Jim Geraghty, joining the ranks of a whole host of GOP opinion leaders put off by all this “Establishment” GOP talk, looks to set the record straight — even if that means you conspiratorial Hobbits are going to have to take it on your unnuanced chins. Drawing on the early primary and caucus numbers, Geraghty writes:
Either the conservative base does not hold such a numerical advantage over the “Establishment,” or the base selects messengers for their inherently appealing message that are so flawed that they erode that numerical advantage, or the “Establishment” candidate Romney is somehow appealing to some of those voters in the conservative base.
There’s healthy evidence for that last option. According to the exit polls, if the New Hampshire primary had consisted only of self-described “very conservative” voters, the results would have been . . . Romney 33 percent, Santorum 26 percent, Paul 18 percent, Gingrich 17 percent, Huntsman 4 percent, Perry 1 percent. If it had consisted only of self-described “somewhat conservative” voters, the results would have been . . . Romney 48 percent, Paul 19 percent, Huntsman 13 percent, Gingrich 11 percent, Santorum 7 percent, Perry . . . 0.
I doubt this will persuade many of the “the Establishment controls it all!”crowd; it’s easier to believe in vast conspiracies meeting in dark rooms to pull the strings. But in the end, for all of Romney’s obvious flaws and weaknesses, none of his rivals are doing what they’re supposed to do, and what is allegedly fairly easy: convince Republicans — heck, convince conservatives! — that he’s a better choice for the GOP nominee than Romney.
Leaving aside the overuse of scare quotes — we get it, Jim: you don’t put a lot of stock into the idea of a GOP “Establishment,” mostly because you know lots of Republican opinion leaders inside the Beltway and on the national scene and, in perfect Pauline Kael fashion, none of them know anything about any GOP “Establishment” — let’s take a closer look at the argument here and maybe tease out from it those assertions that, when begged a bit, get Geraghty to the conclusion he clearly set out to reach.
Now, I like Jim Geraghty quite a bit. But from his post what is immediately evident is that he is willing to engage in a rather strange methodology. In Iowa, for example, Geraghty notes that
the candidates who are most often touted as the “true conservatives” are Rick [Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum]. For example, in Iowa, Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry amounted to 48.1 percent of the vote.
But in New Hampshire, the trio amounted to a mere 25.8 percent of the vote. Sure, Perry effectively skipped the state, but this was a big state for Gingrich (the Union Leader endorsement) and Santorum spent money on ads there.
What Geraghty brackets is that Ron Paul, who is actually running on the message that he is the “one true conservative,” picked up another significant chunk of the Iowa caucus tally, raising the fractionalized “conservative alternative to Romney” vote to closer to 70% than 48% — a more accurate accounting of conservative opposition to Romney given Paul’s very Tea Party-friendly cut spending / shrink government message.
Once we understand that, what follows is this: By bracketing Paul, Geraghty is able to show that in NH — an open primary state — the trio of “true conservatives” didn’t even collectively perform as well as Mitt Romney, garnering only 25.8%. But again, that figure changes significantly when Ron Paul’s campaign is added to the conservative side of the ledger, bumping the numbers up to nearly 50% aligned against Romney in an open primary state where he’s lived and where he was expected to dominate, with his only real challenge, we were told, to come from Obama’s China Ambassador Jon Huntsman.
What we also learned from New Hampshire exit polling is that the vast majority of those who voted for Romney cited as their reason for doing so “to beat Obama” — suggesting that they’ve bought into the “electability” trope that even Geraghty has to admit was prevalent among national GOP commentators from day one (recall, George Will, eg., told us that the “top-tier” candidates, once Daniels decided not to run, were Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman, while Hugh Hewitt argued that most of the others should simply leave the stage — that the GOP has every right as a Party to winnow down the field to those it deems electable or “serious.”) If there is no GOP “establishment” — or if there is, but it’s influence, as Geraghty wishes us to believe, is minimal or perhaps even mythological — one has to wonder where this significant “electability” data point, which weighs so heavily in Romney’s favor, comes from, exactly. I mean, could it be the hair alone…?
Disappointingly — at least to me — Geraghty works hard here to minimize the idea that there even exists a GOP ruling elite. To do so, he conjures up images of secret meetings and smoke-filled rooms, then attributes the belief in such things to those who point to a GOP establishment that works in its own ruling interest, pushing the candidates it feels will best protect the status quo from which they draw their influence (which, let’s face it, is hardly surprising). The takeaway being that, for Geraghty, to believe in a GOP establishment that exerts influence on its own behalf marks you as some sort of fringe loon straight out of an Umberto Eco novel.
