US Federal Government Shutdown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

In order for there to be true financial chaos, investors need to believe that it may be possible that the US will never pay them in full for their bond investments.

---

Oh, fair point, but from what mainstream economists and investors are saying, just denting the confidence in the USA's debt is having repercussions. This isn't strictly binary, where we flip from "everything's great" to "buy leather clothing and join a roving cannibal gang." Degradation has gradations.

By one set of calculations (Macroeconomic Advisors), the debt brinksmanship and uncertainty wrought by our Tea Party friends has already cost the USA ~3% of GDP growth since 2010, and added ~1.4% to unemployment.* Major investors are already shunning notes that come due in November and December (Bank of Japan is demanding a steep discount on all of those notes).

Money is a confidence game. Nobody in their right mind can dispute this. Damage the confidence, and you create trouble. It takes a sizable pair of brass balls to support the self-inflicted damage, and then declare that there is no damage.


*Note that Macroeconic Advisors' numbers were run before the latest shutdown. For estimates of damage from our current funtime adventure, see Goldman Sachs' Jan Hatzius, who estimates 2% GDP growth damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, fair point, but from what mainstream economists and investors are saying, just denting the confidence in the USA's debt is having repercussions. This isn't strictly binary, where we flip from "everything's great" to "buy leather clothing and join a roving cannibal gang." Degradation has gradations.

By one set of calculations (Macroeconomic Advisors), the debt brinksmanship and uncertainty wrought by our Tea Party friends has already cost the USA ~3% of GDP growth since 2010, and added ~1.4% to unemployment. Major investors are already shunning notes that come due in November and December (Bank of Japan is demanding a steep discount on all of those notes).

Money is a confidence game. Nobody in their right mind can dispute this. Damage the confidence, and you create trouble. It takes a sizable pair of brass balls to support the self-inflicted damage, and then declare that there is no damage.

---

I agree with this. If the 18th rolls around with no debt ceiling increase, there will be significant damage done to our reputation and, with every day that goes by, to the economy. As I said, we could easily plunge back into recession if the US misses SSA payments and other such things. However, there is something of an alarmist Financial Mad Max attitude going around which I think has the potential to undermine the Democrats position. If they try and make people believe that the entire system will come crashing down on the 18th, those that are most vocal disputing it (the Tea Party) will gain credibility. That's particularly so because even if there is a default it would likely be short-lived and resolved before the most serious impact began to take hold. That in itself would be good for the Tea Party, because the public would visibly see us go over the debt ceiling and the world not end. They would not understand that the only reason that the world didn't end was that we didn't go far enough over. Thus, they would be much more likely to support going far enough over in the future. That, to me, is dangerous because the Tea Party itself is dangerously wrong about the long-term impact of the problem, as demonstrated by ICSD's opinion about such a prolonged default. If that kind of mentality is given some credibility, the risk that a long-term default (or a repeat several months down the road) will occur increases. As such, I think it's important to be realistic about exactly what will happen here to make sure that the Dems are not accused of crying wolf after the fact. We need to emphasize to the American public that if they wake up on the 18th with no debt ceiling increase they shouldn't expect to see roving bands of marauders in the streets and half the world on fire. Life will go on as per normal for most people for at least a few days or weeks. It would only be after such a period that things would get increasingly worse. If people understand that, there's less of a risk that the obstructionists will get a credibility bounce that might itself cause the catastrophe that we want to avoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Looks like the first thing to fix is the education system.

---

Sounds like a Soviet plot, to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I agree with this. If the 18th rolls around with no debt ceiling increase, there will be significant damage done to our reputation and, with every day that goes by, to the economy. As I said, we could easily plunge back into recession if the US misses SSA payments and other such things. However, there is something of an alarmist Financial Mad Max attitude going around which I think has the potential to undermine the Democrats position. If they try and make people believe that the entire system will come crashing down on the 18th, those that are most vocal disputing it (the Tea Party) will gain credibility. That's particularly so because even if there is a default it would likely be short-lived and resolved before the most serious impact began to take hold. That in itself would be good for the Tea Party, because the public would visibly see us go over the debt ceiling and the world not end. They would not understand that the only reason that the world didn't end was that we didn't go far enough over. Thus, they would be much more likely to support going far enough over in the future. That, to me, is dangerous because the Tea Party itself is dangerously wrong about the long-term impact of the problem, as demonstrated by ICSD's opinion about such a prolonged default. If that kind of mentality is given some credibility, the risk that a long-term default (or a repeat several months down the road) will occur increases. As such, I think it's important to be realistic about exactly what will happen here to make sure that the Dems are not accused of crying wolf after the fact. We need to emphasize to the American public that if they wake up on the 18th with no debt ceiling increase they shouldn't expect to see roving bands of marauders in the streets and half the world on fire. Life will go on as per normal for most people for at least a few days or weeks. It would only be after such a period that things would get increasingly worse. If people understand that, there's less of a risk that the obstructionists will get a credibility bounce that might itself cause the catastrophe that we want to avoid.

