On this day in 1725, the great political radical John Wilkes was born. At that time, a radical believed in things like democracy. Also of note, he supported the American rebels. But as he got older, he became conservative. I think of him as the 18th century version of Christopher Hitchens.

Actor Irene Ryan was born in 1902. She is best known for playing Granny in The Beverly Hillbillies. However, I know her best as Berthe in the original cast of Pippin. Unfortunately, the only version of her doing “No Time at All” is not available for embedding. (Why do people do that?!) You can listen to it on YouTube, but it is not even the version that is on the original cast album. She was an interesting woman and a fine actor.

Other birthdays: actor Jean Arthur (1990); actor Rita Hayworth (1918); poet George Mackay Brown (1921); creepy stuntman Evel Knievel (1938); film and theater director Rob Marshall (53); comedian Norm Macdonald (50); and actor Matthew Macfadyen (39).

The day, however, belongs to the great playwright Arthur Miller who was born on this day in 1915. He is best known for All My Sons, The Crucible, and Death of a Salesman. That last one will likely be remembered as the best play of the 20th century. It is an amazing play. And it seems to be performed as much now as ever. That makes sense because it is more relevant than ever. In fact, now, Willy Loman seems like an especially tragic character because his delusion about the economic system he finds himself in is so rare. Most people I know take it for granted that hard work and intelligence will not guarantee even a modicum of success. We have become a nation of many cynical Biff Lomans and a small number (1%?!) of self-impressed Howard Wagners. Here is Dustin Hoffman as Willy and a very young Jon Polito as Howard in a film version of the play. I especially love the bit about the tape recorder. You don’t even need the rest of the scene or even the play. In that couple of minutes you know everything you need to know about America. There are people who can afford the latest gadgets but they can’t afford to support the men who made them rich. “You can’t eat the orange and throw the peel away—a man is not a piece of fruit.” But Willy is wrong. A man is a piece of fruit in our society.

Of course, Miller was far more than Death of a Salesman. For one thing, he created a massive body of work that went well beyond the theater. I especially like his essays. He was a very insightful guy. He was also very liberal as well as being an atheist.

Happy birthday Arthur Miller.

This morning, Ed Kilgore asks, What Lesson Was Learned? It follows off an article by Ross Douthat, A Teachable Moment. But as Kilgore notes, the only lessons that Douthat thinks the Republicans should have learned from the shutdown debacle is that they should use better political tactics.

Kilgore notes, “I’m beginning to get the sense that the more loudly a conservative denounces the tactics of the fiscal fight as idiotic, the more he or she can be counted on to insist on agreeing with the ideology that motivated the idiocy in the first place.” Well, right. I’ve been saying this for a long time. The difference between the extreme and mainstream Republicans is entirely one of tone, not of ideology. If a bunch of people all agree on certain policies, there will of course be varying opinions about how best to get those policies enacted. So as long as all the Republicans continue their quixotic quest to roll back the New Deal, there will be members who think it is so important that we ought to destroy the economy to do it.

Eric Cantor gave a speech that nicely sums this up:

So that is the problem with the Republican Party. It has almost no ideological diversity. That’s why they all argue about tactics. They can’t question what others believe, so they are left only with how much others believe. Do you want to repeal Obamacare enough to shut down the government? How about force a government default? What about assassination?

All of this leads me to the same place I’ve been for a while. The Republican Party must be defeated at the polls again and again. They must be crushed to such an extent that the party is either destroyed (allowing the Democratic Party to break in half) or taken over by traditional conservatives who want to keep things as they are now, not bring them back to the way they were in 1860.

I beg of you: vote next year! The date is 4 November 2014. Mark it down!

I find this oddly comforting. My triumphs (learning to walk, etc.), my colossal failures (let’s not get into that right now), all my hopes and dreams — pretty much everything that keeps me awake at night — are insignificant. No need to worry about nothing.

On yet another circuitous route to a point of interest I have yet to find, I found a truly useful martyr. Personally, I’d rather not have him forever suffering and relentlessly judging me as I sew together some little trifle to brighten up a chair, but I’m weird that way.

But it gets even better! If you order this amusing bit of trivialized Christian lore today, you’ll pay full price and I won’t get a commission of any kind.

Watching the video below was one of the most frustrating things I have ever done. It is a clip of Sam Seder on the Majority Report talking to a libertarian. It is not the first time I have seen Seder talk with a libertarian. Like me, he finds libertarians endlessly fascinating. But for some reason, it seems only idiot libertarians call him. Or maybe it is just that most libertarians are idiots. I don’t know for sure, but I’m afraid that it is the latter. This isn’t to say that there aren’t brilliant libertarians. Just read Reason Magazine and you’ll find very smart writers. But as a group, I think they are a dim lot.

In another video, a libertarian claimed that it would be okay to have slavery if the people voted for it. I don’t think it would have been hard to explain to the guy what the problem is. By his theory, the 60% white residents of Georgia could re-enslave the 30% black residents and it would be just fine by the principled libertarian.

This video features a different kind of libertarian. But I’m not really sure what kind. He seems like he is mentally challenged but he’s absolutely certain that he’s the smartest guy in the room. And there is a kind of deluded brilliance to his evasions. Basically, the whole clip is him challenging Seder with some question like, “Name a time when regulation worked?” Seder replies that the Clear Water Act has provided the nation with safe drinking water. The guy then responds that Seder is giving him a specific example, which is, of course, what the guy asked for in the first place. Then he says, “But we’re getting side tracked with what you want to talk about.” So Seder (who has far more patience than I have ever had) graciously asks the guy what he wants to talk about. And the process repeats.

