Analysis of the Sonia Sotomayor factor in the November 2010 midterm elections.

Politico recently noticed that every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination who isn’t currently holding office and isn’t named Mitt Romney is now a paid contributor to Fox News. Paul Krugman has an interesting take on this development

It’s been nearly 35 years since we’ve had a “tax and spend” political party. During the 1970s, the Democrats gave up fighting the Republicans about the “tax and spend” label, and the Carter Administration tried to escape from that charge by making very serious attempts to balance the budget. During the 1980s, more and more Democrats emphasized their concern for reducing deficits and balancing budgets as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Reagan Administration’s unprecedented peacetime deficits. This didn’t work for them during Reagan’s time, but they finally were able to use the balanced budget old-time religion game to get George Bush to violate his no new taxes pledge, which both contributed to the Bush recession and, as a further consequence, was a big reason why Bill Clinton was elected.

There seems to be a growing sense of buyer’s remorse among both members of the Tea Party Movement and Republican Party regulars surrounding the primary win of Christine O’Donnell. Buyer’s remorse is a condition that arises after people have bought something or bought into something with a feeling of personal comfort that then disappears after the purchase. The buyer is then left with a sense of remorse over having made the purchase in the first place. Questions surrounding O’Donnell’s ability to get elected and her past personal history have caught the attention of prominent Republicans like the head of the Delaware GOP, Tom Ross, Karl Rove, or Congressman Mike Pence, (R-IN).

In two previous articles, “Maintain Tax Cuts for the Rich? Americans Don’t Seem to Buy the Conservative Argument” and the “Efficacy of Tax Cuts Is now Questioned” I laid out two basic premises. One was that a majority of the American people did not buy into the conservative argument that tax cuts had to be maintained for the richest among us. The second was that the use of tax cuts in this type of economic downturn had been called into question by some very prominent economists and that those same economists just happen to be on the right side of the political spectrum.

The majority of U.S. voters want to see most elected representatives in Congress defeated because they favor special interests over voters’ interests. But, voters face enormous obstacles in replacing the nation’s lawmakers with representatives untainted by special interest money and influence. These obstacles are the result of the electoral monopoly of the two major political parties, the gerrymandering of electoral districts, unfair federal and state election laws, and special interest-inspired campaign finance laws that favor private over public financing of elections. The recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC exacerbates the influence of these factors.

These obstacles make the large majority of seats in Congress “safe seats”. Incumbents and first time candidates running on the Democratic and Republican tickets with special interest financing have virtually insurmountable advantages over candidates running against them without major party support, or special interest financing. Top-down manipulation of elections is the result. Since voter dissatisfaction can’t be expressed through the dominant parties, grievances accumulate over time in feelings of frustration, anger and alienation.

The electorate’s dissatisfaction with the nation’s lawmakers has reached a critical stage. A majority of U.S. voters want to see most elected representatives in Congress defeated because they favor special interests over voters’ interests. Unfortunately, legal obstacles erected by the two major parties prevent voters from replacing most of these representatives unless they use the revolutionary self-organizing tools described in this series to work around them.

These obstacles range from federal and state election laws to campaign finance laws and Supreme Court decisions that favor private over public funding of elections. Voters can’t change these laws within the foreseeable future. But they can circumvent them at the Congressional election district level. The web savvy 125 million voters who use the Internet to influence the outcome of the 2008 elections can use new web technologies to leverage the collective action power of the Internet and elect a majority of Congressional representatives untainted by special interests in 2012.

Might Barack Obama and the Democratic Party he leads feel more comfortable with the Republican politicians who regularly oppose his programs? Do powerful Democrats and Republicans have common interests which draw them together? Do they have a common enemy? If the work of Walter Karp has any value today, if it provides the framework within which we may productively assess the politics of the moment, then we may wish to answer yes to each of these questions.

The common enemy of the two major parties: It is the citizens of the United States.

Americans to some degree and particularly those on the Right are now beset by a true conundrum. Is Barack Obama a Christian or a Muslim? According to the latest Pew Research polling: “nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama’s religion is.” Well, it’s no wonder people are so confused, especially when two of the most prominent talking heads on the far right differ as to what is the actual religion of the President. If Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren’t on the same page on this, how can we expect the lowliest schlep to know what’s real and as opposed to contrived?

Tax policy and tax cuts in particular are elements central to the Republican Party’s economic philosophy. Republicans have made tax cuts one of their primary tools for fighting the Great Recession and returning America to prosperity. When advocating cuts, many on the Right have waxed nostalgic for the Reagan era tax cuts and their supposed economic benefits. The “record” of those cuts is held up as a justification for extending the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date and likewise for cutting taxes generally. All of this as an ideological counterpoint to what the Obama Administration has done in addressing the current downturn. Thus when economists who describe themselves as free market advocates, Libertarians, Republicans and even conservatives call extending the Bush era tax cuts into question one can only take note and inquire further as to why those whom we would expect to endorse tax cuts count themselves among the opposition.