---

Your responses have been well reasoned, non-alarmist and effectively apolitical which I respect.

With regards to my understanding of this situation, I am not an economics guy, I understand that. What I do seem to accept is that;
1.Deficit spending for Federal and, to some extent, State Governments is a good thing in most situations.
2.the debt ceiling is not the edge of the world but a guide sign well in advance of the edge of the world.
3.Our levels of deficit spending have reached unsustainable levels and our current spending is not being directed in a way that makes deficit spending a good thing in the first place; effective education and infrastructure development.
4. Our spending levels, low growth outlook, and entitlement culture, coupled with longer life expectancy make dramatic tax increases over time a guarantee

Recognition of these things makes me desire pulling us past this artificial ceiling as this would help us to constantly fail to increase it, until we are able to get our spending in order - to a more favorable ratio of deficit spending. It would give much more credit to the position that it will not be increased, so that more radical debt and budget cuts are required, to entitlements in particular. Medicare and social security ages should be spiked, with a means tested ladder to those who would be most harmed. Major cuts to education expenses with a major drive towards fewer teachers by radically increased use of technology. Dramatic shedding of redundant government jobs, as they are treated as a form of entitlement. We can have a bloody revolution, or we can have a financial one, but there is nothing healthy about our national situation. We are at the point where people are breaking. Sacrifice of the GOP is worth it to force a major overhaul.

I'm not afraid of being called an idiot. When I smell bullshit I don't have to be a scientist to call it out. This is a representative democratic republic. We elect those who represent us, they are not appointed based on how intelligent other intelligent people think they are. The world will not end if the central planners in our politburo back up a bit and cut some of the reigns is my point. Damage to trust in the system, proximity to the debt ceiling with stoic realizations about it's artificial nature may have helped us for next time or it may have shrunk the GOP in the house. It remains to be seen until the midterms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

There's a place for anti-spending policy in the mainstream, just not in a way the far right wants.

---

Of course not. The last time spending was the way they dream of it was in the 1950s, at the height of our "we have the only industries left in the world" phase and the Medicare, Medicaid, federal welfare programs did not exist. Prior to that, the last time it was roughly that way was during the 1920s, when isolationism ruled and military spending was about 1% of GDP and there was no social security.

Truly putting our spending house in order would require far more than tweaking -- or even defunding -- the ACA.

The "deal" has passed the senate. We know why Mitch McConnell supported it- they gave him 2,918,000,000 good reasons.

Just of out interest there has obviously been a lot of polling lately about the shutdown and some which purport to show what the House could look like thanks to this. Usually I don't put much stock in generic ballot questions (for a variety of reasons) but I found this interesting, particularly given the discussion of incumbency that we had here the other day:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/...cism-persists/

The grim public mood is reflected in the record share of voters who want most members of Congress defeated in next year’s midterm elections. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of registered voters would like to see most members of Congress defeated; during the 2010 and 2006 election cycles, which both culminated in shifts in control of the House, no more than 57% in each of these two cycles wanted most members of Congress not to be reelected.

Moreover, the share saying they do not want their own representative reelected – 38% – is as high as it has been in two decades. At this stage in the 2010 and 2006 midterms, fewer wanted to see their own member of Congress defeated (29% in November 2009, 25% in September 2005).

