I have always known that congressional approval ratings are something of a red herring. The body itself always polls poorly, while individual Representatives and Senators fare far better. “My congressman is a Saint and a Prince among men, and I should get on my knees and thank him every single day for lowering himself into that cesspool so I am represented by an honorable man in that warren of thieves, weasels and assorted miscreants…people like your congressman. He’s a polecat and a crook and embodies everything that is wrong with Washington today, and the SOB should be indicted before lunch.”

I happen to be able to say that with a straight face because my Congressman is The Honorable Emanuel Cleaver II, while the districts that surround his are represented by the veteran crook Sam Graves, the ideologue Lynn Jenkins and tea party freshmen  Kevin Yoder and Vicki Hartzler. Talk about an island of reason and sanity in a stormy sea of stupid…I can always, always count on my Congressman to do the right thing.

So yes, Congress is always unpopular, and always will be. But it has never been this unpopular in my entire life, since the New York Times and CBS started asking the question in 1977, when I was in eighth grade AP Civics class and starting to pay attention to politics.

A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job – the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977, and even more than after another political stalemate led to a shutdown of the federal government in 1995.

More than four out of five people surveyed said that the recent debt-ceiling debate was more about gaining political advantage than about doing what is best for the country. Nearly three-quarters said that the debate had harmed the image of the United States in the world.

Republicans in Congress shoulder more of the blame for the difficulties in reaching a debt-ceiling agreement than President Obama and the Democrats, the poll found.

The Republicans compromised too little, a majority of those polled said. All told, 72 percent disapproved of the way Republicans in Congress handled the negotiations, while 66 percent disapproved of the way Democrats in Congress handled negotiations.

The debt ceiling fiasco has dealt some heavy body-blows to Congress, especially the House of Representatives. People who are expected in their own lives to act like grownups and play by the rules were appalled by the representatives who looked more like a special-ed kindergarten for kids with behavior disorders than a legislative body. When Paul Broun said he had introduced legislation to lower the debt ceiling (How the hell would that work, anyway? How do you unpay bills?) we crossed from comedy to farce and America knew it. That’s why congressional approval is only 18%.

President Obama fares far better, with a statistical tie of 48/47 approval/disapproval.

The president’s overall job approval rating remained relatively stable, with 48 percent approving of the way he handles his job as president and 47 percent disapproving – down from the bump up he received in the spring after the killing of Osama bin Laden, but in line with how he has been viewed for nearly a year. By contrast, Speaker John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, saw his disapproval rating shoot up 16 points since April: 57 percent of those polled now disapprove of the way he is handling his job, while only 30 percent approve.

Americans said that they trusted Mr. Obama to make the right decisions about the economy more than the Republicans in Congress, by 47 percent to 33 percent. They were evenly divided on the question of whether he showed “strong qualities of leadership” during the negotiations, with 49 percent saying he did and 48 percent saying he did not. And they were still more likely to blame President George W. Bush for the bulk of the nation’s deficit: 44 percent said that the deficit was mostly caused by the Bush administration, 15 percent said it was mostly caused by the Obama administration and 15 percent blamed Congress.

The big losers in the whole mess, at least for now, are tea partiers.

The public’s opinion of the Tea Party movement has soured in the wake of the debt-ceiling debate. The Tea Party is now viewed unfavorably by 40 percent of the public and favorably by just 20 percent, according to the poll. In mid-April 29 percent of those polled viewed the movement unfavorably, while 26 percent viewed it favorably. And 43 percent of Americans now think the Tea Party has too much influence on the Republican Party, up from 27 percent in mid-April.

“I’m real disappointed in Congress,” Ron Raggio, 54, a florist from Vicksburg, Miss., said in a follow-up interview. “They can’t sit down and agree about what’s best for America. It’s all politics.”

There were signs that the repeated Republican calls for more spending cuts were resonating with the public: 44 percent of those polled said the cuts in the debt-ceiling agreement did not go far enough, 29 percent said they were about right and only 15 percent said they went too far. More than a quarter of the Democrats polled said that the cuts in the agreement did not go far enough.

Of course, what is missing here is where we want to see cuts made — how convenient. But poll after poll shows that we want to spend less money on guns and more on eduction, nutrition assistance, public health, transportation, onfrastructure…things that lift up Americans rather than things that blow up Iraqis and Afghanis and Pakistanis and Yemenis and Libyans and Somalis and whoever pisses someone off next week. You get the idea — we’re sick of the Pentagon parasite.