But in reality, those of us who criticize the GOP establishment will tell you that it operates not in secret antechambers but rather in plain sight, from Boehner’s open distrust and marginalization of the TEA Party freshman who gave the GOP its 2010 mandate (he famously commanded that they “get their ass in line”) to Karl Rove’s white board “analysis” on FOX, to the increasing number of erstwhile conservative pundits and columnists pushing a candidate who is demonstrably not conservative.
If Ann Coulter is going to keep insisting Romney is the most conservative candidate in the race, it’s easy to see how people who would describe themselves as “very conservative” could vote in NH 33% for Romney: they, too, are delusional — or else are so sold on the electability trope that they’ve decided it’s best just to will Romney into the conservative camp, despite his progressive corporatist “defenses” of capitalism.
When the Party splinters — and I believe it will after a Romney nomination, particularly if he can’t pull off the general election — all the shaming in the world isn’t going to help the GOP opinion leaders rein in the base. As comments on this site have illustrated, there are still many people torn over what to do with a Romney candidacy, with most agreeing that they’ll hold their noses and vote for him if only to unseat Obama. That isn’t the same thing as accepting him, however — and Geraghty well knows that Romney’s money and mainstream GOP endorsements go a very long way toward putting Mitt over with the majority of Republican voters who don’t pay attention to the daily minutia of politics to the extent many of us do.
The conservative base of the GOP shouldn’t have to beg and complain and revolt in order for the GOP to proffer and throw its support behind an actual conservative candidate. To pretend Mitt Romney is such insults the intelligence of the base. And that won’t go away simply because you show yourself willing to point and laugh at the silly idealists who would prefer a Republican nominee who at least would be willing to defend free market capitalism — a contingency itself dependent upon that Republican nominee’s first even believing in such a system.
We Hobbits have our dignity, however much it might repulse you that we won’t fall readily in line.
(thanks to JHo)
[…] Related: Jeff on the ‘myth’ of the GOP Establishment. […]
there’s only three governors in the race and one of them can’t make the sentences and the other one actively hates Republicans
the nomination of a non-governor in the guise of Meghan’s coward daddy last time was a flukey flukey fluke
Team R senators and congressmen are uninspiring and fabulously whorish creatures in the main… and by and large the governors aren’t
I think it’s these fairly sensible prejudices basically what we’re seeing shake out.
Romney just got lucky the governors what were in the race turned out to be smashingly unpresidential.
Griefersaidwhat?
The conservative base of the GOP shouldn’t have to beg and complain and revolt in order for the GOP to proffer and throw its support behind an actual conservative candidate.
As I clumsily tried to say in yesterday’s discussion: when the Dems were given the perfect storm — a once-in-a-lifetime shot against a party that was tepidly supported by its base and absolutely loathed by the rest of the electorate — they went for the jugular, installing the Jug-Eared Jesus who promised to fundamentally transform the country into the kind of Workers Paradise that the Left has been dreaming about ever since, well, let’s be honest, ever since they were co-opted by the Soviets back in the day.
By contrast, as the backlash against Teh Won gives the GOP a similar opportunity to roll back the gains made by the
SovietsProgressives and to push reforms of their own, what do they do? They run straight for the middle.I swear to God, we gave these losers a $3,000 suit, a Ferrari, and a million dollars in walking-around money, and they’re standing at the bar, sizing up their chances with the ugly chicks.
Going green by being Eco-friendly?
American senators are whores what aren’t respected on a presidential level – and house monkeys even less so. Paul may as well be bracketed by being the only one in the race what was a mere representative in America’s failshit whore congress.
And there wasn’t a governor in the race what was competitive with Romney’s preparation and his organization and especially not his overwhelming sense of entitlement to the position.
Good movie/novel analogy…although Fight Club came to mind while I was reading this.
Griefersayswhat?
What exactly is a griefer? I’ve asked before and no one answered.
it has nothing to do with conservativeness at this point… all of the candidates talk conservative talk they all heart fetuses, which is the most important thing Republican voters consider (hence zero zip nada pro-choice Rs in the race), and they all say they’ll repeal obamacare, which is #2
you only get to deciding on the basis of degrees of conservativeness after you have people what are competitive in terms of inspiring confidence
And Romney is the only one of the lot what looks like the presidents in the coloring books.
The establishment is far too insular to see the long term effects of their naked efforts to install Romney.
The Ron Paul numbers should tell them they are on the warning track, but they refuse to listen.
What exactly is a griefer?