That is just absolutely unprecedented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Just of out interest there has obviously been a lot of polling lately about the shutdown and some which purport to show what the House could look like thanks to this. Usually I don't put much stock in generic ballot questions (for a variety of reasons) but I found this interesting, particularly given the discussion of incumbency that we had here the other day:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/...cism-persists/

The grim public mood is reflected in the record share of voters who want most members of Congress defeated in next year’s midterm elections. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of registered voters would like to see most members of Congress defeated; during the 2010 and 2006 election cycles, which both culminated in shifts in control of the House, no more than 57% in each of these two cycles wanted most members of Congress not to be reelected.

Moreover, the share saying they do not want their own representative reelected – 38% – is as high as it has been in two decades. At this stage in the 2010 and 2006 midterms, fewer wanted to see their own member of Congress defeated (29% in November 2009, 25% in September 2005).

That is just absolutely unprecedented.

---

Yes, we might see one of the biggest "out with the incumbents" efforts in recent memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yes, we might see one of the biggest "out with the incumbents" efforts in recent memory.

---

And I will remain skeptical until the ballots are counted.

Here is the real problem, or part of it at any rate:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151899681508984


I keep telling you that you can't blame on party. Maybe there are others who think the same...

You can blame it on one party because there is only one party pretending to be two parties.

The other problem is that people don't like change. They prefer the corrupt politicians they have over an insecure future, which is true here as well.

Republicans really blew it on this one. It is probably time to replace Boehner. His speakership has resulted in weakness without trade-off. I'm not sure what he is doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yes, we might see one of the biggest "out with the incumbents" efforts in recent memory.

---

I've voted for my House Rep (a Dem) several times, basically on auto-pilot. Next time I'm going to be carefully reading the platforms of his primary challengers. If any of them campaigns on being moderate and reaching across the isle to make deals with the Republicans, that person will get my vote in the primary. If the Dem candidate doesn't hold that view, but by some miracle the Republican does, I will vote for the Republican. My voting priorities are now as follows: First, don't be a bigot. Second, act like an adult and compromise. Everything else is irrelevant as far as my vote goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You can blame it on one party because there is only one party pretending to be two parties.

The other problem is that people don't like change. They prefer the corrupt politicians they have over an insecure future, which is true here as well.

---

That is about the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I've voted for my House Rep (a Dem) several times, basically on auto-pilot. Next time I'm going to be carefully reading the platforms of his primary challengers. If any of them campaigns on being moderate and reaching across the isle to make deals with the Republicans, that person will get my vote in the primary. If the Dem candidate doesn't hold that view, but by some miracle the Republican does, I will vote for the Republican. My voting priorities are now as follows: First, don't be a bigot. Second, act like an adult and compromise. Everything else is irrelevant as far as my vote goes.

---

Wise! But that assumes they will do what they say they will, which is uncommon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I've voted for my House Rep (a Dem) several times, basically on auto-pilot....

---

You are not alone. Far from it.

You new methodology is a good one. I hope others emulate it.

Sadly, ACIN's skepticism is well-founded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Here is the real problem, or part of it at any rate:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151899681508984


I keep telling you that you can't blame on party. Maybe there are others who think the same...

---

He sounds kind of confused, actually, lumping a whole bunch of disparate phenomena under "extraction."

Also, at this point I am really done with tu quoque and "both sides do it" arguments. I call bullhockey.

Yes, all politicians are liars, but some lie more frequently and stupidly than others. Yes, political parties are amoral, but some are more nihilist than others.

The US debt is eminently fixable, if people would stop being such hysterics about it. Check GDP-to-debt ratio, and then try to tell me that we're becoming Greece. Our numbers look good. If Ayn Rand fanatics such as Paul Ryan would stop destroying all attempts at a compromise, we could make some serious steps toward fixing the balance sheet. Pretty much instantly.

(BTW, did you know that the deficit has been falling rapidly anyway? You sure wouldn't know that if you listedn to red-faced McPanicmonkey on MSNBC.)

https://i.imgur.com/xXT0KSu.png

The other forms of "extraction" Sir Rants-a-lot describes are harder to address, because there are big-money interests that would have to have toes stepped on. But here's a helpful thought: don't lump four or five completely different financial phenomena into an unclear term such as "extraction." And shouting does not make you more convincing.

Right wing radio is commenting on yesterday's "kick the can a bit" deal as a total cave-in surrender/victory for Obama. Callers seem to be in favor of punishing any GOP rep or Senator who voted yes for the deal.

