…so titled is Policy Review editor and Stanford and Hoover Istitute research fellow Tod Lindberg’s very compelling Weekly Standard piece, written in the aftermath of the November 6 elections. And by “very compelling,” I of course mean something along the lines of, “agrees with much of what I’ve been preaching over the last 4 years.” Please take time to read the whole thing, but here is the nut—which outlines why, as I’ve long argued, the Republicans, though stronger on national defense, were practically destined (in my humble opinion) to lose the majority of their single-issue voters in statewide elections where candidates were free to tack toward the center on Iraq and national security.
Writes Lindberg:
As the salience of the [1994 Gingrich-led Contract With America] issues faded, the GOP congressional majority in the House seemed to turn more and more to the largely symbolic politics of the social issues, conservative identity politics, and the culture wars–the ban on “partial-birth” abor tion, the intervention on behalf of Terri Schiavo, the Defense of Marriage Act and the attempt to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, the limitation of federal funding of stem cell research, and, of course, restrictionist immigration policy.
The GOP stand on these issues is indeed overwhelmingly popular in the South. The ballot initiative banning gay marriage passed with 81 percent of the vote in Tennessee. But to take that very issue, if you look at how similar initiatives fared in other states, you see a much more closely divided electorate (and in Arizona, the initiative seems to have failed). Moreover, the cumulative impression of the GOP congressional posturing in the culture war is that that’s all there is. The party has come to be defined as representing the concerns these issues reflect–and little else, or not enough else. That’s an environment in which the revelation of Rep. Mark Foley’s interest in teenage male pages detonates with maximum impact.
What Republicans need is to be something more than the party of culture war–and tax cutting, of course. You can tap into your base to deliver victory if your base is big enough. The GOP’s no longer is. And its right wing is solid. Which means that the only place to go to enlarge it is in the center.
The American electorate is center-right. The core supporters of the GOP are conservative, which constitutes an advantage for the party over Democrats, whose core supporters are liberal or progressive. There are more conservatives. But if the GOP is only a conservative party, in the sense of being no longer able or willing to devise a Contract-With-America-style issue mix whose appeal extends beyond the social conservatism of the South, then it will be a minority party so long as Democrats understand they must appeal to the center. As they did this year, and could do again.
I think this has things precisely correct.
Democratic policy initiatives, because they are “progressive” and “pro-active,” can be easily marketed by highlighting their perceived positives while carefully camouflaging the many problems that would not recommend them (the “living wage” is a good example, and works precisely because most people don’t understand the economic forces of the marketplace; the same holds true for attacks on “outsourcing” or, say, Wal-Mart: naturally, Americans are concerned about losing jobs to overseas manufacturers, or to corporate behomeths that would devour all of its competitors, particularly when they are being sold by progressive and liberal Democrats and the press gloom and doom, and are being constantly bombarded with the emotional appeals inherent in widely repeated anecdotal stories of hundreds or thousands of layoffs in a particular industry, etc. Of course, what they are never told is that globalization and “outsourcing” has resulted in a net gain in domestic jobs, and that the global free market is what keeps the price of upconverting DVD players at $50).
Conversely, Republican policy initiatives—inasmuch as they seem more and more to rely upon appeals to social conservatism—come across as precisely the kind of nannystatist intrusions and moralizing that Democrats and liberals (perversely) rely upon activist courts to affect.
Which is to say that instead of running on things such as the push to demonize internet Texas Hold ‘Em, Republicans should have been appealing to centrists and libertarians who despise judicial activism and who stand resolutely for personal freedom and a less intrusive federal government.
Alas, we have no party in this country that is content to represent the founding principles of classical liberalism. Instead, each party seems bent on pushing its social agenda, and when it comes to dressing that agenda up, the Democrats have the upperhand—their initiatives being festooned with promises of financial reward and government-funded benefits, while the social conservative’s initiatives carry with them the faint odor of girdles and the stuffy parlor of some blue nose scold.
I have only voted Republican on a few occasions, and that was only because conservatism, it seemed to me, was tacking far more closely to liberalism in its true sense than were present-day liberals. But once the GOP majority took over, they strayed, and consequently, they lost many of the voters they’d won over: those strong on national security and strong on individual liberty.
Can they turn it around? Who knows. But to do so, they are going to have to realize that appealing to their “base” is simply not enough. And that, as is now clear, many voters will either stay at home or vote for “change” rather than be subjected to a social agenda they find, on principle if not in fact, far too moralistic and rigid.
Yes, I agree with both of you. I would say that the Republicans have to realize that their potential voters are conservatives first, Republicans incidentally. That’s the lesson of Lieberman. Nobody who seriously shares conservative principles really gives a damn what party’s candidate best represents them. Everyone wanted to talk about a Democratic tsunami after the last election; not many wanted to talk about conservative disgust.