Someone who enjoys giving other people grief. Sometimes by threadjacking or posting such clearly obnoxious/slanderous/liar things as to bait others into argument.
posting such clearly obnoxious/slanderous/liar things
e.g. “they all heart fetuses, which is the most important thing Republican voters consider”
Thanks, Darleen.
leigh
There’s this whole brouhaha over Santorum answering a question from the audience on the campaign trail in regards to SCOTUS’s Griswold v. Connecticut that has lathered up all the Lefties and Vagina Warriors that Santorum would OUTLAW CONTRACEPTION!11!!1!
which we all know from Joan Walsh is the only thing keeping teh womyn’s from being chained in kitchens, barefoot and preggers, across the whole country.
Now none of the candidates … especially in the early debates … ever talked/promoted/mentioned any social issues. The ONLY time it comes up is when the Left wants to talk about nothing else… They harass, bug, won’t shut up and if the Republican candidate answers it’s all ZOMG!! These GOPers are obsessed with crotches when the economy is so bad!
REally, the Left has little else but an obsession with crotches.
My email to Jeff, approximately:
We saw the figures yesterday from motionview on the country’s right-leaning makeup, and we know just how polarized Obama’s made the nation, including the 2:1 ratio of those fearing his reelection. Jim would do so much better not bitching about the mental projection he’s made, but about why the f*cking establishment – defined in part by his crew’s fearful-but-smug Romney default zealotry – hasn’t represented the national mean!
I’d mentioned the problem of perspective a few days ago somewhere in PW, which is the result of, dare I say it, 50 years of progressive brainwashing — I mean look at the relationship between motionview’s stats and who occupies the presidency term after term after term and you tell me where the faulty perspective on structural principles comes from.
Jim should start with bulwark structural principles and work outward instead of starting with the establishment and working inward. If he did by the time he hit Romney he’d be puking.
Jim does good work, most of the time. But ultimately, what Jim does is work, and this fact is not lost on him.
There’s that word again. Jeff is right: one man’s belief is another man’s zealotry.
Dan says “Last time, you idiots gave us John McCain. Apparently, you are incapable of instruction, and we are tired of the continuous massive insults to the brain.” and I don’t disagree, in the main. But again, here are we, saying “you idiots gave”.
And again I’m prompted, not to look at the “who got gave”, but at the agency, the “Who is doing the giving?”, which still appears to me to resolve to the agency of the self-interested, self-selecting candidates themselves.
And still I wonder, if we are not represented by the candidates on offer, wouldn’t that be because we have not so arranged the circumstances of selection that we are making those choices ourselves, so guaranteeing our representation? And that if this is so, why would we not respond by changing the process of selection?
It only seems that way. They prefer people focus on “crotch issues” so they can hide the way the left is taking over all the other aspects of your life.
Wilkow likes to note that the only rights these cultural Marxists hold dear are sodomy and abortion.
leigh, the genesis of the term is this.
Squid in (4) clearly enunciates the problem. As I said last night, Obama is eminently beatable and we’re blowing it. We don’t need a rush to the center to win, and every time we do, we shift the moving average to the left.
Thanks, Pablo. I figured it had something to do with gaming.
Is “Troll” a sub-set of “Griefer”, or vice versa?
Hi, RI Red. I answered you in the other thread from last night.
If only reason were so pliable, huh leigh? And reason by snarky incompleteness so convincing…
I read that article, JHo. I wasn’t being snarky, far from it.
Oh, come on.
“The Mitt and the Pendulum”
How hard was that?
Hi, leigh; I must have missed it. And I was worried about frost-bite. I denounce myself. My point, of course, was that we have no conservative candidates. Which is what has us all so rattled.
Re: “There’s this whole brouhaha over Santorum answering a question from the audience on the campaign trail in regards to SCOTUS’s Griswold v. Connecticut”.
See this piece.
Had I described conspiratorial thinkers as characters from Poe, it would have worked. Except that wasn’t what I was going for. I was going for Eco.
Red, agreed. Sorry I left you out in the cold like that. Early morning for this house today, too.
Mitt and the Pendulum does give an apt visual. One where the conservative electorate is strapped to a board, while the establishment’s gyrations grow ever closer towards splitting it in two.
I went over and commented at NRO and linked back here. I really would like to see an honest engagement on this, as I have a generally positive opinion about Geraghty and I’m really confused about how those guys are going about this discussion. Williamson said yesterday you could only see Obama as incompetent or evil. Now today Geraghty is making a case that relies on a very deceptive argument that Jeff has clearly called out. Geraghty should respond.
The Republican establishment learned lessons from the Democrats work that started in 2006. trouble is what they learned was how to do they Dem’s work for them.
