becomes more and more diverse. What must the GOP do to win a Presidency once White voters no longer hold so much sway in swing states?

Perhaps Ol’ Homer could’ve offered some advice but, alas, he was ridden out on a rail (and fictional).

Rand Paul is probably the Republican’s last, best hope–Bush III has shown little interest in running–so one must ask, after a Paul Presidency (if it happens) where do the Republicans turn?

In sum, the Republicans look like FOP. And we as a people don’t want FOP, goddammit, were Dapper Dan voters.

Comments

  1. Burroughston Broch says:

    So one must ask, after two disastrous Obama Presidencies, where do the Democrats turn? It’s become obvious they are looking past him already.
    I see some turning to Hillary Clinton because they think she will be electable (the primary attribute).
    I see others turning to Elizabeth Warren because she is further to the left than either Obama or Clinton.
    Where do you turn, Charles Cullen?

  2. Charles Cullen says:

    That’s a very good question. I’m not trying to argue that the Democrats look strong; just that that the Republicans can’t seem to offer anyone (Paul notwithstanding) who seems at all electable. Perry, who knows there are three branches of government he wants to eliminate but forgets the third in a primary debate? I would also disagree with you RE: Obama’s Presidency being disastrous. The economy has gotten better, job growth has improved. Obama is, as I have written, what a moderate Republican used to look like. His terms haven’t been as great as we’d hoped, I’ll grant you. But I’d choose any of the names you’ve mentioned over people like “Mission Accomplished” Bush.

    • Burroughston Broch says:

      You dodged my question. Bush 43 isn’t a candidate. Where do you turn, Charles Cullen?

      • Charles Cullen says:

        I don’t believe I did dodge your question. You called the Presidents terms disastrous, and I disagreed with you. The truth is I don’t really know which Democrat I’d vote for. I see Warren as a bit of a dark horse. Clinton certainly has the pedigree and will probably end up getting out of the primary. Your turn: offer me a viable Republican candidate.

  3. Charles Cullen says:

    Also you seem to have missed the point of the article; I’m not banging the Democrat drum. I’m simply saying that the Republicans look unbelievably weak.

    • Burroughston Broch says:

      I didn’t miss the point of your article – Republicans look weak, which you hope makes Democrats look stronger.
      I am asking you whether the Democrats are just as weak. And you keep dodging the question. So, let me repeat it for you:
      So one must ask, after two disastrous Obama Presidencies, where do the Democrats turn? It’s become obvious they are looking past him already.
      I see some turning to Hillary Clinton because they think she will be electable (the primary attribute).
      I see others turning to Elizabeth Warren because she is further to the left than either Obama or Clinton. Where do you turn, Charles Cullen?

  4. Charles Cullen says:

    The simple fact is the Democrats are stronger when it comes to high office. And I didn’t dodge your question; I really don’t know who I’m backing yet. You did ignore my question–viable Republican candidate? I’m sure you’re aware that there’s a massive and growing Latino population of voting age in the midwest (especially Iowa). So let me repeat my point for you: what happens when Republicans can no longer rely on Latino voters?

    • Burroughston Broch says:

      I’m not a republican so I’m not backing any of their candidates. But I view Romney, Paul, Jindal, and Christie as viable republican candidates.
      I don’t look for large Latino moves to the democrats since the Latinos recognize that democrats are long on promises and short on fulfillment. That also seems to be a sentiment common with many blacks these days.

      • Charles Cullen says:

        For a non-republican you certainly sound like one. And do you really think Texas republicans hanging out with full garb KKK members to prevent Latinos entering the country is really going to be forgiven? Or King’s (Iowa) crusade to prevent Spanish being taught in schools? Neither Romney, nor Jindal, are viable. They’ve spectacularly flamed out. Paul is the one guy I identified as a possible Presidential candidate. Christie is an interesting candidate, but he’s got tons and tons of baggage. So you’ve identified the one guy I wrote about (hence my inkling that you may have missed the point of the post) and an interesting candidate in Christie. By the by, I don’t think “blacks” like being called “blacks.”

  5. Burroughston Broch says:

    LOL.
    You assume that everyone who doesn’t agree with the democratic mantra is a republican. I thought you democrats are against profiling.
    As far as which candidates are viable, both you and I are guessing, but we will know for certain in 18 months.
    I see nothing wrong with the term “blacks” and you are free to use whatever term you wish. My black co-workers are certainly not offended by the term.

    • Charles Cullen says:

      “But I view Romney, Paul, Jindal, and Christie as viable republican candidates.” That right there made me think you a Republican. Not some nonsense about a “democratic mantra.” Also, if you’re looking for less offensive terms for “blacks,” there’s people of color, African Americans, etc.

  6. Burroughston Broch says:

    You asked whom I considered viable republican candidates, I named three, and you concluded I am a republican. Earlier I mentioned two viable democratic candidates – did you then conclude I am a democrat? I don’t fit your labels.

    Democratic mantra is not nonsense; it is a constant blather of the same old concepts that don’t work.

    You’re the one looking for other euphemisms for blacks, not I. I am content to use the term black. If you’re offended, too bad for you.

    • Charles Cullen says:

      Can you explain the “democratic manta” because I really have no idea what you’re talking about. Also “blacks” is similar to “Micks.” Call someone a “Mick” and they may not tell you they’re annoyed, but trust me, they’re annoyed.

  7. Burroughston Broch says:

    Mantra – a statement or slogan repeated frequently. As in:
    All we need do to improve the schools is spend more money on them.
    I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
    More government is better.
    Manmade global warming is rapidly destroying the planet.
    Etc.

    Are you a Mick? Have I annoyed you? I will continue to use the term black as I have since the 1960’s.