I’ve been voting for what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils (or 3rd party when they both suck beyond description) for as long as I can remember. For several years, that’s been the Republicans because I’ve been a single issue voter and the issue is national security. Individual liberty is a close second.
These days, the choice is becoming one between voting Republican and moving to Costa Rica.
I think what you’re pointing out is the prominence of psychedelic conservatives, or South Park Republicans, or (must credit) Ironi-Cons.
Couple of points about Lindberg’s assesssment of predominately social conservative issues.
First, I’m not sure how either a centrist or libertarian voter could possibly offer their support of federally funded stem cell research considering admiration for economic forces of the market place.
“restrictionist” immigration? I thought the issues is regarding “illegal” immigration.
The entire abortion issue was an illiberal policy to begin with since not a single American voter was allowed to vote on the issue yet somehow Roe vs. Wade became a law of the land. Law by judicial fiat cannot possibly be defended by either Dem, Rep, Libertarian, or Centrist. Besides, it was stupidk to begin with with since no species can survive by killing its own off-spring.
Which brings me to Defense of Marriage, changing the paradigm of the its’ meaning and whatever political direction one leans, the illiberal manner in which Roe vs Wade was instituted should give cause to pause and ponder the implications of such action taken.
Lastly, with Jesse Jackson praying outside the hospital while Santorum pleaded for her life, Schivo reflected a bi-partisan effort from religious believers of all political persuasion.
Listen I’m far from wearing a girdle but am close enough to the thong to understand that many of the social issues represented by ‘up-tight’ conservatives will be far more useful in Liberalism’s chance for survival during a pivotal moment in history than what left or slightly right of center has to offer.
Or Classical Cockslapping Liberalism.
Hmmmm.
Shorter Jeff Goldstein:
The Republicans lost their ass in November because they were less conservative and more Republican.
Or …
Don’t blame conservatives if you’re buying anti-Road Runner gear from ACME.
Hmmm.
*and*, now that I reflect on it a bit:
It would be nice to have a Republican party that doesn’t fight like Buster Douglas.
syn —
I both hear and understand your reservations, as well as take the force of your point. Which is why in my post I wrote:
This has to do with perceptions. And the Dems hold the advantage because the perception their initiatives convey to the casual political observer is “progress” and “economic fairness” (though it is neither, in my opinion). On the other hand, the perception one gets from an agenda that is tied to socially conservative issues is that the only interest the GOP has in governing is so that they can tell people what to do with their bodies, what to put in their bodies, etc.
Whether they are right or wrong is almost beside the point when their agenda for governing appears nearly entirely social in scope. Limited government—which conservatives want, and which legal conservatives staunchly advocate for—is hindered (again, in principal and from the perspective of perception of a party’s priorities) by constantly fighting the “culture wars” in elections.
We’d do far better advocating for the things that would actually help win the culture wars without concentrating on the specifics: judicial restraint, smaller government, lower taxes (which means less money for government programs designed to micromanage our lives), and a media that is either held to account for its failure to appeal to objectivity, or a new system wherein a media outlet’s ideological biases are given a thorough public airing by way of some agreed-upon measure of objective standards.
As for stem cell research, Bill Ardolino (INDC journal) has done some good work on the need for some sort of government involvement, at least on a very limited antecedent level.
AJStrata posted this piece, which pretty much mirrors my position.
Sorry, lee, but when I see a bad Supreme Court candidate, I say so.
And AJ can’t have it both ways. He can’t say, for instance, that he is not for party uber alles, then contend that you can’t speak “ill” of other conservatives. After all, the “ill” I spoke of Harriet Miers had to do with my critique of her conservatism (I never attacked her as a person). And so reconciling those two impulses—to follow Reagan’s commandment and to advocate for ideas that aren’t party-specific—is a bit of sleight of hand, it seems to me, depending on how one defines “speaking ill of.”
Off for a walk. Will return later.
I don’t see any middle ground on issues like war and abortion that the Republicans could appeal to.
By not speaking ill of other conservitives, I don’t think AJ meant you can’t criticise their ideas. With Meirs, for instance, he says she should have been heard, then rejected. I have no idea whether she was suitable for the job or not, but the vicious infighting was a spectacle I, for one, found embarrassing as a republican.
On war, there is no middle ground. One has to win.
On abortion, there is responsible and irresponsible policy. You confuse us, once again, monky, with religious fundamentalists, and seem incapable of grasping the difference, you are so invested in your cartoon.
Believe it or not, there are some government minimalists here, and people who feel that free will is an important concept. There are people who are practicing religious, but who are less lockstep with their religion than you are with your ideology.
Fixed that for you.
This is a point that requires clarification, in the context of the thread. Being of a classically liberal/libertarian bent, the notion that the federal government has no business conducting medical research resonates with me, and I can think of no counterargument that doesn’t rely on an appeal to emotion.