If your enemy is going to destroy a city it is not an effective preemptive strike to destroy it yourself. Unless of course the city’s inhabitants are your real enemy and the ones everyone assumed to be your enemies are actually your friends.
Maybe the GOP establishment is trying out Obama’s wink-wink say-no-more trick from the last election. You know, where he doesn’t really “mean” mean all those things he’s saying and he’s secretly on your side and agrees with you 100%.
On another note, I wish I had the chops to engage semiotically in the signifier conversations…
Great line.
thanks geoffb, I missed that one … surprised WaPo allowed it on their pages even if it’s regulated to “blogs & columns” in the Politics section.
Splinters are painful and can get infected.
Me, I worry just how many mnore rounds of quantitative easing we’re going to get before November gets here to make the handful of economic metrics Big Media thinks they understand look artifically better. Or maybe the don’t even understand those but find them useful for propoganda purposes.
But look at the last lines of that Weigel piece geoffb linked:
That seems a reasonable reaction, whether from Weigel’s point of view or “for reals” from the “Republican base” or “conservative’s” point of view (these identifiers get to be a bitch of an obstacle after awhile, don’t they?). Yet, as Dan mentions, we felt this way four years ago. And what was done about it? Must not have had genuine urgency, if nothing was done, right? Or what?
Honest to Christ, I don’t get it.
Don’t get that this is a shadow struggle to decide if the Republican party represent the Ruling class or the Country class?
Is that your honest assessment of what I was aiming at ThomasD? Or are you just having some fun?
Tongue in cheek.
heh, I’m down with that. (up twinkles!)
You could cast that in a bronze a yard across, rivet it to a block of polished granite three yards high, install it on the national mall, and all you’d get out of the right’s establishment in ten months would be a declaration how best to have them rearrange your finances, in effect, by lopping a zero off every sum numerated in dollars in order to declare the monetary crisis officially over.
For which fiat status we’d only be required to turn it all in or something.
Stuff like that’s helpful. Worry is not so much helpful After all, you’re not a professional leader.
If I were to be more serious I’d focus on the “Or what.”
Insofar as we are purportedly conservatives of a classically liberal tradition. In which case we are not prone to mounting putsches, so how could things have realistically proceeded much differently from the manner that has brought us to this very juncture?
“…so how could things have realistically proceeded much differently from the manner that has brought us to this very juncture?”
This isn’t an easy question to answer, but I do think it’s a good question to ask. Therefore, let me give it a sally. But that will take a few moments to compose, entailing, as it does, more better thinkings on my part. So to say, I’ll be back on it.
Vice-versa, RI Red.
Could someone please come up with the Pynchon (Crying of Lot 49) and Robert Anton Wilson (Illuminatus trilogy) versions of the Mitt title jokes so I can stop trying in vain and get back to work?
Thanks in advance.
I look forward to that Sdferr, as for me I’ll cut to the chase.
I suspect (fear really, but only partially) that our only viable option for retaining a functional Non-Democrat national party will be an embrace of Ron Paul.
(No need to pause in order to let that one sink in…)
Much like the only way to defeat an ambush, once caught, is to fight directly through it.
Without going into depth consider that there is a tremendous amount of support for Paul outside of traditional Republican circles. The Romneyites would otherwise have you believe that ‘moving to the middle’ is the path to victory. So long as that ‘middle’ is the Big Government tolerating/where’s-my-damn-monthly-check type of middle, not any other sort of middle.
Put another way, what Paul promises to do on the international stage is what Romney/Obama guarantees by inevitable default.
So, let me start with the first part you mentioned ThomasD “…we are purportedly conservatives of a classically liberal tradition…”, since from principles is a good place to start. So, what’s the relevant principle? For simplicities sake, I’d think, to sketch, we believe self-government is best.
From that beginning, I’m asserting that — pinpointing the agency of selection — we voters ought to make ourselves (make, I’m stressing, I guess, in the sense of “it’s our sovereignty goddamnit, and we’re asserting it here), in contradistinction to the self-selecting candidates — make, I say again, ourselves the agents to choose the slate of candidates from which we’ll choose further, as primary voters, the final candidate we’ll put forward into the contest with any opposition party. This requires, it seems to me, that we sovereign party makers organize ourselves, again, in contradistinction to accepting an organization “given” to us.
But we ask, where does such energy and purpose come from? And this, in the past event, seems to have been missing, clearly.