I myself think that George Will had it right. Valid tactic, but only effective with buy-in from the public supporting the "underdog" on what they believe is a worthy cause. In other words, had the GOP made it about cutting spending and paying down the debt on a fight over the debt limit, they might have been able to sell it and garner support. Over the ACA, they didn't have a chance.

This should, in my estimate, yield a more staunchly TEA/Social Conservative GOP after the next couple of elections. Fair chance of them being a minority party at the same time though.

However, a year in politics is a long time. Craziness with the ACA or unknown events moths ahead could alter this political landscape entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

This should, in my estimate, yield a more staunchly TEA/Social Conservative GOP after the next couple of elections.

---

Serious question: Why is it that whenever a Republican suffers any sort of defeat, supporters reflexively go for "he/she wasn't ideologically pure enough"? I ask because it's such a one-sided phenomenon. I don't hear my Dem friends say that when a Dem gets KO'ed. They talk circumstances, mistakes the guy made, things the opposition got right, etc. But they don't immediately say, "He wasn't a pure enough Democrat, we need more ideology next time!"

It's a striking discrepancy between the two parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Serious question: Why is it that whenever a Republican suffers any sort of defeat, supporters reflexively go for "he/she wasn't ideologically pure enough"?

It's a striking discrepancy between the two parties.

---

You're dealing with people who's basic plan seems to be:

• Stand at your window at night and say 'I believe'
• Magic spirit thingy will come and take you away
• To a Neverland without government, without adults, without laws, without taxes, without responsibility, and without restrictions of any kind on your personal freedom.

... So when the spirit fails to magically appear the only conclusion can possibly be that you're not a true believer. They know their story, it's the only explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I've voted for my House Rep (a Dem) several times, basically on auto-pilot. Next time I'm going to be carefully reading the platforms of his primary challengers. If any of them campaigns on being moderate and reaching across the isle to make deals with the Republicans, that person will get my vote in the primary. If the Dem candidate doesn't hold that view, but by some miracle the Republican does, I will vote for the Republican. My voting priorities are now as follows: First, don't be a bigot. Second, act like an adult and compromise. Everything else is irrelevant as far as my vote goes.

---

As a Virginian, you should be using the open primary system to moderate the Republican candidates. Try to get a moderate GOPer nominated, then vote as you see fit in November.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

As a Virginian, you should be using the open primary system to moderate the Republican candidates. Try to get a moderate GOPer nominated, then vote as you see fit in November.

---

For a moment there, I read it as "Varangian" and I was like... WHERE DO I SIGN UP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Serious question: Why is it that whenever a Republican suffers any sort of defeat, supporters reflexively go for "he/she wasn't ideologically pure enough"? I ask because it's such a one-sided phenomenon. I don't hear my Dem friends say that when a Dem gets KO'ed. They talk circumstances, mistakes the guy made, things the opposition got right, etc. But they don't immediately say, "He wasn't a pure enough Democrat, we need more ideology next time!"

It's a striking discrepancy between the two parties.

---

A good comment and a valid question.

If you listen to right wing radio, as I do, you hear quite a number of folks who take such a stance on conservatism. I have heard Limbaugh say that a failing of most GOP candidates for President, recently, is that they were not conservative enough. Limbaugh, along with many others on the US political right, are convinced that, whether outspoken about it or not, a solid majority of people are motivated by and support the core values of conservatism and that a politician courageous enough to ignore the media and evoke that inner strength will not only win the election but embody a powerful mandate for leadership.

So, for many of them, the short term goal is to precipitate a crisis that either a) forces the opposition (Dems) to cave, allowing more conservative policies to flower (and with that success brings more conservatives to the fore within the GOP), or b) is defeated but shows who is really championing the conservative cause, thus convincing voters in districts with RINO (Republican in Name Only -- since only an out and out conservative is a "true" Republican) representatives to replace them with dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and transform the party. They are, though they do not state this in so many words often, perfectly willing for that party to be a minority party, at least in the short term, since they KNOW that Americans are, at heart, mostly conservative and that their views will therefore eventually win out.