That said, this is America we live in and America seems to accept a government that has the National Institutes of Health and it’s $28 billion annual budget which funds all sorts of things. Like it our not, our money is in play.
The stem cell research question is not a new spending question. As it has been presented (HR 810, which Bush vetoed), it would simply allow ESC research to compete for a slice of that pre-existing pie under a fairly narrow and reasonable set of parameters.
By and large, the NIH granting process looks for the best science which is loosely defined as that which best moves the body of scientific knowledge forward and/or will lead to effective therapies.
This question isn’t about the money. It’s a matter of ideology versus science.
Government “minimalists” who support a $500+ billion a year war budget, dan?
The $300 billion a year more the government spends on war under the Republicans dwarfs any cuts that could be made elsewhere in the federal budget.
And with the interest payments kicking in now on the $1.5 trillion the Republicans borrowed to pay for the increase in the war budget…
What he refers to as “restrictionist immigration policy” is the same thing that the WaPo and others call “hard-line”.
In English, that means opposition to illegal immigration, as well as opposition to a massive illegal alien amnesty that will result in twenty to sixty million (or more) new legal immigrants over twenty years, together with an untold number of new illegal aliens who’ll come here for their own amnesty. And, that will also give even more political power inside the U.S. to the Mexican government as well as more political power to the far-left, racial power groups, corrupt businesses such as banks and growers that seek to profit from illegal immigration, and further devalue U.S. citizenship by giving illegal aliens a better deal than U.S. citizens (via the DREAM Act).
Note also that the Weekly Standard seems to have back-peddled on their earlier myth-making regarding House losses being due to “restrictionist immigration policy”.
Defense is one of the things we should be investing in monetarily, monkyflack. It is one of the specifically-defined duties of our national government.
Wouldn’t parrotboy be a better moniker for you?
Perhaps not such good examples, because when people do have basic economic knowledge, they end up being a bit too fundamentalist.
Look at the last one, for example. There is no problem with lots of people being rationally, self interestedly, against outsourcing. Even if it is a net gain. Because it is also a loss for some, or not enough of a gain for them. So they will rationally be against it in order to force a system where the net gain is better distributed.
Yes and no, actus. There is certainly nothing wrong with being rationally, self-interestedly against outsourcing. But as a policy, if it is a net gain for the country, it is a net gain for the country. So being self-interestedly against what is best for the country and the economy—while fine and good—is still what it is: beiong self-interestedly against what is best for the country’s economy and net job creation.
Listen: I’m sure the haberdashers and cobblers were up in arms at some point about automated factories that made buying new shoes or clothes or hats, etc., more cost-effective than having old ones mended. Which is why you don’t see many cobbler shops anymore.
Well, that and all the freakin’ elves.
And of course Ezra’s post contains the hallmark of the mistrust of markets—or at least, their inefficiencies in bringing about equity: the need for almost immediate gratification.
But the fact is, minimum wage jobs are intended to be entry-level, and to graduate to a “living wage,” one is supposed to endeavor to move upward, even within the particular immediate paradigm (from, say, cashier to assistmant manager, etc.)
Yes, but the ‘country’ is not a single entity. Thats not how decisionmaking gets made here. We don’t pick the most efficient option, looking at the whole country. We add up, via our political system, various choices.
Of course. I mean, people could just work for free. It would be a net gain to the rest of us if we didn’t have to pay that one person, as the money could be used for something else. But they’re not going to to do that. Because they are self-interestedly against what is best for the country’s economy and job creation.
The intent is great. Wonderful. But who knows for how many that is not a reality? But there’s also the fact that increases in the minimum wage benefit others beyond the minimum wage as well.
Of course not. It’s a bunch of irreconcilable enclaves gathered under the rubric of the United States of America.
By and large, the NIH granting process looks for the best science which is loosely defined as that which best moves the body of scientific knowledge forward and/or will lead to effective therapies.
I wish this were true, but science is also suceptible to fads, fashions, and political correctness. (The link is to a book that talks about how one theory has dominated theoretical physics to the point that anyone studying anything else can’t get funding or university positions.)
Thus far, embryos have not produced particularly useful stem cells, because they tend to produce tumors at a high rate. Non-embryonic stem cells are much more stable, and many treatments using them are available.
Using the apparent tabula rasa of an embryo makes sense, but it might be that the embryonic stem cell isn’t well-suited for anything other than what it was made for: creating a whole new human being.
Perhaps not such good examples, because when people do have basic economic knowledge, they end up being a bit too fundamentalist.
Look at the last one, for example. There is no problem with lots of people being rationally, self interestedly, against outsourcing. Even if it is a net gain. Because it is also a loss for some, or not enough of a gain for them. So they will rationally be against it in order to force a system where the net gain is better distributed.
You again. I’ll ask you the question since the boring simian hasn’t the grey matter.