I mean, just because I, or someone else, happens to have an idea, doesn’t in itself mean that vast numbers of people either have the same idea or happen to encounter the idea (the initial possessor matters little), and find that idea persuasive, or necessary to take up. Somehow, and I don’t know how that works, either vast numbers are seized in the grip of a near simultaneous recognition of a need, or else, again, somehow I don’t grasp, the idea of the need gets loose abroad and seizes them (as in the wave of a viral video? I dunno). Still, the phenomenon I see now, the same one I thought I saw four years ago — we conservative types are genuinely frustrated at non-representation in the slate of characters, and once again expect in fear we’ll end with a candidate by default, unrepresentative in fact — strikes me as the sort of phenomenon lending itself to such a wave of the recognition of a necessity.
This requires, it seems to me, that we sovereign party makers organize ourselves, again, in contradistinction to accepting an organization “given” to us.
People are doing this, to the extent that it is possible.
Unless we are to re-constitute a party out of whole cloth we must work within the current party, and the current system of party organization. So all change is incremental, and iterative at best. Never mind that to wholly re-constitute on some regular basis would presume some sort of accepted decision on when to do so. So we are still back at incremental at best.
I’m going with “Mittens of the Illuminati” the stand alone prequel to the real work.
In a nutshell, what I am arguing is that we (as conservative of a liberal tradition) are still at the “prudence, indeed, will dictate…” stage of the game.
Updates to follow.
Cryptoneocon?
Still, I frankly haven’t seen — standing aside from genuine, albeit generic, “party” talk, which is both important, necessary and beneficial — discussions of the underlying mechanism(s) of the current machinery of slate selection ThomasD. But perhaps I’m simply off on an unnecessary, ultimately useless tangent in that regard. Is that how you see it?
Sorry, that’s Neal Stephenson.
How about, The Persecution and Assassination of A Free Republic as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Washington Under the Direction of the New Aristocracy?
No, not useless, largely academic, but somewhat useful for purposes of course correction. Unfortunately (to extend the metaphor) I do not think those corrections capable of steering us around the near hazards of this current primary season. Given the short time and (current) limits of our ability to affect the helm.
Too, ThomasD, I don’t think “unless we are to re-constitute a party out of whole cloth we must work within the current party” is quite fair to the idea, is it? I mean, “out of whole cloth” would seem to elide our more basic agreement in fact, namely, that we happen to be self described classical liberals, accepting the principles and tenets of the American founding, taking these as the firm ground on which we’ll build. This is hardly “out of whole cloth”, is it? And furthermore, that it is precisely the absence of this principled stand in the Republican party today, and the absence, in the main, of this principled stand in the slate of characters of which we complain? So, again, I’m not seeing the use of a pretended radical move.
@#59
“We’re all normal and we want our freedom to rule”.
“I do not think those corrections capable of steering us around the near hazards of this current primary season.”
Nor do I. But I’ve expressed that elsewhere in comments. In fact, I think I’ve hinted at it above. And this is right, there isn’t any near-term benefit. In this regard, it’s akin to the oil drilling arguments wrung out decades ago. You won’t get any oil from drilling for years from now, so what’s the hurry? A decade passes, no oil has been drilled, and sure ‘nough, no oil is coming from the ground in the places where oil is known to be. Quelle suprise!
I did not intend the phrase be taken to extend beyond the Constitution, merely to reflect that we operate within the constraints of an existing party system. Else we would need to ditch the current party apparatus and build a new one. Which, to my mind, would not be prudent at this juncture. But we should also be concerned that we may be approaching a breaking point in that regard.
“…would not be prudent at this juncture.”
Again, to be fair to myself, I think I’m only broaching an argument for discussion, though I do hope the argument is taken up for thorough examination. To be sure, in the event, I expect it would have real world consequences, in order to repair real world grievances. But it’s not as though I’m urging a helter skelter tear down the ramparts sort of deal. If you prefer to think of the idea as merely “academic” in that regard, by all means, let’s take a walk in the grove, happily.
Rush just said what Squid did back in (4). My, we’re in good company today.
He did miss the part about the ugly chicks, though.
Rush is on this right now. First a caller demands we all get behind Mitt immediately. Then, a 60 year Republican is saying that if it’s Mittens he’s sitting on his hands. He’s trying to make Jeff’s argument about the futility of holding your nose and voting for Mitt (or any Establishment substitute)just being a choice to lose more slowly. Rush is arguing with him and sympathizing with him at the same time.
Rush did straight out agree that Obama is a Marxist. If only the rest of our allies could stop their denial on that subject, I understand that accepting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.
we don’t have to get behind Mitt in a super big hurry people a lot of people need time to go through denial anger bargaining and depression first
Party uber alles eh Cupcakes?
the de-obamafication of America must proceed irrespective of who Team R selects as their nominee
Does that pronouncement extend to the likes of Santorum or Paul?
yes!
