The death of policy as politics in the GOP

Tomorrow, the Democratic-majority House will vote to approve changes to the American Rescue Plan Act passed by the Democratic-majority Senate. This is old-fashioned policy-as-politics. Democrats still see politics as the means by which to enact policies which will benefit the most people.

However, on the other side of the aisle:

I still like Dr. Seuss, so I decided to read Green Eggs and Ham.

RT if you still like him too! pic.twitter.com/2pbRbSiJD6

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) March 6, 2021

Yes, unless you've been abstaining from all media, last week the Republican Party went to war in defense of Dr. Seuss.

Now, let's be clear: The GOP culture warriors have always been against Theodor Seuss Geisel as being "too liberal". That was until the publisher of his books decided to no longer bring out new editions of six of his titles which had racist imagery and text. These six titles were not the well-known ones, like the book Kevin McCarthy was ostentatiously reading. These were six minor works which are not the ones beloved by "kids of all ages". One, for example, had this description of Asians:

Now, again, this needs to be made clear: Democrats in the House, the Senate, and the White House had nothing to do with the publisher's decision to no longer bring out new editions of these books. They weren't banned by school districts. Libraries didn't remove them from their shelves. This was a decision taken by a company in the tried-and-true manner of capitalism. Companies move with the times, and since the events of the past year such caricatures are no longer acceptable. You can argue (badly) that people are being too sensitive, but as a company Penguin Random House has the right to publish or not publish material.

While Democrats were knee-deep in policy debate—over the minimum wage, the length of extending unemployment benefits, and tax issues relating to those benefits—Republicans and culture warriors on the Right were knee-deep in green eggs and ham.

We have one of the major parties which is still engaged in governance, and the other party which has eschewed any idea of waging policy debates. The Seuss fracas has nothing to do with policy. As a party, especially after Trump, the GOP is bereft of any policy ideas. It exists solely to pursue and attain power; it has given up on governance, on delivering economic wellbeing to its voters. It sells its voters nothing but grievance and rage.

But: Dr. Seuss? That's some thin gruel with which to feed the rage addicts of the GOP base. 

That's what will perplex the GOP as Donald Trump fades away. Trump was able to channel the angst of the Angry White People in a way none of his putative successors can. Kevin McCarthy reading Green Eggs and Ham is redolent in its inanity of Michael Dukakis in the tank. As President Joe Biden's administration and its allies in Congress slog their way through legislation to correct the disaster of the past four years, and to then lay the foundation for future improvement, the GOP's first salvo in its renewed Kulturkampf is to laud a man who just a few short days ago most saw as a dirty leftist. But it's all they have. Their "policy", such as it is, is policy routinely derided by American voters. They offer nothing of benefit to anyone save bromides of "liberty", a word which they have shorn of meaning. 

Now, a party without policy is the norm in most autocracies. The only policy they have is maintaining power. But, contrary to what some may want you to believe, the US is still a fully-functioning, if battered, democracy. The question is open as to how long GOP voters will drink at the pig-trough of grievance politics, while their roads crumble and power systems freeze over. Those like Ted Cruz who bray about the GOP now being a working-class party mean to say that the GOP will appeal to the prejudices of the supposed white working class. It doesn't pretend that it'll provide policies strengthening their economic outlook; it will offer only that which inflames them.

This may be a disastrous experiment; for the country, yes, as one party is unserious and makes no effort to govern; but for that party as well. As November showed, it can't win the White House simply with the base. And as it continues to offer no feasible alternative to Democratic policies, it will find its geographic base continue to constrict. I'm not one to overestimate the intelligence of the American electorate. But at some point, people want "stuff". A party offering only resentment is already on the back foot in that race.