Where does wealth come from?
HINT economics isn’t a zero-sum game.
Uh, yes it is. That’s what being a citizen means.
Of course. Which is why, as I noted above, self-interest is certainly a consideration. But then, so is the decision to put one’s own self-interest below the national interest. These are competing impulses that we are free to vote upon.
And believe it or not, some people do chose the national interest over individual concerns.
Your drift into hyperbolic exemplars is silly. We live within a capitalist society. And so no one is advocating that we surrender ourselves to the common weal. We are free to balance our choices. And some people realize that it will benefit them more in the long run to allow for the change brought by market forces, even if in the short term they are forced to give up their cobblership.
Because perhaps their expertise could make them valuable as high-paid quality control agents.
Weird. I’m sounding so “progressive” here, while you, actus, seem to be siding with those who fear change…
I’ve always wanted the bumper sticker that says “labor creates all value.” But that’s just bumper-sticker politics. Also, I don’t have a car, so no bumper. Here’s my hint: I think you’re going to give me an answer to your own question. And its not going to be what I remember having learned in economics class.
It means you’re part of it and get to add to how its run.
Not surrender. You dont have to work for free. You can just take a pay cut. You know, decide to put the common interest above the self-interest. Quite normal for people to choose to not do that. We may be part of a country, but we’re also part of a family, and a world.
I think going towards a model of fairer trade would be quite a change. A model where we export the progressive gains we have made here, rather than import other country’s victories of reaction over people.
Defense is one of the things we should be investing in monetarily, monkyflack. It is one of the specifically-defined duties of our national government.
Actually, it isn’t.
The Founding Fathers knew what a pork barrel a standing army would turn into…so they put this little line in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To raise and support Armies, but no <i>Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years</i>
Any Army contract that extends more than two years, including every single soldier’s enlistment papers, are unconstitutional…
Yeah we should defend ourselves…but were spending more on “defense” than the rest of the world combined now.
An unholy combo of paranoia and pork.
Such as democracy?
To paraphrase Machiavelli, a disease is difficult to diagnose but easy to treat early on; later, easy to diagnose, but difficult to treat.
Now adding that to trade deals! That would be progressive!
This is a most interesting topic.
My first blush is that the “social legislation” angle vis a vis the Foley scandle is a bit overbown. Exit polls showed a significant number of people were concerned about corruption. While I’m sure that there was a social conservative backlash to that, I believe that the greater impact was of the Weldon/Cunningham influence peddling.
The congress pressed issues like Marriage and Partial Birth because they saw solid support in most areas of the country, not just the south. I would agree that they then became overly enamored and extending into Schiavo and internet gambling caused the social agenda to become trivial and trivialised.
However, there is one, big dinosaur egg that’s not being talked about and that is the big old sore point with many conservatives (and, dare I say, classic liberals.) For want of a better term, spending money like drunken sailors. Social conservatives, at their heart, cling to the first and foremost principle of limited government defined by limited spending. Call yourself a conservative and then open the safe to expanded education, an ill considered prescription drug program (forcing the administration to fudge the cost figures in order to avoid the howls of despair) and, most aggretiously, the biggest, baddest, swine slappin’ piece of pork pie transportation bill that ther world has ever seen, all during a time of war.
I believe that first and formost Republicans need to get back to their core principles of limited government, states rights, controlled spending and lower taxes. The social agenda needs to take backseat while the Reps get their fiscal house in order. And this goes for our president, too. With all due respect to lee and AJ, while I love Bush for being the standup man on the GWOT, the big dust mote that is almost permantly attached to the veto stamp (other than the stem cell bill, whoop-de-do) needs to be removed and that baby needs to be primed for action. He’s not beyond the recognition that in this case, hge is as much the problem as his esteemed brethren in the Congress.
One exit poll (I’ve lost the link) showed more than 60% of respondants were either very concerned or somewhat concerned that the war on terror would suffer with democrat victory. Iraq was a significant factor, along with corruption and pork but, at its core, it’s about the spending.
Balloon /Fence boy; You are an idiot. The founding fathers were not concerned about money with regards to a standing army. They were concerned with an ambitious General developing a cult of personality with career soldiers and overthrowing the government. Washington was offered the mantle of emperor by several army officers but he refused and harshly rebuked them.
Take a frackin’ US History class featuring the constitution. You could probably get it at a decent high school.
A model where we export the progressive gains we have made here…
That line reminded of Mark Twain’s famous protest against the Phillipine-American War, the closest war to Iraq in American history, called To the Person Sitting in Darkness…
…where he notes there is a difference in the democracy we consume domestically and the version we export:
The Blessings-of-Civilization Trust, wisely and cautiously administered, is a Daisy. There is more money in it, more territory, more sovereignty, and other kinds of emolument, than there is in any other game that is played. But Christendom has been playing it badly of late years, and must certainly suffer by it, in my opinion. She has been so eager to get every stake that appeared on the green cloth, that the People who Sit in Darkness have noticed it – they have noticed it, and have begun to show alarm.