Many of them haven't embraced the fact that only about 20-25% of Americans are conservatives by their definition, and that the middle 50% of the population (mugwumps) has any number of conservative values but does NOT embrace the whole panoply of Ayn Randian conservatism. The mugwumps want to pick and choose which combo of values to support and often very purposefully do not want to embrace anything that is extreme in either direction. Over the last 20 years, there actually seems to be a groundswell in favor of some of the social-democratic policies associated with Europe, which would run counter to the TEA orthodoxy beliefs. Again, the TEA crowd are failing to account for the middle blob of the population's preference for a mixed strategy and an acceptance of the primacy of the federal government (even though most in this group still want a number of limitations ON that government).

Instead, the right tends to dismiss the moderates as cowards, waiting for what appears to be a majority opinion to form and then jumping on the bandwagon. The right also believes this makes them susceptible to media agenda-setting, hence their constant vitriol for the politically "left" tone of much of the mainstream media.

Just how they reconcile in their minds the view that moderates are both "most people are conservative at heart" and "indecisive and easily lead by peer pressure" is beyond me. I have yet to hear an articulate reconciliation of both trends.


I myself am a conservative -- particularly on economics and the role of the federal government. I am less so, marginally, on "social" issues and national defense/our role as the world's police officer. I would like to see the federal government curtailed a good bit, more power put back in the hands of the states, and taxation taken out of the hands of the feds and placed in the hands of my state and local officials -- as these politicians have, historically, been somewhat easier to unseat as incumbents and more of a part of their communities rather than closeted inside the DC beltway for most of the year.

For all of that, I simply don't get why the TEA crowd will not accept facts and adopt a policy that addresses and seeks to change the situation facing them -- as opposed to the current strategy of denying those facts, shouting their own position even louder and somehow assuming that stridency will work more effectively that careful efforts at attitude change. The comm scholar in me goggles at this.

Oh well, I needed to vent that a bit. Thanks for your patience all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Many of them haven't embraced the fact that only about 20-25% of Americans are conservatives by their definition, and that the middle 50% of the population (mugwumps) has any number of conservative values but does NOT embrace the whole panoply of Ayn Randian conservatism. The mugwumps want to pick and choose which combo of values to support and often very purposefully do not want to embrace anything that is extreme in either direction. Over the last 20 years, there actually seems to be a groundswell in favor of some of the social-democratic policies associated with Europe, which would run counter to the TEA orthodoxy beliefs. Again, the TEA crowd are failing to account for the middle blob of the population's preference for a mixed strategy and an acceptance of the primacy of the federal government (even though most in this group still want a number of limitations ON that government).

---

A question from an outsider. Why is "Tea" acronymic here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yes, we might see one of the biggest "out with the incumbents" efforts in recent memory.

---

Would Lemur be interested in taking part though? He sounds rather fond of his congressman.

TEA, Taxed Enough Already

Kinda funny because they dont seem to care much about the amount of tax but that its a black democrat collecting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Serious question: Why is it that whenever a Republican suffers any sort of defeat, supporters reflexively go for "he/she wasn't ideologically pure enough"? I ask because it's such a one-sided phenomenon. I don't hear my Dem friends say that when a Dem gets KO'ed. They talk circumstances, mistakes the guy made, things the opposition got right, etc. But they don't immediately say, "He wasn't a pure enough Democrat, we need more ideology next time!"

It's a striking discrepancy between the two parties.

---

Echo chamber. At some point did a large chunk of Republicans lose touch with reality (Romney was going to win big remember?) and because they stay in the chamber, they can't see the actual reasons, only the propaganda. Take Jeffrey Dorfman from the Forbes article. He has no freaking idea on what the department of commerce/energy does, and didn't bother to check. But since he doesn't like commerce regulations and presumably green energy, he wants them gone.

It's emotionally driven, as in the emotions comes first and everthing else is an after rationalisation. As in if reality doesn't match my emotions, then reality must be wrong.

Seamus, since you have better check on this than me, any idea on why the "true believers" has gotten the feeling that something is very wrong in the US? Is it something simple as changes running past them or catched up to them? Or something else?

It started before Obama (even if it's certainly peaking here), probably even before Bush. One reason is probably increasing disparity of wealth and that most Americans doesn't get wealthier anymore.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

TEA, Taxed Enough Already

Kinda funny because they dont seem to care much about the amount of tax but that its a black democrat collecting them.

