Those of you who read this blog, few as you may be, know that I’m interested in politics. Unfortunately, politics has become, to me, much less interesting of late.

This is true almost completely because there is no more intellectual contrast between the competing political forces.

There isn’t much interesting in hearing upset citizens calling the president names. I understand being upset with politics. However, calling President Obama (variously and in combination) a “socialist, communist, Marxist, Nazi, Hitler, fascist” is much less than interesting since none of those words apply if we use those words to mean what they have always meant. Oh, I know that it’s radical and communist and Nazi to believe that words have meaning, but still. What is interesting to me is that this name-calling started during the election when Sen. John McCain started calling then-Sen. Barack Obama a “socialist”. After that, his vice-presidential nominee, then-Gov. Sarah Palin, went to town and hasn’t let up. Now, this name calling has expanded to “liar” and has spread through the quarter of the country who still cling to the Republican Party brand out in the hustings. In fact, I’d say the Republican Party leadership in the guise of Mr. Steele the party chairman has joined in when he tries to compare Obama to Stalin and Kim Jong Il in a fundraising letter.

I believe deeply in free speech and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I wouldn’t stop these people from having their say. However, part of my belief in free speech comes from the Enlightenment ideals that underlie the First Amendment. In this case, it is the notion that free speech is good because “in the marketplace of ideas” the truth will contest with falsehood and that truth will win out eventually.

The problem today is that we’ve lost the marketplace of ideas. You would think that the internet and blogs would be perfect for such a thing, but it has not worked out that way. The reason it has not worked out that way is that the side that is calling these names just keeps shouting over everyone else and any attempt to examine these notions and compare and contrast to Obama’s record and speeches is drowned out.

The “logical” conclusion of this process is that those yelling have become more and more frustrated because they believe they have not been heard. The proof that they have not been heard, for them, is that the duly elected president of the United States who took office with a smashing majority continues in office.

Where does that leave those yelling? Well, it’s become more and more clear this week where it leaves them. It leaves them with a Facebook poll asking whether the president of the U.S. should be assassinated. It leaves NewsMax with a star columnist for the past decade raising the possibility of a military coup. It leads Orily Taitz to file frivolous lawsuits questioning President Obama’s birth certificate, despite all reason and evidence that leads us to believe he was born in the state of Hawaii to an American citizen and is therefore a natural born citizen eligible to serve in the White House. You would think that Obama had been selected by a fragile 5-4 voting elite rather than the people of the United States.

What seems most disconcerting of all is the way this loud minority has the swagger that comes from arming themselves to the teeth and if you think that’s just paranoia, look at the sales records for guns and ammo over the past year.

Then, there’s the problem of actual issues.

Again, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of a debate over competing ideas.

What, exactly, is the foreign policy stance of the Republican Party?

I raise this question as simply one issue to illustrate the point.

Clearly, the notion of the neoconservatives that the United States should use its economic and military power to overturn other governments and bring democracy to all nations by force has been shown to be a disappointing and expensive failure. It doesn’t work and has forced America to seek other policies. So, why is it still on the table? Why are we still talking about cowboy diplomacy? No part of the notions of American exceptionalism, no part of the idea of an American hegemony over the world, no part of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were anything but a multi-trillion dollar disaster. Why are the proponents of these ideas still on the Sunday talk shows? They’ve been thoroughly discredited by history and events and rejected by the American people.

On the other side of the aisle, it appears that Obama’s foreign policy is going to show some success. Iran, for example, seems to be isolated internationally and facing domestic problems that exceed its ability to handle. Doesn’t that seem better than what Bush was able to acheive in North Korea that got the bomb on his watch? Not only do I not understand why neocons still dominate the discussions on television and the newspapers, I don’t understand where the proponents of a rational foreign policy, even those critical of the president, can be found and heard. They don’t seem to show up on my television. There’s no marketplace of ideas if one of the main ideas has no marketplace.

Domestically, what is the Republican alternative?

There seems to be nothing about 47 million Americans going without insurance, fatally for about 18,000 yearly, that seems to bother them. They have no proposals for changing this state of facts. They don’t like what’s being proposed, I get that much, but I don’t really know why (other than “it’s socialist”) or what they think should be done other than nothing.

They don’t seem to like the bailout of the banks, but they started that while Bush was still in office and there did not seem to be any real alternative to a massive government intervention into the markets. Same for the auto companies. Was simply letting them fail, the paradigm capitalist response, really what they wanted?

For a party that was willing to spend a trillion dollars on a worthless war in Iraq, another trillion on drug prescription benefits and a third trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy, I find it hard to listen to them now complain about the budget deficit. Why is it OK to drive the budget another trillion dollars into debt to help the 3 million of the nation’s wealthy citizens OK but not OK to spend a trillion dollars to help 47 million of our poorest citizens get health care?

How does “drill, baby, drill” translate into an energy policy for the nation? Why does it have to be my own U.S. Senator, James Inhofe, who is the lone “credible” source in the world for the idea that there is no climate change problem? He believes it’s a “hoax”. However, in the marketplace of ideas, he has lost. The evidence is in. The votes are in. The scientific community has overwhelmingly responded. Sen. Inhofe is simply wrong, no matter how sincere his beliefs.