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/twain.htm
Good stuff!
And yet, there was the United States helping to bail the Philippines out during WWII. Apparently, somehow along the way there was a certain goodwill established. On the other hand, it’s clear that that protectorate status meant that we had to be driven out forcibly, like, say, the French from Indochina or Haiti or the Italians from Libya or the Dutch from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Because we’re evil imperialists.
Oh they certainly have. And we’ve been dealing in ASC’s since the early sixties and saving lives with them via such things as high dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell replacement. This has little to nothing to do with potential ESC therapies. ESC’s were first isolated and replicated in 1998. The field is brand new. That said, the promise is not just theoretical, it’s making it’s way to the clinic at a historically impressive rate.
If I’ve got a 10 year old who fetches me beers and mows the lawn and shovels the driveway when it snows, and I’ve got a two year old who hasn’t done a damned thing for me, should I just quit wasting my resources on the little guy? Same deal.
Jeff
Re: “perception”
It is an upside down world when, due to the the perception created by a majority left-of-center media, the position of maintaining the historical institution of state-sanctioned marriage as “one man/one woman” is held as pejoratively “radical”.
Interesting thought – so where did you take the bar exam? Thought processes like that would have you rescheduling to try again here in Illinois.
Add “Con Law” to the ever growing list of monky’s follies…
Why don’t you explain it to me, maj?
How can a government department that is explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution from signing contracts that extend more than two years into the future enlist people for more than 4 years and promise them all sorts of economic bonuses after that period?
I imagine there’s some typical lawyerly weasel in place here to thwart the intent of the Founding Fathers so the pork to continue to flow unimpeded by that pesky U.S. Constitution…
I’ve always wanted the bumper sticker that says “labor creates all value.†But that’s just bumper-sticker politics. Also, I don’t have a car, so no bumper. Here’s my hint: I think you’re going to give me an answer to your own question. And its not going to be what I remember having learned in economics class.
Wrong on all counts.
He did. You don’t get it.
This is probably because you are stupid. I’m pretty sure this has been mentioned to you before, but it bears repeating.
Thats certainly not what was in economics class.
The Lindberg piece was well reasoned, thanks for the heads up Jeff.
What will be interesting to watch is whether or not the under 45 generation(s) head in the supposed Classical Liberal/South Park Conservative direction while flanked by the regular “progressives”, or if they (we) will just revert to what we’ve been doing the last twelve years or so-debating who has the best tasting crap sandwich.
I am optimistic. Unfortunately, I am not as optimistic about what will have to happen to push the majority in that direction.
I don’t think we are going to see any reduction in pork, no matter who is in office, until the president is given line-item veto.
What ever happened to this, one of Reagans best, never achieved, ideas?
(probably not) Coincidentally, PJ O’Rourke tackles the same GOP problem in his latest at the WS-[url=”http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/821dfmgg.asp” target=”_blank”]What’s That Smell?
The GOP is stinking up the joint[/url]
excerpt-
It’s actually very simple, actus. The people who tell you it’s not-simple are conning you for their own benefit, although the benefit may be psychic.
A has X.
B has Y.
But A would prefer to have Y. So A searches and finds B, who has Y but would prefer to have X.
They trade.
Both A and B have increased their wealth. Each of them has something they prefer—consider more valuable—than what they had before.
And, since both A and B are wealthier than they were, the society of which they are part is wealthier (perhaps by a small amount) than it was before A and B consummated their trade. The fact that C through M all have X and prefer to keep it, and N through W are likewise satisfied with their Y, is irrelevant.
Multiply by millions or billions.
That’s all there is to it, at the root. Economic activity which is not forced—which conforms to the desires of its participants—increases wealth.
If A prefers to keep X, and B (preferring X) compels A to trade, the result is, at best, stasis—B’s gain corresponds to A’s loss; no wealth is generated. And if both prefer to keep what they have, but a third party compels them to trade anyway, wealth is lost. Both parties are poorer than they were before, and the overall society is less wealthy by some increment. Those two examples cover 99.999% of “government” activity, and serve to explain why Governments can at best preserve wealth and more usually destroy it. There may be other reasons to do it, and those reasons may override considerations of wealth creation, but the stasis or loss remains.
The ideal of Socialism is to eliminate trade—“from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” No consideration of desire or preference allowed. Therefore Socialism can at best preserve existing wealth, and what to do if the society gets larger while wealth remains the same? And when Socialism compels A to cough up the X resulting from “his ability”, and give it to B in return for Y, wealth is lost—especially if Y is something A does not value at all. Nothing, e.g.
The rest is elaboration, much of it elaborate excuses for why A should prefer Y and therefore the enforced trade is for his own good. It may even be true, but wealth is destroyed just the same.
