Disneyland Republicans (Disneyland Democrats)

It should be stated once again because, apparently, some people seem not to know that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, and that the Democratic Party won the House of Representatives to give it a clear majority, and enough seats in the Senate to be one vote shy of being able to prevent a filibuster.

Those who seem not to know of these election outcomes are not foreigners living in other countries, but rather the Republicans in the House and Senate of the U.S. Congress. Just recently, all the Republicans in the House voted against President Obama's "Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act," popularly known as the "stimulus bill," and all but three Republicans voted against it in the Senate.

The Republicans are obsessed with having "talking points," so that members of the Party, such as talk show hosts, or political analysts, or media political commentators, can all be on the same page in their political discourse, and be able to exhibit a collective voice.

A slate of talking points were rolled out in response to the "stimulus bill" and why Republicans in Congress had overwhelmingly voted against it. And the talking points showed the Republicans in Congress functioning on the basis of fanciful thinking, or fantasies, which makes it possible to describe them as "Disneyland Republicans," a term which can also be applied to other Republicans.

The leaders of the Republicans in the House John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and the Party's leaders in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham, with other members of the Party echoing them, argued as a talking point, that the reason they did not vote for the bill was that it was not "genuinely bipartisan."

What did they mean by genuine bipartisanship? Nothing less than--as this and other talking points showed--the Democratic Party and the Republican Party functioning as equals to construct and pass laws, policies, and programs, and specifically, the "stimulus bill". This was clear, fanciful Disneyland thinking.

The reality of political party relationships in the Congress, or in state governments, or city governments, is that one party has won the election and is the majority party, and the other party has lost the election and is the minority party. The minority party is not equal to the majority party in these situations. And this is so obvious.

But it is not obvious to the Disneyland Republicans in the Congress, as reflected by other of their talking points: that the stimulus bill should have mainly been about tax cuts, or at least half of it should have been tax cuts, and the other half spending. This was the loser of the elections, the minority in the Congress, trying to determine how the stimulus bill was to be constructed.

President Obama had to remind Eric Cantor, when he had Republican Congressional leaders at the White House, that he had won the election, and that he, as well as the Democrats, had some prerogatives, even a mandate from the American people, to determine the legislative means to deal with the economic crisis.

The Republicans in Congress responded by coming forth with more talking points. They said that in saying that he had won the election, President Obama was showing that he was not interested in a genuine bipartisanship, that his talk of bipartisanship was only show, that his Party had the majority in Congress, and that he and the Democrats were going to do as they pleased regardless of what Republicans in Congress said.

These were talking points that pointed to the Republicans seeming not to know that they had lost the election, that they were the minority party in Congress and that they were not the equal of the majority party and did not have an equal voice in this bill construction, and were not entitled to it. To think otherwise was strictly fanciful, Disneyland thinking.

Senator John McCain weighed in on the situation, and he showed that it had not yet sunken in with him that he had lost the election to Obama. He argued that the stimulus bill should have been half spending and half tax cuts. This was coming from someone who had been the losing Presidential candidate, but who apparently thought he was equal to the winner, and even a "co-President." This was fanciful, Disneyland thinking.

But then again, Senator McCain also seemed to be operating from another political stance that seemed to feed into his fanciful thinking. He had always conceived bipartisanship as occurring on an individual basis: an individual from one party crossing the aisle to work with an individual from the other party to fashion a bill. This was what Senator McCain did with Senator Russ Feingold to produce a bill on public financing for Presidential elections.

But for McCain to conceive of himself and President Obama as being two individuals who were politically equal and who would work together to pass pieces of legislation, had to be predicated on fanciful thinking.

President Obama was not just an individual, he was the elected leader of the country. John McCain was a Senator representing a single state, Arizona, and its population. This was not an equal or co-equal situation, and with McCain assuming or believing that it was, showed him to be in the throes of fantasy.

Another talking point that the Disneyland Republicans in Congress came up with, and that was echoed by other Republicans, and especially their talk show supporters, was that the "stimulus bill" was not a jobs creating bill, and they matched that point by saying that government did not and could not create jobs.

The Disneyland character of this kind of talk was that the Republicans, as well as the Democrats in Congress, were in government-created jobs. And this would also be true of governors or mayors, Democrat or Republican.

As to the "Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act" not creating jobs. The first thing to be said, which the Disneyland Republicans and their following seem unable to say, is that this bill was constructed to SAVE as well as create jobs.

Saving jobs did not seem to be that important to them, but this, of course, would be important to people who were being threatened with the loss of their jobs.

But to argue that the government could not create jobs, that spending billions of dollars on infrastructure would not create jobs, and that in engaging in this kind of spending the government would not be creating jobs, was ludicrous on the face of it, and bespoke of a fanciful, Disneyland undergirding of thought.

What the Disneyland Republicans in the Congress were unable to perceive, since their thinking was so fanciful and unrelated to reality, was that they were now in the role of PARTICIPANT/CONTRIBUTOR in the Congress, and not in the role of being the DETERMINANT FACTOR, which belonged to the Democrats, the winning, majority party.