Overwhelmingly, we want Congress to make with getting us back to work. Fully 2/3 of us want a jobs plan and we want it yesterday. While polls say we want spending trimmed, it trails far behind concerns over jobs.

Also interesting to note is that half of those polled wanted tax increases as part of the deal and only 44% thought cuts alone was enough. It’s starting to look like Americans realize that tax cuts for the rich not only don’t help the rest of us, but actually inflict harm, because just under 2/3 of those polled want taxes raised on those who earn more than $250,000 per year. When 52% of self-identified republicans want taxes on the wealthy raised, watching the republicans run on tax cuts next year ought to be entertaining.  

Last winter I had the opportunity to sit down with Senator McCaskill in her office and discuss a wide range of topics, both on the record and off. In that meeting I made it clear at the very beginning of our conversation that I thought the Democrats would be making a huge mistake if they didn’t radically overhaul the filibuster rules that the minority party had abused in the previous session of Congress to launch a coup and sieze control of the chamber and it’s process. My opinion on the filibuster then was the same as it is now: “Kill it. Kill it dead, bury it with a shovel and then bury the shovel,” because it is anti-democratic and used to thwart the will of the people who elected the other party in majority numbers.

I also knew immediately, based on that conversation, that the Democrats were going to blow it. I knew they were going to get rolled. I knew they were going to fold like a cheap lawnchair under Rush Limbaugh and Mitch McConnell would continue to be the de facto leader of the Senate because the Democrats lacked the intestinal fortitude and spinal integrity to do a damned thing about it. I walked out of her office two hours later feeling physically ill, because I knew I was going to be sold out. Again.

You know what else? I. Was. Right.

Because the Democrats were gutless cowards in January, the Senate has reached new depths of dysfunction and ridiculousness.

Congratulations, Democrats. If you rang up a bookie in Vegas and bet on failure, you should be rolling in dough about now.

Let’s look at the state of affairs in the Senate as they exist right now…

The Dodd-Frank banking reform bill created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The American people overwhelmingly support this and want Elizabeth Warren to head it up, but the republicans find the very idea of an entity that is set up to protect consumers from the predators in the financial industry anathema, and they will not only not approve Elizabeth Warren’s nomination, they won’t approve any nominee until the CFPB itself is gutted and defanged, made into a paper tiger that doesn’t really protect consumers from those poor, put-upon banksters.

McConnell has also decided to gut implementation of the ACA by refusing to allow votes on nominees to the Independent Payment Advisory Board to oversee Medicare spending.

They are also blocking the President’s nominee to replace Gary Locke in the Commerce Secretary position after he was named Ambassador to China.

A vitally important position at the Federal Reserve remains unfilled because the republicans wouldn’t let Nobel laureate Jerod Diamond’s nomination come to the floor for a vote.

The Treasury Department is shot through with vacancies because the republicans…sing it with me now…won’t let nominees come to the floor for a vote.

And don’t even get me started on the backlog of judicial nominees and republican obstruction.

It has gotten so bad that we may be fast approaching a tipping point. Indeed, Jonathan Bernstein argued yesterday in the Washington Post that the Democrats have brooked this foolishness long enough and it’s “long past time” that they “go nuclear.”

It’s time — long past time — for Harry Reid and Senate Democrats to start fighting back against filibusters on executive branch nominations. It’s time to threaten to go nuclear.

If Republicans are determined to abuse Senate rules by using the filibuster to disable federal agencies, then Democrats should threaten to get rid of the filibuster.

GOP obstruction and nihilism are to blame for this, but the Democrats are culpable, too.

Remember, when this session of Congress convened, the Democrats dropped their plans to enact major filibuster reforms, and in return, the GOP would stop abusing the process.

I get bashed from time to time for not being ideologically pure enough and for giving Democrats a pass when other lefties are pissed off because they want them to “fight.” Hey, I am a big fan of bare-knuckle politics myself, but I can count, and if the votes aren’t there the votes aren’t there. Only a moron risks life and limb fighting a battle that has a foredrawn conclusion that goes against them. I prefer to save my energy and fight only the battles I have a strategy for and a chance to win.