Regards,
Ric
I know. I’ve read Wealth of Nations. Got my neoclassical 101. I just wanna hear Rusty tell me all about at as if it has anything to do with my point.
Three year enlistments go all the way back to Civil War if not before. Is this some new Progressive talking point? Like how the Second Amendment only applies to muskets?
Even people fairly ardently against gay marriage, perhaps *especially* people fairly ardently against gay marriage, simply don’t want to hear about it all the time. On a related note, Republicans have forgotten the mileage they got out of opposing the Equal Rights Amendment, and the lesson to be learned is that the “c’mon gang, let’s amend the Constitution!!!” approach doesn’t produce the roll-up-their-sleeves-and-all-pitch-in reaction with the base that they seem to think it does. (And what was up with that creepy preoccupation with “performance enhancing drugs.” Christ. Harrison Freaking Bergeron.)
What should be kept top-of-mind about the recent elections though, is that a lot of people lost that I don’t think people in these parts are really too sad to see go. The dogma will have to fall where it may, but it seems imperative that a discernible message come out of the 08 primaries, and I think who’s *not* nominated will be every bit as articulate a message as any formal statement of principles. If McCain washes out fast, that will definitely take us halfway to the goal line. Whatever his merits, communicating a cohesive set of principles is simply not among them.
Ideas my liberal friends don’t think totally suck:
1. Drilling ANWR.
2. Tort reform.
3. Civil unions instead of gay marriage.
4. Killing terrorists.
5. Raising the retirement age.
6. Nuclear energy.
7. Cutting agricultural subsidies.
8. A security fence.
happy feet,
Your liberal friends are much more rational than any liberal I’ve met!
It’s mostly that these ideas don’t interfere with their priorities – namely: abolishing Wal-Mart. It’s not a bad thing to remember that it’s not just Republicans that have developed a healthy streak of insipid banality.
happyfeet
The liberals you hang with are not of the Californian persuasion.
Nanny Pelosi wouldn’t recognize ‘em.
How the GOP blew it, IMHO:
The congressional GOP missed a golden opportunity when they failed to support President Bush on Social Security reform in early 2005. The blame here falls on the center-right, who decided to play it “safe”.
They missed another when they failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Here the blame is mostly on the far-right, IMO.
They also blew the opportunity to define the Democrats (accurately) as the party of terrorist rights when McCain and company decided to grandstand early this fall. Here again, the center-right shot themselves in the foot.
The White House of course made mistakes too, by not coordinating its agenda better with Congress and allowing it to be side-tracked, and not defending its Iraq policy and response to Katrina more effectively.
I don’t think the symbolic window-dressing of social legislation would have been a problem if the outgoing Congress had managed to put together a solid record of accomplishments on real issues. The problem is that they did not.
The biggest red herring being peddled in conservative/libertarian circles is business about the Republicans turning into a “big spending” party. Jeff did not make this claim, but many others who consider themselves fiscal conservatives have.
In fact, non-defense discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP has been basically flat since 1995. It is about 1 percentage point lower (today) than it was during the 70’s and early 80’s (3.5-4% of GDP now vs. 4.5-5% of GDP then). Non-defense discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP is the same today as it was in the early 1960’s, and it includes some homeland security outlays which are not counted under the rubric of “defense” in the official accounting of the budget.
So it is a bit misleading to talk about absolute dollar figures, or even percentage growth of dollar figures, without taking account of the fact that the economy is generally growing at 3-4%/year. The most important question, it seems to me, is whether the government is appropriating itself a larger slice of the economic pie, and the numbers show no evidence for any recent dramatic increase there.
Defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, remains lower than at any time 1962-1995, despite the war.
References:
Table 8.4 of the FY07 budget.
This liberal think tank argues that non-security related discretionary spending has actually fallen (slightly) in recent years, after removing homeland security outlays that are not included in the budget’s “National Defense” discretionary spending category for pre-9/11 historical reasons.
In my continuing Exercise in Futility to educate Balloon Fence boy, I would ask you to review the above quotes from your post.
See anything wrong?
Do the words contract or enlistment papers appear any where? Well? Of course they don’t.
Snatching little shards of information and poo plopping them on this site to make an off topic snark at the military only works if you have the barest facts to support you. Article I, Section 8 refers to funding the military for more than 2 years. What do we do now? Oh, yea, that’s right, we budget for the military every frackin’ year!! There was a fierce debate about this, as both Jefferson and Adams were very concerned about a permanant standing army’s potential for tyranny. The compromise solution was, in and of itself, genius, using the power of Congress to control funding. This avoids the permanant funding mandate and gives Congress the power to cut off funding if it deems it appropriate. (This is a grossly simplified explaination and I apologise in advance to any Constitutional scholars that may read this.)
