The Republican Party’s counter-identity strategy is confirmed…and it worked.
Creating the Tea-Party caucus makes the Republican Party’s program look moderate. Like Senator McConnell said after the 2014 midterms, “We won’t be shutting the government down and we won’t be defaulting on the debt.” All that seditious, anti-government rhetoric (you see) was the extremist faction of the party, not the majority we have now. Keep in mind, however, that the two factions share the same identity: reducing government regulation, and most important, financial regulation.
(Without regulation, you see, jobs are created on demand by default. It just happens to be that when faced with default a person is more likely to work more and more for less and less, yielding to the ideal, zero-marginal-cost society, or the “new normal,” we have now.)
The policy program that led to the extreme detriment of the Great Recession, understand, is being branded as moderate–i.e., not at all seditious but what America is really all about. We can get back to the business of acquiring property, and doing with it as one sees fit, by default, just as nature intended it.
Let’s not forget, the struggle we see in the political dimension is not to conform to popular consent, but to conform consent to the governed, applied from the top down. Creating consent on demand, engineered to look democratic, from the top down is critical to elite application of the Republican form. Once consent looks like it flows from the power elite to the greater number, the passive resistance naturally becomes more aggressive to properly conform the risk, flowing by the numbers, to confirm consent “of” the governed.
Voters should always keep in mind, as well, that the counter-identity strategy is by no means anything new. There are a lot of conservative Democrats (far far from being “liberal”) looking to regulate everything right down to what color socks you wear; and like McConnell says, when it comes to financial reform, it’s the little guy getting hurt, and so we need to repeal it.
“Look’n out for the little guy”…now that conforms to the numbers, doesn’t it?