Part of today’s news is that a Democrat, on the floor of the House, accused the Republican Party of having a health care stance of “die early“. The GOP wants to somehow equate this to Joe Wilson calling the president a liar during a joint session of Congress. Stupid. Just stupid. No comparison, IMHO. Beyond that, however, is the question of what the Republican policy stance really is if it is not “die quickly.” In all the hubbub of “death panels”, what will they do about the 18,000 who die each year from lack of funding for medical treatment? How will the GOP rein in medical care costs that already account for 1/6th of the nation’s economy? Why are Americans paying the most in the world for health care only to get the 37th best health care? The problem for the Republicans, as I see it, is that it isn’t slander if it’s true. Before you convince me that saying “die early” is rude and off the charts, you’ve got to convince me that it’s an unfair characterization of your position presented in an inappropriate forum. It seems to me that a congressman speaking from the well of the House to other congressmen is precisely the time and place for such comments. It also seems to me that the appropriate response is to demonstrate how wrong the gentleman was in his conclusion. If the Republican stance is not “die early”, then what is it?

When we get to social issues, I’m even more at sea as to the Republican position. Is it OK to shoot abortion providers? Seems to be OK for lots of that 25% that back the TeaParty/Beck/Limbaugh faction.

What’s the Republican stance on equal rights for gays? Leviticus and homophobia? The LGBT community seems to be about 10% of the population. They are in the military and in pulpits. They work, pay taxes and love and vote and serve their communities in many ways. What part of that makes it OK to beat them up and deny them full citizenship? I simply don’t understand why the nation’s political policy must mirror the policy of the slave holding kings of ancient Judea. Nobody seems able to explain it to me.

What part of the so-called War on Drugs makes sense? We’ve tried it since Nixon in the 70s. It has not worked. It hasn’t worked on any level by any metric. It’s expensive in both public expenditure terms and even more expensive in personal terms for the 30% of Americans who would rather like to light up a blunt and find themselves facing jail time. Is there any reasonable person out there who can talk in a reasonable way about drug policy? Why is this not debateable? What person or persons can present rational arguments for continuing this failed policy? I don’t know who they are, I only know that hundreds of thousands of people with no expertise and no knowledge of the subject are driving another trillion dollar public expenditure for no observable purpose on strictly emotional arguments with no apparent substance.

How did we get to the place in which a very tiny minority, just a sliver of the 25%, got the power to ban books in school libraries and stop the presentation of President Obama’s address to schoolchildren in many school districts that regularly host political figures? I can make absolutely no sense of this. When did censorship become the right of the most vehement and vocal on one side of the political spectrum? How did a few, a very few, obtain the right to get a history textbook in Texas that contains both factual errors and serious omissions in order to bolster a political position?

Once upon a time, I understood the Republican Party, even if I disagreed. I could respect Republicans in my disagreement, even when I thought Nixon played dirty and that his “southern strategy” was ill-disguised racism. There were some principles at stake, even if I balanced the equities differently.

I understand the notion of limited government and balanced budgets and a sharp eye on bureaucrats even as I advocate greater government action to relieve domestic problems. I understand the idea of military strength sufficient to defend the nation against all external threats, even when I see the threats differently, as less dire.

These notions, however, no longer seem to be the driving intellectual force behind the GOP. In fact, these notions seem now to be the exclusive territory of the so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats.

The “truthers” on the left and the “birthers” on the right will, in some form or another, always be with us. Hell, even Col. Qaddafiya of Libya wants to get in on the JFK conspiracy theories. I don’t mind that. When you have 300 million people, some of them are going to be batshit crazy all over the political map.

What I don’t get is why they are treated as serious political views. What I don’t get is why the grownups in the room aren’t pushing back.

I urge you, my readers, and all 12 of you. Insist we ask Republican political leaders questions like: Do you believe Obama is a Nazi? Why?

I think we have to ask why we should listen to anyone lecture the nation about “Family Values” (there was just a convention of “family values voters” for the GOP) when all the leadership of that ilk turn out to be hypocrites of the worst order: Newt Gingrich having an affair while prosecuting Clinton’s impeachment and serving his dying wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital; Bill Bennett, who lecured us on virtue while running up millions in gambling losses; Ted Haggard, preaching God hates gays from one of the nation’s largest churches while pursuing a drug and paid gay escort secret life; U.S. Sens. David Vitter, John Ensign, Larry Craig, N.C. Gov. Mark Sanford, U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, all “values” politicians, all fallen on their own stiff dicks, uhm, swords.

Well, I guess the civil war is coming. Time to arm yourselves, my fellow members of the looney left. Get guns. Get big ones and lots of ammo. Oh, and get Kevlar vests and smoke bombs, too. Start making Molotov cocktails in your spare time. If there’s going to be a civil war, what the hell? Let’s take out a few toothless screamers.