This is one of those fights that Harry Reid needs to have, and he needs to win, because we are getting into “existential struggle” territory here. The nihilists are bent on reducing the country to a pile of smoldering rubble, and they don’t much care whether they do it from the minority or the majority position, just so long as they destroy the middle class and the last shred of confidence the American people have in their government.  

Last week:

Merkley Lays Out A Course For Reforming The Filibuster In The Next Senate: ‘Mark This Date On Your Calendar’

….Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) laid out a path to fundamentally change the way the filibuster works. Merkeley told Hartmann to “mark this date on your calendar: January 5th. That’s the date we’re going to come in for the next Congress, and it’s on that date that a group of us is trying to pass a motion for the Senate to adopt new rules.”

Merkley then went on to explain his proposal for the new filibuster rules. The senator explained that by assembling 51 votes at the start of the new Senate, he wants to change the chamber’s rules so that when a senator engages in a filibuster, they have to go to the floor of the Senate, “defend your position, hold the floor, and if you’re not there, the Senate goes forth and holds a majority vote.” In other words, Merkley is proposing that if senators want to filibuster bills, they actually have to show up and physically spend time on the floor of the Senate to stop bills from going forth. “Hopefully we can bring together that magic 51 to say let’s make it function, the Senate function, to be that deliberative body that it once was….”

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) via Twitter this morning:

Rs blockng everything until they get extra tax help for multimillionaires:military pay raise,cola for seniors,med help for 9/11 1st respndrs about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPad

And, of course, we chimed in:

@MBersin @clairecmc Then do something about changing the rules in January. #MO 44 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And Blue Girl:

@BGinKC @clairecmc And if the Ds don’t change the rules 1st thing Jan 5th, it stops being their fault and starts being yours. #thatsjustthewayitis 41 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And someone else:

@DoctorD71 @clairecmc You guys need to vote to change the Senate rules to stop the R roadblock. 39 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to clairecmc

And:

@Pnthrgrlgail @clairecmc Rs blocking but Dems will get the blame. Propaganda station Fox will make sure that poor, unemployed blame Democrats not GOP. 34 minutes ago via Twitterrific in reply to clairecmc

Senator McCaskill (D) replied to someone:

@clairecmc @stevetinkham That’s simply not true.We must have 60 votes to stop their filibusters. We don’t have 60 Ds in Senate.Theyve stopped everything 23 minutes ago via Twitter for iPad

Well, what about making the republicans actually stand up there when they filibuster?:

@MBersin @clairecmc Are you going to join with Sens. Merkley and T. Udall on January 5th to make senators, you know, actually filibuster? #MO 23 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

Others, you know, had the same idea:

@atuozzolo @clairecmc let them filibuster, you know, like actually stand out there and talk. 21 minutes ago via DestroyTwitter in reply to clairecmc

@RadioBradshaw @clairecmc Sounds like a good reason to consider filibuster reform on day 1. 21 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

@kennethlaw @clairecmc bring back the old school filibuster. They won’t won’t spend days talking on the floor to stop a bill. Make the Senate work again 20 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to clairecmc

@TerryOlson @clairecmc So are you folks going to change the filibuster rules in January? 19 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

@norskiewa @clairecmc Are you working with @SenJeffMerkley on filibuster reform? 15 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

@jtwill84 @clairecmc Why can’t we keep the filibuster, but require the minority to actually FILIBUSTER…Thurmond and Mr. Smith style? 12 minutes ago via TweetDeck in reply to clairecmc

@clegoues @clairecmc Honest question: why don’t you just let them filibuster? Let them look stupid on CSPAN? 8 minutes ago via Echofon

@AlexForOffice @clairecmc well then why don’t you actually force them to filibuster? Instead of just caving to threats of filibuster. 19 minutes ago via Twitter for Android from Southfield, MI   in reply to clairecmc

If the NFL operated the way the United States Senate does there’d be no scoring. “Uh, we can theoretically block a field goal so we don’t need to actually do so.”

Apropos of the Republican obstructionism which is on the verge of driving the economy into a double-dip recession, Matt Iglesias writes:

… the way the American political system works, the minority party that prevented the majority from addressing the crisis will accrue massive political benefits as a result of the collapse.

Conservatives won’t admit it today, but what we’re looking at is a major breakdown of the logic of the American political system.