The whole thing does provide a nice window into the libertarian mind. The caller has clearly worked out a perfect libertarian world in his mind. But when that world peaks out into the world, it falls apart. This doesn’t happen on the policy level. It happens when the ideas are even expressed to someone who knows anything about real world economics. For example, this guy admits that there was a lot of regulation in the 1950s and that we had strong economic growth. But that doesn’t prove anything because he just knows if there hadn’t been regulation the economy would have grown faster. Because nothing can compete to the perfection that exists inside his mind.

It’s also interesting that such people don’t understand how economies work. For example, given that the economy is depressed, passing a bunch of laws that made power plants run cleaner would actually improve the economy because it would force the private sector to use some of its idle money to employ people to update their plants. If the economy were booming, passing such laws might hurt the economy. But in the libertarian mind, new regulation will always hurt the economy because they just define regulation as hurting the economy. It’s brain dead economics.

Regardless, most people will find this video very funny. It drove me crazy. But it is a good example of what we are up against.

I haven’t enjoyed a Republican this much for a long time. In the video below, Alex Castellanos tries to explain Ted Cruz to Anderson Cooper. It has something to do with the snowshoe hare, which apparently has such a good time fucking (TV safe: bunny sex) that it creates a population explosion. I think what Castellanos is getting at is that Ted Cruz is having such fun basking in the limelight that he doesn’t care if his behavior destroys his tribe. It’s a reasonable analogy I think—especially coming from a Republican.

What’s great about it is that Anderson Cooper does not deal well with it. He is obviously very uncomfortable. It goes right along with my general opinion of such media personalities (eg Rachel Maddow) that they are little scouts who have lived very sheltered and boring lives. I mean, what’s the problem with talking about animals having sex? This is part of the problem with trying to make all media “kid friendly.” It turns our whole society into a bunch of children who can’t discuss the world as it actually is.

This is about 4 minutes long, but it is quite amusing. Watching Anderson Cooper squirm is delicious:

Gregory Koger at Washington Monthly alerted me to the fact that conservatives might be deficit hypocrites. That’s sarcasm; of course they’re hypocrites. We all are to one extent or another. But it does seem that conservatives rate a lot higher on the scale.

DePaul University political scientist Wayne Steger decided to do a little study. He looked at the National Review over the last two decades and measured how often certain words and phrases were used. And what do you know: when Democrats are in the White House, the budget deficit is much more important to them. The best example of this is the use of the phrase “balanced budget” since 1994. Here we go:

I can’t say for sure, but it looks like the National Review wasn’t much interested in a balanced budget when Bush I was in office. But its interest went steadily up during Clinton’s term, until, you know, he actually balanced the budget. But okay, maybe that’s just an indication of the fact that there was a lot of interest and excitement about balancing the budget at that time.

The problem with this theory is that once Bush II gets into office and the budget deficit comes back and gets worse and worse, the National Review shows no interest in it at all. Even in 2008, when the financial crisis causes the budget deficit to explode, our conservative friends find it of no interest whatsoever. It is only once a Democrat is back in the White House that their interest goes up. And as the deficit has gone down year after year, their interest in a “balanced budget” has only grown.

Do we liberals do this? Of course! But I find it highly unlikely that such gross partisanship could be found in The Nation. The conservative intellectual establishment has been reduced to little more than a cabal of partisan hacks.

If I could be anywhere later tonight, it would be out drinking with John Boehner after the vote. It’s congenital: I’d always rather hang out with the losers. But in his case, there would be special benefits. First, I would ask him about the tanning. Look: it’s just us. The color is kind of weird. I’m just saying. I admit it: I’m a bit too focused on his tanning habits. Second, I would ask him about what went wrong in the government shutdown battle. I think I would say something like this, “I never wanted the fucking shutdown in the first place!” In my fantasy bar scene, Boehner is foul mouthed. “Even still, I had a lot of good ideas. But those mother fucking Tea Party assholes screwed me at every turn!” And do you know what I would say? “You are absolutely right! But I’d still stop the tanning.”

What all this means is that I feel a hell of a lot more comfortable losing than winning. It just feels weird—even weirder than John Boehner’s tan. So as a result of my discomfort, I turned on Fox News and watched Bill O’Reilly’s show The Factor. It wasn’t as helpful as I had hoped. For one thing, since there was breaking news, it wasn’t a usual show. In particular, it looked like Dennis Miller got bumped. That was very sad. Dennis Miller was almost unwatchable when I agreed with him. Now I can’t watch him without shouting at the television. He is yet another person who brings out my latent Tourette’s.

That doesn’t mean that I was completely let down. The narrative of Fox News tonight was that this wasn’t a loss for the Republican Party. Everyone lost! Bret Baier was there to do the “straight news” and he nailed it. In the tradition of the network’s “fair and balanced” approach to the news, he pointed out that President Obama’s approval rated had plummeted to 37%. For most viewers, this has to have been encouraging. They must have thought, “Obama lost!” Unfortunately for me, I knew this was a poll outlier. It is by far the lowest recent poll according to Real Clear Politics. In fact, if you look at the time series, you will see that Obama’s approval is down over the last six months, but it really hasn’t gotten significantly worse since the government shutdown.

Bill O’Reilly, of course, spent the whole time pushing the idea that this just wasn’t especially bad for the Republicans. Remember, this is the “no spin zone” and yet it seemed to be nothing but spin today. After complaining that everyone was saying the Republicans “got their butt kicked,” he said, “Everyone got their butt kicked!” Well, in a technical sense, I guess that’s true. Obama and the Democrats have seen their approval go down a bit. But it is nothing like the Republicans who now have their approval in multiple polls averaging around the mid-20s.

So once again, I was let down by my intelligence and all that pesky knowledge that I’m always picking up. But over time, I came to enjoy the feeling of winning. I could get used to it. Just like some day I will be used to John Boehner’s orange tan.