Sometime between late 2002 and early 2005, I don’t remember which election now, Ramesh Ponnuru made a striking observation in his election post-mortem. He cautioned that movement conservatives were taking too much enjoyment from Left’s collective loss of their senses and the resultant capture of the Democrats by groups like Code-Pink and MoveOn; that, despite all the talk from the Fred Barnesese and Bill Kristols and Karl Roveses about realignment and permanent Republican majorities, as the Democrat party was pulled to the Left, the vacuum created was sucking the Republican party to the center i.e. to the left as it pursued all that low-hanging fruit.
We need to start pulling the GOP back to the right, starting yesterday, if we’re going to prevent the permanent center-left ruling class from turning a center-right nation in a center-left one; a nation sure to be governed by a permanent left of center ruling class.
Okay. How do we propose to go about doing this? As I said yesterday, we need to get Obama out of office first, and go from there. I’m not sure we are going to capture enough R’s to take control of the Senate and the responsive to reason D’s (Nelson and Leiberman) are retiring. So-o, gridlock? Our leadership in both the House and the Senate sucks. My state is entirely red, every county, so we are doing our part. My congresscritter is not going to run again (he is the only D) and there are some young guns who are TEA Party types that are vying for his seat.
What do we do about all the special interest groups that are pets of various Senate and House members? In my state we seven Tribes who have their own tribal councils, casinos, cigarette factories, schools, reservations, Tribal lands and benefits, and police.
I’m onboard with stripping everything back to original intent of the framer’s, but who gets that ball rolling? Are we going to have to have an uprising (I fear the answer is “yes”)?
Ernst, I’m going to have to disagree about the country being center-right. People will tell you that, but take away their SSI, Medicare, et al and Katie bar the door! We are socialist, just not euro-socialist.
Yet.
If you’re focused on getting rid of Obama you’re focused on the wrong thing. Getting rid of Obama will take care of itself. Provided, that is, you’ve got a candidate running on something more than I’m not Obama —I’m competent to manage the Big Government Leviathan.
First things first. What if Obama wins a second term?
I was going for Eco.
Ah. My image was more “slow death by Inquisition.”
With you there Ernst, Obama focus is the wrong question, though I differ in this: Obama is toast, I think, no matter who runs against.
But that (being rid of Obama) — and here, I’m with you again — isn’t the problem the country actually faces. We’ve need of something altogether apart from short-term politics, of whatever stripe. Something that happens to reach into individual lives and practices, arising from choice on the part of those individuals, in order to . . . begin to build something better.
Obama is toast unless he faces a pale version of himself, then it is a toss-up. But even if Romney prevails we are still facing the same disaster – just slightly slower and one the left will pin on the evil reichwingers (cf. Nixon.)
Don;t forget that the entirety of Romney’s one sojourn in office consisted of knuckling under to the leftist power structure (either that, or being a willing accomplice.)
You on me and Squid are all on the same page sdferr. What I’m suggesting there is that a President Romney is as likely to push for tax increases in order to pay for all these social-welfare programs as he is to push for their repeal or reform.
Because it’s like leigh says we’re all socialists now —just not Euro-weenie socialists yet.
What if Obama wins a second term?
Wrong Question. What if we elect a conservative President?
Electing a conservative president would be great. Who do we have?
leigh
to beat an old horse here, but SSI (know what that “I” stands for?) and Medicare are NOT welfare programs.
People who have been forced to give over 15% of their earnings for 40-50 years, and are told they are required to file for Medicare (another insurance premium paid over the life of one’s working career) or forfeit every dime they have contributed to SocSec are rightly pissed at the “chickenhawk” type meme being advanced about them.
Just because the government decided to raid their pension accounts doesn’t mean the desire to get back what they have contributed means one is a Euro-socialist.
Yes, I take your meaning regarding Romney, though I don’t actually have much conviction who the hell he is, one way or the other, so can’t from here tell how he’d be inclined to behave once in office (ghastly echo of Obama is another way of viewing that, no doubt).
But in any case, what Romney does or doesn’t do, seems to me quite apart from the business which actually makes the difference in American politics specifically. And that, as of course you can see, is what the people choose to do (both with regards to their representative choices, and with regards to themselves.) To crib from Montesquieu: “The fear of despotic governments naturally arises of itself amidst threats and punishments; the honour of monarchies is favoured by the passions, and favours them in its turn; but virtue is a self-renunciation, which is ever arduous and painful.”
We certainly have options more conservative that Romney.
It seems to me that there are two or maybe three who come closer to the ideal than the frontrunner we’re being told to rally behind.