When President Obama sought to reach out to the Republicans, he did so on what should have been an understood assumption by the Republicans, and that should not have had to be spelled out to them: that they would be included as participant/contributors, and that this would be the basis of bipartisanship between the two parties.

The President believed and still does, that this could be the basis for significant bipartisanship in the government. But the Republicans in their fanciful, even delusional thinking, would not accept this conception of bipartisanship, as reflected in the demand that the "stimulus bill" be half theirs.

What would be the point of winning elections if the losing party was made equal to the winner, which would make it the winner, too? Now, that is so absurd it isn't funny, but the Disneyland Republicans were operating on the basis of this absurdity seeking to be determinant on legislation, rather than participant/contributors.

President Obama does not like the idea that the losing party cannot participate significantly in government as the losing minority party. If it is not able to, then it would also not be able to represent its large constituency, which has its legitimate concerns and needs, too; who are Americans after all, and who have a right to have some kind of representation and voice in their own government.

The President had the experience in the Illinois state legislature of being a member of a party that was frozen out by the majority party, making it impossible for his party to represent its large constituency in the state. He came to the U.S. Senate and found the Democrats excluded by the Republicans.

This President understands democracy to mean inclusion and not exclusion, so that the losing minority party has a functioning place in the government and the legislature process, but it has to be on the basis of the minority party accepting its role as a participant and contributor, and the President would say, as he has said, as a constructive contributor.

The Disneyland Republicans in the Congress are taking great pride in being defiant toward the President, and even OBSTRUCTIONISTS. This shows that they do not want to promote bipartisanship on any basis, except as equals, as determinants, and this is delusional and Disneyland.

It is also being dishonest and deceitful. And they exhibited this kind of behavior in another way, as revealed in one of their sanguine talking points. That talking point argued that tax cuts should have gone to small businesses, and even said that this should have comprised ninety percent of the tax cuts, because small businesses create most of the jobs in the country.

But this is Disneyland Republicans and other Republicans being dishonest and deceitful. This tax proposal is what they always come out with when they cannot promote their favorite tax program of giving big tax cuts to the rich and the economic corporations that they own or manage, as they did under George Bush, and Ronald Reagan before him - which, in the case of both Presidents, led to huge federal defecits and unbalanced budgets.

Another of the chief talking points of the Disneyland Republicans in Congress, as well as many other Republicans and their media supporters, was their argument that they functioned from conservative values and conservative principles. Thus, they were proud of being rigidly ideological. President Obama detests ideological politics, seeing them as narrow, promoting partisanship, exclusion, and also producing gridlock do-nothing politics, and do-nothing government.

For the President, ideology and ideological politics cannot and will not, be the basis for trying to build bipartisanship in Washington. One of the primary ideological tenets of the Disneyland Republicans, and which is one of their talking points, which they actually took from Ronald Reagan, was that "government was the problem, not the solution" to national issues.

President Obama rejected this view. The American voters rejected this view. Government can be helpful, or hurtful, which requires trying to use it in an intelligent manner. The Disneyland Republicans wanting the "Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act" to be all about, or mainly about cutting taxes, indicated that they had Reagan's view of government, and wanted the President and Democratic Party to accept it. It would have involved Disneyland thinking for them to do so.

President Obama turns to Abraham Lincoln for his views on government. Lincoln believed that it should be limited in ways it related to the economy, or the larger society, but it might be called upon to play an extensive role in relation to each.

With respect to the latter, Lincoln used the U.S. government to create a national banking system, to finish building a continental railroad, to subsidize war industries, to give land away in the West for settlers to take ownership of it and to farm it, and to establish land grant colleges to promote scientific farming and technical training.

It is not by coincidence that the Disneyland Republicans in Congress and other Republicans--as did the Republican Party Presidential candidates in their string of Presidential debates--associate the Republican Party with Ronald Reagan and not Abraham Lincoln. Who invokes the name of Lincoln? The Democrat Barack Obama!

There is one thing that really galls the Disneyland Republicans in Congress, and other Republicans, and that makes them feel disoriented or lost, and that makes them susceptible to fanciful thinking, and a Disneyland approach to politics. They had their conservatism stolen from them by Barack Obama during the Presidential campaign, and who still steals it from them as President.

The Republicans were totally caught off guard to hear a Democratic Presidential candidate stress American themes, talk strongly about patriotism, show strong religious beliefs, talk about religion having a relationship to politics, who favored faith-based initiatives, who stressed the family and family values, and who even talked favorably about the market economy, and who advocated strengthening the military.

What was left for the Republican Party after it lost the elections, and had so many of their conservative tenets taken from them? During the Presidential campaign Reublicans tried to combat Obama's usurpation by calling him an extreme liberal--"the most liberal politician in the Congress"--as it was phrased.