Even back then, it was about the benjaman’s (rim shot), but not as it related to “pork”, as you so erroniously wrote above. So, Balloon Fence boy, you were zero for two in your pathetic attempts to make a constitutional argument against a standing army. Stick to blimp sheilds, dirt berms and starving children and leave the heavy constitutional lifting to those of us who stayed awake during U.S. History class in high school.
Laguna Dave:
Another “breakfast with blogging” fan?
Thanks for the numbers, they opened my eyes a little bit. Some thoughts for you:
Absolutely! not to mention down from a high of 39.19% in 1945.
I didn’t realise that and, as one of the guys who made the spending argument, I have to assume that you has me in mind. While those figures are revealing, I would still argue the spending issue. Conservatives have a reasonable expectation, based upon principles developed during the Reagan years and quantified by the “Contrct with America” crew, that a republican controlled government would exercise fiscal retraint. The idea of a grossly expanded education department, an ill concieved prescription program, and continued swine slapping through transportation didn’t sit well. The vast majority of conservatives, from center to right, have no problem with defense or hameland security spending but had serious questioins about the prodigious Katrina rebuilding boondogle (along with the subsequent widespread fraud due to lack of oversight.) Applause for cutting taxes, but many of us thought that non discretionary spending was too high and, from a growth standing, out of control.
Dead on!
Here was a golden opportunity to demonstrate real courage in taking on the special interests and the Rep’s folded like a cheap card table. The end result is that 10% private investment is spit out like stealing food from granny and we are no closer to a solution now than we were then, onlt a year closer to bankrupcy.
I pretty much agree with the rest of your analysis but will continue to maintain the fiscal restraint was a leading cause of conservative dissatisfaction in the last election.
Enjoy your breakfast and thanks for the work. You too, Jeff. It’s great to have regular contributions from you again.
I just caught an interview with John Fund in which he addressed the question and knocked it out of the park. Loosely quoting:
I think among the biggest pieces of evidence for this is the agriculture subsidies, the prescription drug bill, and in general, the attitude that we are spending beyond our means,ie, revenue.
by Tim Worstall
Approach any random passing economist and ask for his views on trade: within moments he will tell you that the most important thing is that it should be free. Free trade is fair, as it is voluntary, and, via the expansion of the division of labour across the globe, makes us wealthy. He will also tell you that imports make us rich, not exports; so our placing barriers in the way of those things that we buy is the utmost foolishness. We’ve known this since 1817 when Ricardo published his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation but things move slowly in the world of political ideas.
Because it is imports that we desire  exports being simply the tiresome labour that we must ship abroad to pay for them  negotiating with other countries about their tariffs and quotas is ludicrous. Why should we care if the foreign governments make their own citizens poorer by denying them the products of the globe? We should concentrate on what makes us richer, the abolition of all those barriers to our own wealth that we impose upon ourselves.
Thats certainly not what was in economics class.
What in the world makes you believe economics is about money?
BJ – With respect to the Education Dept, Bush’s Education reforms still have the potential to give the department an actual real-world mission, as opposed to the feckless boondoggle it has ALWAYS been. Remember that the biggest critique of NCLB is that it imposes too many UNfunded mandates… I tend to support these reforms and point at two things: 1. You can’t really cast NLCB in terms of rewarding any particular special interest and 2. It addresses a very real problem in a well-meaning and responsible way. Education is in a very very real crisis – the human capital squandered by our non-performing schools is a sin against god and country. NLCB is an excellent example of governing from the center. NLCB is a good-faith effort of the kind that liberals and the media refuse to acknowledge Republicans are even capable of initiating.
On Transportation spending – maybe someone can help me here – that funding is primarily from Gas taxes right? And so the idea that Reps would seek to repatriate those funds back to the taxpayers who paid them in the form of specific local projects is not terribly shocking. My feeling is that if the voters of Alaska are ok with having a new bridge in one place as opposed to increased sled dog funding in another, that’s fine with me. It seems not entirely conservative to ask that all Transportation spending at the state level adhere to an arbitrary view of what spending priorities are in the national interest. And Ted Steven’s energetic support for increased domestic oil production, if seen to fruition, would more than earn him a bridge any damn place he wants to put it.
I am not particularly down on the Republicans – even less so now that so many of the most unhelpful ones are not coming back. Last observation: A *new* Contract with America could do a lot worse than to include a pledge that Republican senators were in Washington to serve, not to build a platform from which to pursue the presidency. That, in my view, is an egregious and damaging misappropriation of resources that continues to go unquestioned. It’s time to tell congressmen that a declaration to pursue higher office, Presidency or VP, requires that they relinquish their seat.
Actus shoots and scores.
I know.
Posted by actus
I don’t think you do. But hey. Half the fun in life is watching people act on their preconcieved ideas.