Social Security isn’t an insurance program. The Congress, I believe the Supreme Court has said, can change the terms any time they please.
What I’m suggesting there is that a President Romney is as likely to push for tax increases in order to pay for all these social-welfare programs as he is to push for their repeal or reform.
Romney’s such an awesome executive that he’ll figure out a way to run the programs more efficiently and effectively, so that we can have our rights and our dignity stripped from us without having to raise taxes.
WINNING!
Social Security isn’t an insurance program
Not now, but that’s the way it was sold to the public. It was “Old Age insurance” … a kind of government-guaranteed annuity plan for people who didn’t have access to participate in private pension plans.
Yeah, sure the Washington DC fucktards couldn’t stand the idea of leaving all that money unmolested, but that doesn’t make the people who just want THEIR OWN MONEY back welfare queens.
Just because the government decided to raid their pension accounts doesn’t mean the desire to get back what they have contributed means one is a Euro-socialist.
There is no money in the SSI trust fund. There hasn’t been a “lockbox” as long as I can remember. You’re just a couple of years older than me, Darleen,. I surely hope you made other provision for your retirement since I’ve known since I took my first job that I’d be lucky to see a dime of SSI. The money we’ve been forced to “invest” has been paid out to our folks and to others. It’s gone. If the answer is to make people work longer and retire later so that they can have their money redistributed to those all ready getting a check, well, that sounds like socialism to me.
For the fairness.
Squid, so how do we talk Mitch into running?
Yes Darleen, not now (not ever) and that is the way it was sold, on the basis of a lie. From which we, even now, have to wean the people who have never known the truth about it. Nothing to do with welfare queens, I agree. It’s all about making people understand the injustice that has already happened to them, under the usual manner of a Ponzi scheme. It’s too late not to hurt someone (at the hands of their own government, no less!). The only remaining question, is who? Or, how will the hurt be “distributed”.
which is why I support Paul Ryan’s plan … you can’t let SocSec continue as it is and you can’t steal the major support away from senior citizens who, in good faith, made their end-of-life plans around it.
You continue the paid benefits for those 55 and above while transitioning everyone under that into a real annuity style plan — that you get out based on what you put in and it actually belongs to YOU — i.e. a private retirement instrument.
Exactly. However, as ThomasD reminded us:
In this case, past behavior, probably is predictive of future performance.
Your guess is as good as mine as to whether that means he’d knuckle under to a Tea-Party/small-government reform minded Republican Congress (should we be so blessed) or if he’d willingly collaborate with the business as usual Ruling Class types in Congress and the bureaucracy.
I know which way I’d bet.
…to beat an old horse here, but SSI (know what that “I” stands for?) and Medicare are NOT welfare programs.
Yes they are. If they were insurance programs, then there would be no hope of overturning ObamaCare in the SCOTUS, since the government would have been forcing every American to purchase unwanted, underperforming insurance for generations. If they were insurance programs, then my expected retirement benefits would be worth more than the postage on the bullshit “annual reports” I get from the Trustees each year. If they were insurance programs, they’d have assets invested in economically productive enterprises.
I’m afraid, Darleen, that you’ve been lied to. If only you could bring your insurance agent up on fraud charges…
Sorry; didn’t realize I was piling on.
It started out as a “safety net”, fairly straightforward, but then Congress got ahold of it and turned it into a Ponzi-type scheme.
“America has no native criminal class – except for Congress.”
— Samuel L. Clemens
past behavior, probably is predictive of future performance
This is true of all of them.
So, that leaves Rick Perry. Or not.
leigh
I know there’s never been a “lock box” and SocSec is a kind of accounting trick where billions of dollars of cash flow to the feds, current SocSec payments are paid out and the balance (until recently there has been always more IN than OUT) isn’t saved but gets dumped into the general fund and spent as fast as possible by the Feds. Nothing but a huge IOU stuck in that “lockbox.”
But yelling “SUCKER” to 80 year olds and telling them they don’t deserve any of their benefits is not the way to go.
Of course, too much of this country worships at the alter of youth and wishes the wrinkled set would just go off and die … WWII? That’s SOOOO yesterday.
Squid, so how do we talk Mitch into running?
We don’t. Instead, we talk the GOP into supporting conservative candidates. Or, since we already know they never listen and never learn, we withhold our money, our time, and our votes from them until they come around. In the meantime, we continue our reform efforts at the state and Congressional levels, so that we can try to stanch the bleeding, and so that we’ll have allies and leverage to use in future discussions.