Obama definitely has liberal ideas. But he also has, as seen, conservative ideas, and he also, at times, thinks like a moderate. Obama is not an ABSOLUTIST EITHER-OR thinker, which says a person can hold only one set of political beliefs, political values, and engage in only one form of political behavior, either liberal, conservative, or moderate.

The Disneyland Republicans in Congress are absolutist either-or thinkers, and this is also true of many Democrats in Congress. The Disneyland Republicans are narrow conservatives, and many Democrats in the body are narrow liberals who do not want to work with or work significantly with Republicans. That makes them Disneyland Democrats.

President Obama has difficulty with both kinds of Disneyland politicians, because he is a HOLISTIC thinker, one who can hold multiple sets of political ideals, political values, and engage in multiple forms of political behavior: liberal, conservative, and moderate.

There has never been a President in the White House who thinks like this. Obama wants Representatives and Senators in Washington to think like he does, in a holistic manner, and not in an either-or manner, because it results in partisanship and gridlock in government.

When he ran for the White House Obama said he wanted to change the mind-set and the political culture of Washington. The mind-set is rigid either-or thinking that promotes narrow ideological thinking, and that in turn promotes partisan politics and its consequences. The political culture is rooted in this mind-set, which sustains it, and which militates against changing it.

The absolutist either-or mind-set is also found among political analysts and media political commentators, who, therefore, help to maintain the political culture in Washington, of which they are often too critical. Invariably, individuals in these two groups of analysts, view a politician as a liberal, or moderate, or conservative. It does not occur to them that a politician could or should hold multiple political views, and function from multiple political stances.

This is what they are still unable to understand about Barack Obama. Invariably, they refer to him as a liberal, and evaluate him from that perspective, and when he does not conform to what their analysis from that limited perspective says about him, or what he should be doing, they refer to him as "deviating," being "ambiguous," being "inconsistent," not being "truthful," or "forthcoming;"while ignoring other thoughts expressed in his views.

Even Obama's massive numbers of followers do not know that he is a holistic thinker and that he holds or is capable of holding multiple political ideals or beliefs, simultaneously, and is able to act on them all. Most of his followers can be described as liberal, and they regard Obama as a liberal. But he is not, although he does and can have liberal political beliefs and engage in liberal political behavior.

Obama wants to change the political mind-set in Washington from either-or, to holistic thinking. He wants politicians in government, whether it is Republicans or Democrats, to be able to hold multiple political beliefs or values, and be able to function in multiple political ways, as a matter of course. And he would like to see both do so at all levels of government.

This mind-set would automatically be oriented to bipartisan thinking and bipartisan politics, which would still have to occur within the framework of a winning political party, the majority party in government, and the losing minority party; and bipartisanship based on a majority as a determinant factor and a minority as a participant/contributor, preferably constructively.

This change would involve getting rid of the notion of the losing party as the "loyal opposition." It is loyal only to it's own ideals. Thus, this concept is based on either-or thinking and partisan politics and can promote obstruction, gridlock politics, and gridlock government.

Either-or political thinking and either-or partisan politics are the "Old Political Thinking" and the "Old Politics." President Obama wants New Political Thinking, which is Holistic Political Thinking, and a New Politics, which is Holistic Bipartisan Politics, based on a Majority-Determinant and Minority Participant/Contributor model.

President Obama cannot bring about the change he wants in the political mind-set, the politics, and the political culture in Washington D.C. alone, and still less alone at the state and local level. He needs help. And he has the basis for it.

This basis is his large political following, who he said he would call on for help once in office. What this constituency would have to do is to work themselves out of their own absolutist either-or method of thinking, and develop a holistic manner of thinking, and become convinced of the need for this country to produce politicians who can think and act this way.

The next thing for them to do would be the following: 1) Over the next four years to use their cell phones, the internet, and other communication devices to organize themselves nationally, statewide, and locally to be activists on this matter; 2) to establish the means -- lectures, op-ed columns, public forums, college or university teach-ins, radio or television talk show discussions, etc. - to draw the population of the country into a discussion about absolutist either-or and holistic thinking, and about the need to produce politicians who can think this way to be able to hold multiple political ideals or beliefs and engage in multiple forms of political behavior; 3) who could think of bipartisan politics in a holistic manner as a matter of course; 4) who would have a full understanding that bipartisanship politics takes place in government in the context of a winning party that is the majority party, and the determinant factor, and of a losing party that is the minority party and a participant/contributor, and preferably constructively; 5) that believes that democracy is about inclusion and not exclusion; 6) that a minority should have a significant voice in government and it's legislative processes, to be able to represent its constituency in a significant manner within the limited political framework.

If Democrats, Republicans, or Independents were sent to Washington with holistic mind-sets, this would establish this mind-set in Washington D.C., that would produce a political culture of the desired New Political Thinking and the New Politics, which would nourish and perpetuate both.

And all of this could also happen at the state and local level of government to make it national political thinking and politics and a national political culture. Political analysts and media political commentators have a role to play in these developments, and the President's national constituency should draw them into it them.