What he is talking about is the fact that Republicans, who during the Bush years drove the economy pell-mell off a cliff, have, as an electoral strategy, steadfastly worked to ensure that Rush Limbaugh gets his wish that the President fail – and if that sinks the economy for the next decade, well, the devil take the hindmost. They have fought everything that we know, based on historical precedent, to be sound economic policy, and they succeeded in hobbling the initial stimulus by paring it to half of what it should have been.

The main GOP tool for wreaking self-righteous havoc: like the liar screaming fire in a crowded theater, they rampage through the media screaming something to the effect that the deficit is coming and it’s going to eat your children – after running up record deficits under every Republican president since Reagan. They’ve managed to bamboozle economically ignorant Americans who actually believe cable news sound-bites offering simple formulas that distort the complex relationship between short-term stimulative spending and long-term debt.

Nor are GOPers one-trick ponies; they have one more especially potent tool: go on the offensive and lie like a dog. Deny the demonstrable fact that even a weak stimulus moved us toward recovery – which might mean that a bigger stimulus could spur a bigger recovery.  Deny that the growth of the national debt, as Ezra Kleiln points out, reflects “a massive drop in revenues, not $4 trillion in spending over the past two years… .”

You want an example? I give you Roy Blunt trotting out, rather lackadaisically, I admit, the GOP two-pronged tool box, the lazy pol’s substitute for a campaign strategy, but one that he clearly expects reward him with a Senate seat:

Paul Krugman tells us that our political culture is sick:

… a culture that rewards hypocrisy and irresponsibility rather than serious efforts to solve America’s problems. And blame the filibuster, under which 41 senators can make the country ungovernable, if they choose – and they have so chosen.

My question: why would anyone want to send one more irresponsible hypocrite like Roy Blunt to the senate where he gets to help wield the filibuster for the benefit of the cronies and campaign contributors whose welfare kept him so busy in the House?  Why should we reward him for failure in the past just because he promises to do the same thing in the future?

“….Public schools are closing. Teachers are being laid off by the thousands. First class jails and second class schools. Today there is a plan, a plan for comprehensive immigration reform. A plan for Afghanistan, we commit resources, a hundred billion dollars for a hundred Al  Qaeda. A plan, don’t ask, don’t tell, for gays. A plan for national reform. But no plan for the investment for urban policy to put America back to work. So, we bail out the predators, the bankers that drove us in this hole. The victims remain on the sideline desperately looking for a job….” – Reverend Jesse Jackson, NAACP National Convention, July 14, 2010.

“….Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that. They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money.  So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed.  They’ve got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them; but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help.  And every day this goes on, another 50,000 Americans lose that badly needed lifeline….” President Obama, weekly address, July 17, 2010.

Oh, the republicans have a plan for November 2010.

President Obama’s weekly address for July 17, 2010:

The White House transcript:

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

The White House

July 17, 2010

This week, many of our largest corporations reported robust earnings – a positive sign of growth.

But too many of our small business owners and those who aspire to start their own small businesses continue to struggle, in part because they can’t get the credit they need to start up, grow, and hire.  And too many Americans whose livelihoods have fallen prey to the worst recession in our lifetimes – a recession that cost our economy eight million jobs – still wonder how they’ll make ends meet.

That’s why we need to take new, commonsense steps to help small businesses, grow our economy, and create jobs – and we need to take them now.

For months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do.  But too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress.  And that has very real consequences.

Consider what that obstruction means for our small businesses – the growth engines that create two of every three new jobs in this country.  A lot of small businesses still have trouble getting the loans and capital they need to keep their doors open and hire new workers.  So we proposed steps to get them that help:  Eliminating capital gains taxes on investments.  Establishing a fund for small lenders to help small businesses.  Enhancing successful SBA programs that help them access the capital they need.

But again and again, a partisan minority in the Senate said “no,” and used procedural tactics to block a simple, up-or-down vote.

Think about what these stalling tactics mean for the millions of Americans who’ve lost their jobs since the recession began.  Over the past several weeks, more than two million of them have seen their unemployment insurance expire.  For many, it was the only way to make ends meet while searching for work – the only way to cover rent, utilities, even food.

Three times, the Senate has tried to temporarily extend that emergency assistance.  And three times, a minority of Senators – basically the same crowd who said “no” to small businesses – said “no” to folks looking for work, and blocked a straight up-or-down vote.