Set up an environment where a conservative candidate can rely on support, and you’ll have a lot more conservative candidates willing to “spend time away from their families.” What’s more, you’ll have a much larger pool of governors and legislators from which to draw candidates. Hell, you might even be able to draw candidates away from real jobs!
Your heart is in the right place here Darleen, but it was a lie and a fraud from the start, and it’s important to say so. We can’t start fixing problems unless we can name them for what they are.
t was a lie and a fraud from the start, and it’s important to say so.
Yes, it WAS a lie. So now what? Tell current recipients “So sorry, no more checks to you. By the way, here’s a coupon to go Home?
SOYLENT GREEN!
Well leigh, I guess I’m not the purist you are.
Those 80-year-olds are the Greatest Generation. Surely they raised their children and grandchildren to understand the debt they owe to their elders, and can rely on their families to take care of them. Far better care than they’d receive at the hands of functionaries and bureaucrats.
The alternative is to believe that the Greatest Generation supports stealing their great-grandchildren’s babysitting money. And I simply cannot believe you’d have such a low opinion of the Greatest Generation.
Besides, I didn’t see anyone threatening to take away Great Grannie’s bingo money. Rather, I saw the suggestion of dismantling a welfare system that everyone can see is broken, but recoils from any attempt to repair. We could start by telling people in their 30s and 40s that they’re making “investments” in a company that is going to fail, and so they’d better diversify now. But even that much is met with shock and horror. “That’s theft! I earned those benefits! You can’t just take 15% of my pay and throw it away!”
Guess what, guys? It is theft, they can take it, and you’ve earned squat.
I consider SSI to be yet another tax levied against me, of which I will not see a dime of recompense.
Well, that’s certainly not going to happen anyway. As to Medicare, there is no way to say it without sounding harsh, people need to make end of life plans. The hospitals are broke and believe me, they are going to be forced to triage care. I’m not advocating throwing Gran off a cliff or any other hyperbolic nonsense, but if tax dollars are going to paliative care for a 90 year old, we may need to think this over. Does little Timmy need a kidney or does Grandpa? They both do, but there is only one kidney available. Who is going to have a better quality of life? Timmy or Grandpa?
We are in a tough spot and it calls for us all to “man up” about the reality of what IS and not the lies and half-truths that have been peddled to us.
Rob from the future/young to give to the past/old sounds like a great way to run a country.
link
Not what I’m saying Darleen. But we can’t make victims whole —particularly by creating new victims in the process of perpetuating the lie.
Well leigh, I guess I’m not the purist you are.
Don’t sell yourself short, Ernst.
Squid, You do know that the GREATEST GENERATION begat the ME GENERATION?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. kidder
I can just see my great-uncle Clarence looking down from Heaven at his wife on her way to the polls, and saying, “That’s right, Gertie! I died protecting our children from enslavement by Nazis and Japs just so that you could enslave them to pay for your trips to the beauty parlor. That’s my girl!”
I guess Clarence woulda been 95, come to think of it. The 80-year-olds would be the Korea set. What do we call them? The Runner-Up Generation?
Silent Generation
Every time a conservative says values, an angel in heaven loses his wings.
Your the one trying to sell me on the notion that I can’t have a 65%-70% pure candidate, either because because he’s not a 90% pure candidate, (or because he’s 90% pure and that’s too pure, as the case may be) and thus I should settle for the 52.5% pure candidate leigh. Is that because at least the 52.5% guy doesn’t have any of the icky 10% that makes you weird?
Thank God it doesn’t happen when I fail to proofread sdferr.
I’ve told you many times that I’m not trying to sell you on anyone. I don’t like Romney. My preferred candidate decided to sit this one out. The one I like(d), is out making a fool of himself.
Every time a conservative says values, an angel in heaven loses his wings.
I love it, sdferr. If I ever get a tattoo, that will be it.
Everytime a conservative conscientiously eschews to use values for a better term like “principle”, or “good”, a devil in Hades lashes a Democrat.
That’s good, too. But too long for a tat.
Probably even too long for a bumpersticker, I reckon. *sigh*
When the last couple of generations come to finally realize just how much they’ve been screwed by the Baby Boomers, how deep the debt hole has become, and how neither they nor their children nor their grandchildren are going to be out of, dare I say it, a form of indentured servitude, I think people are going to be surprised by just how nasty they can suddenly get and how willing they are to not even give some retired folks bus fare home.
I think I’ve mentioned it before but there’s something out of A Canticle for Leibowitz where the shepherds note that they underestimated how quickly culture can change — for the worse — that disturbs my inner peace and tranquility.
[…] argument makes him rather late to Jeff Goldstein’s party, but still. […]