---

Or that rising them from the lowest levels in 50 years in one big reason on why it starts to finally approaching a balanced budget. Or that Obama has been quite cutting in the goverment expenses, it's the stimulus packages and low tax income that caused the huge budget deficit.

Also, it it your Paul Ryan that will be leading the Republican side in getting a unified budget, Lemur? :sweatdrop:

When they lynch Ted Cruz, can anyone come along or do we have to buy tickets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I needed to vent that a bit. Thanks for your patience all.

---

Why apologize? I thought your reasoning and explanation was really solid, and I appreciate you taking the time to put your thoughts together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Also, it it your Paul Ryan that will be leading the Republican side in getting a unified budget, Lemur? :sweatdrop:

---

Well, if history is any guide, my representative won't get 100% of everything he wants, so he will reluctantly be forced to burn the house down.

This is pretty much how I see my congresscriter:

http://youtu.be/9AEUIHBoudU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

TEA, Taxed Enough Already

Kinda funny because they dont seem to care much about the amount of tax but that its a black democrat collecting them.

---

Unkind and untrue. The large majority of tea-party types simply don't give a damn about the man's race(s). The fact that he is a big-government type actively seeking to create another government entitlement that must be funded is more than enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The fact that he is a big-government type actively seeking to create another government entitlement that must be funded is more than enough.

---

If that's the case, why don't they get worked up about the Iraq war, which was approx. ~$2 trillion, 100% funded by debt? Medicare Part D? Ronald Reagan's socialization of the US healthcare system? The PATRIOT Act?

As an outsider, their outrage seems extremely selective. So it's not unreasonable for non-tea-partiers to look at the rage and fear, and say, "Maybe something else is driving this?"

Here's an essay that I found thought-provoking:

In trying to understand the far-right mindset – which accounts for around a quarter of the country – I think you have to zoom out and see all of this in context. [...]

[Y]ou cannot understand the current GOP without also grasping how bewildered so many people are by the dizzying onset of modernity. The 21st Century has brought Islamist war to America, the worst recession since the 1930s, a debt-ridden federal government, a majority-minority future, gay marriage, universal healthcare and legal weed. If you were still seething from the eruption of the 1960s, and thought that Reagan had ended all that, then the resilience of a pluralistic, multi-racial, fast-miscegenating, post-gay America, whose president looks like the future, not the past, you would indeed, at this point, be in a world-class, meshugganah, cultural panic. [...]

What the understandably beleaguered citizens of this new modern order want is a pristine variety of America that feels like the one they grew up in. They want truths that ring without any timbre of doubt. They want root-and-branch reform – to the days of the American Revolution. And they want all of this as a pre-packaged ideology, preferably aligned with re-written American history, and reiterated as a theater of comfort and nostalgia. They want their presidents white and their budget balanced now. That balancing it now would tip the whole world into a second depression sounds like elite cant to them; that America is, as a matter of fact, a coffee-colored country – and stronger for it – does not remove their desire for it not to be so; indeed it intensifies their futile effort to stop immigration reform. And given the apocalyptic nature of their view of what is going on, it is only natural that they would seek a totalist, radical, revolutionary halt to all of it, even if it creates economic chaos, even if it destroys millions of jobs, even though it keeps millions in immigration limbo, even if it means an unprecedented default on the debt.

This is a religion – but a particularly modern, extreme and unthinking fundamentalist religion. And such a form of religion is the antithesis of the mainline Protestantism that once dominated the Republican party as well, to a lesser extent, the Democratic party. [...]

[A]s religious organizations grow powerful and complacent, and their adherents do likewise, they make themselves vulnerable to challenges from upstart sects that “impose significant costs in terms of sacrifice and even stigma upon their members.” For insurgent groups, fervor and discipline are their own rewards.

Right now, the Republican Party is an object of contempt to many on the far right, whose adamant convictions threaten what they perceive as Republican complacency. The Tea Party is akin to a rowdy evangelical storefront beckoning down the road from the staid Episcopal cathedral. Writing of insurgent congregations, Finke and Stark said that “sectarian members are either in or out; they must follow the demands of the group or withdraw. The ‘seductive middle ground’ is lost.”