Some Republican leaders actually treat this unemployment insurance as if it’s a form of welfare. They say it discourages folks from looking for work.  Well, I’ve met a lot of folks looking for work these past few years, and I can tell you, I haven’t met any Americans who would rather have an unemployment check than a meaningful job that lets you provide for your family.  And we all have friends, neighbors, or family members who already knows how hard it is to land a job when five workers are competing for every opening.

Now in the past, Presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is – an emergency expenditure.  That’s because an economic disaster can devastate families and communities just as surely as a flood or tornado.

Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that.  They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money.  So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed.  They’ve got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them; but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help.  And every day this goes on, another 50,000 Americans lose that badly needed lifeline.

Well, I think these Senators are wrong.  We can’t afford to go back to the same misguided policies that led us into this mess.  We need to move forward with the policies that are leading us out of this mess.

The fact is, most economists agree that extending unemployment insurance is one of the single most cost-effective ways to help jumpstart the economy.  It puts money into the pockets of folks who not only need it most, but who also are most likely to spend it quickly.  That boosts local economies.  And that means jobs.

Increasing loans to small business.  Renewing unemployment insurance.  These steps aren’t just the right thing to do for those hardest hit by the recession – they’re the right thing to do for all of us.  And I’m calling on Congress once more to take these steps on behalf of America’s workers, and families, and small business owners – the people we were sent here to serve.

Because when storms strike Main Street, we don’t play politics with emergency aid.  We don’t desert our fellow Americans when they fall on hard times.  We come together.  We do what we can to help.  We rebuild stronger, and we move forward.  That’s what we’re doing today.  And I’m absolutely convinced that’s how we’re going to come through this storm to better days ahead.

Thanks.

Previously:

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City (December 14, 2009)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 2 (December 15, 2009)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 3 (December 16, 2009)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 4 (December 22, 2009)

Representative Jason Kander (D): Missouri ethics reform pop quiz (March 15, 2010)

Representative Jason Kander (D), via Twitter, on the state of ethics reform legislation today in Jefferson City:

I’m in House Rules committee where they are finally discussing the ethics bill. Will they send it to the floor?     about 4 hours ago  via Echofon  

Delaying a bipartisan ethics bill to make it partisan is exactly the kind of politics I hoped to avoid this year.     about 4 hours ago  via Echofon  

Rules cmmte is ground zero for the “cold feet” illness sweeping the Capitol. Ethics reform heads back to cmmte. Absurd.     about 4 hours ago  via Echofon  

Despite obstacles such as today, we’ve gotten pretty far on ethics reform. Redoubling my efforts in the last 3 wks of session.     about 1 hour ago  via HootSuite  

Tony Messenger of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, via Twitter:

According to @jasonkander, House rules committee sent ethics bill back to its House committee. Doesn     about 4 hours ago  via TweetDeck  

Oops, didn’t finish typing. Doesn’t bode well for ethics bill.     about 4 hours ago  via TweetDeck  

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

April 26, 2010

Statement by the President on Financial Reform

“I am deeply disappointed that Senate Republicans voted in a block against allowing a public debate on Wall Street reform to begin. Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether. But the American people can’t afford that. A lack of consumer protections and a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly brought our economy to its knees, and helped cause the pain that has left millions of Americans without jobs and without homes. The reform that both parties have been working on for a year would prevent a crisis like this from happening again, and I urge the Senate to get back to work and put the interests of the country ahead of party.”

As if anyone is surprised…

Apr 13th, 2010 at 1:45 pm

McConnell Slams Financial Reform Bill After Meeting With Hedge Fund Managers And Other Wall Street Elites

….What McConnell did not mention was that, last week, he traveled alongside National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Sen. John Cornyn (TX) to New York City for a private meeting with elite hedge fund managers and other Wall Street executives. The purpose of the meeting between the top Republicans and the financial executives was to enlist “Wall Street’s help” in funding Republican campaigns in the fall and killing any tough financial reform…

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Todd Akin’s official response to the health care reform victory is, as one might expect, shrill in the extreme. He has managed to jam almost every GOP screaming point into a few short paragraphs. Since the event that occasioned this vitriolic outburst is the passage of  what is actually very moderate legislation, it might be instructive to deconstruct his florid imagery in order to figure out what Republican rage is really all about:

“Today Americans are reacquainted with the danger of an arrogant all powerful government, a deadly enemy within, a clear and present danger in Washington.”

“Americans” in this context refers to Tea Partiers and corporations. “Arrogance” refers to the fact that the Democratic congress defied corporate initiated Tea Party tantrums and inept Republican legislative tactics in order to help the president fulfill one of the campaign promises that got him elected. “All powerful government” refers only to elected Democrats; when Republicans lie in order to force-march the country into deficit-busting wars, they are patriots. “A deadly enemy within” means that these same Democrats threaten a resurgent Republican hegemony, since they pose “a clear and present danger” to the GOP by revealing its sabre rattling to be nothing more than empty noise.

“In spite of nationwide opposition socialized medicine is being forced down our throats. That medicine is toxic to freedom. But freedom dies hard in America.”

Akin considers “nationwide opposition” to be the 43% of the respondents to a  recent CNN poll that disapprove of the health care reform because it is “too liberal” – although, if truth be told, many of those probably only disapprove because they have bought into the Republican misinformation campaign, and will no doubt be pleasantly surprised to find that the passage of Health Care reform has not, in fact, killed Blaine Luetkemeyer’s father. Akin clearly does not consider worthy of consideration the other 52% who approve of the legislation, or who think it is not liberal enough.  

“Socialized medicine” reflects the Republican tendency to characterize as socialism any effort to govern for the good of the people rather than corporations or cronies. Their use of the term reflects their inability to distinguish between (1) social welfare and social justice; and, (2)  the goal of social justice (or social welfare) and the means used to achieve it; hence any legislation that has a stated goal of securing social welfare or social justice is, ipso facto, socialist, communist, or even facist (which explains those pictures of Obama as Hitler, as well as Glenn Beck’s fear of almost all Christians).

“Forced down our throats” (alternatively, the ubiquitous “crammed down our throats”) is Republican speak for the democratic process that has led to health care reform, including the decision to finally ignore Republican obstructionism. The goal of the phrase is to make relatively straightforward and commonplace legislative processes seem far more unpalatable than they really are.

“Freedom” is a fluid concept on the right. It usually means minimal or no taxes –  often without cutting social services fringewingers themselves find useful, although there are a few more sophisticated souls who understand it in the Friedmanesque  sense of untrammeled capitalism, the “nature red in tooth and claw” of the Social Darwinists revisited, this time from a macroeconomic rather than a biological perspective. In this sense, Akin is correct that “freedom dies hard in America.” The nasty, obstructionist mess that the GOP helped orchestrate during the past year bears witness to the fact that this type of ersatz “freedom” is indeed resilient, especially when liberally fertilized with money from health care industries that really, really love the freedom to run roughshod over the rest of us.*

“I do not believe that the majority of Americans will submit passively to the gold chains of socialism.” True patriots choose the bright light and fresh air of freedom where people can dare to dream- to succeed or fail.”

In this exhortation to action, Akin is calling for the Tea Party dupes to continue with their rabid displays in order to give him cover as he continues to work against their and our best interests. To create the emotional tenor that gets these babies revving their engines, he sets up an opposition in which health care reform is equated with passivity and slavery, while the advocates of unregulated market “freedom” and their corporate beneficiaries, the very folks responsible for our broken health care delivery system, are associated with words like “patriot,” “bright light,” “fresh air,” and the fulfillment of striving.

“I have confidence that freedom will rise from the ashes of socialism and that this nation under God will have a rebirth of liberty and a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

In this final trope Akin brings into play themes that will recur as Republicans attempt to use health care legislation as a lever to undo Democrats in the next election. In one grand, if rather derivative swoop, he dresses anti-health care forces in both Godly and constitutional garb. Sadly, substituting rhetoric for reasoned argument does not create a well-fitting garment, but rather one that will have to be discarded sooner or later.

Akin’s agitprop language is far from original. The words may differ slightly, “totalitarian” substituted for “socialistic,” for example, but most members of the Grand Old Party are expressing nearly identical sentiments. The Republican obstructionist message serves the same goal: getting the GOP back into power. Representative Jo Ann Emerson said it far more succinctly than Akin when she helped egg on the Tea Party thugs over the weekend, joining three other Gopers  on a balcony waving  signs reading “Kill” “The” “Bill.”  What she was really saying, of course, is “I’ll do anything, no matter how depraved, to stay in Washington.”

*The text of this sentence has been edited slightly.