Nice to see your true colors – a self interested “libertarianism” worthy of 13 year old middel school poser – shining through. Got better things to do than read these lame rationalizations.
Who ever said that? I do remember something about it being the study of the allocation of scarce resources. I suppose someone labored to think that one up.
Almost as much fun as the blockquote function?
Replace “attitude” with perception—Dave gave you the actual numbers—and you will have fallen right in line with my post, actus.
Congrats. You’ve been educated.
Irony: It’s what’s for dinner.
Happy Thanksgiving!
SmokeVanThorn —
Who are you talking to? The post argues against self-interest, and in fact points out how self-interest above national economic interest is what is being appealed to by Democrats (More on this at my follow up post here, which features an article by well known libertarian poser Ross Douthat).
If you have other ideas why the GOP lost, let’s hear them. Or do you not have time to put them in words, so busy are you crapping on what others who are trying to analyze the elections have to say…?
Jeff, it appears that he has a diploma from the “snipe and run” school that heet and others have attended.
I wonder what that graduation ceremony was like…
Here are some quick numbers to consider:
Defense Spending as % of GDP
Clinton: 1992 – 4.78% 1996 – 3.45% 1999 – 3.01%
Bush: 2000 – 3.03% 2003 – 3.74% 2005 – 3.74%
Human Resources Spending as % of GDP
(Includes, education, training, emplyment, social services, health, Medicare, Income Security, Social Security, Veterens Benefits
Clinton: 1992 – 12.38% 1996 – 12.45% 1999 – 11.59%
Bush: 2000 – 11.49% 2003 – 13.09% 2005 – 13.01%
source: Budget of the United States: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2005
Somebody may want to explain to me (homeland security offsets?) how Clinton managed to decrease Human Resource spending percentage (while cutting or stagnating defense spending) while Bush managed to significantly increase that percebtage. The growth of Social Security is a significant contributor, but spending was up across the board.
FREE PILLS!
BJ – what level of Human Resources Spending as % of GDP is optimal?
First of all: SETTLE DOWN GOLDSTEIN. NO PILLS FOR YOU!
Now that that’s out of the way: happyfeet, I honestly don’t know. I’m not complaining about the historical percentage per se, I’m concerned that a so-called Conservative President aided and abeded a republican congress to increase the overall percentage a full 1/2 a point higher than at any time during the Clinton administration. We continue to spend near the top of the world in per capita education but seem to have less to show for it. The teachers that I talk to say that their big complaint with NCLB is that the money funnels away from gifted students to special ed/troubled students, the opposite of many industrialized countries and at odds with the “unfunded mandates” to meet minimum levels.
I know, I know, it sounds like I’m whining and I am. I’m just not tuned to the idea that a so called “fiscally conservative” party has expanded government on their watch. The best part is that the Derm’s continued to play politics and complained that NCLB and the drug plan weren’t good enough or didn’t go far enough.
It’s turkey time, so have a great day!
BJ – I think we’re agreed that the answer is *less*, but I do think that Bush has to pick his battles in wartime, and that by focusing on the GDP side of the equation with responsible regulatory and tax policy, he has acquitted himself better than most give him credit for.
You’re right – plenty in NLCB to pick at, but it does embrace a results-oriented approach, which had been non-existent at the federal level.
Finally, with interest rates as low as they were, decreased federal spending could very possibly have had unintended consequences for the currency markets. We have stopped hearing about the “low dollar,” but in Bush’s first term that was the main media scare story before they latched onto gas prices and the housing bubble (no one will ever be able to afford a home) and the subsequent collapse of the housing bubble (we’re all doomed).
Perhaps a more compelling argument is that Post Sept 11, a deficit was defensible and prudent. Moving quickly to get growth back on track was tantamount to any other lens of national security.
What sad is that the Bush team had definitely signalled well before the election (Paulson was emblematic, the Deficit Reduction Act of last Feb signalled a concrete policy shift) that federal spending was to be addressed… It seems unlikely that subsequent to the elections he will get much credit for moving in this direction of his own volition.
From an AP article, Feb 1 06:
From the AP, Jul 10 06, when Paulson was sworn in:
Look, things like the deficit aren’t just perception. Nor are things like how we’re using the social security trust fund for spending and creating very expensive new programs—like the drug bill.
The fact that we’re not doing pay-as-you-go budgeting—where revenue cuts are matched to either spending cuts or other revenue increases, is the ‘general attitude’ that i’m talking about. Its the attitude of the Norquist plan for fiscal crisis. It’s also the attitude of taking the easy road: spend now, someone else pay for it later.
Actus – how can pay-as-you-go budgeting work when Nancy and Harry think that merely slowing the rate of a spending increase is a draconian “cut,” and that allowing tax cuts to expire does not amount to “raising taxes”?
Happyfeet: good stuff.
I’ve left the impression that i’m terminally pissed at Bush for the current state of the budget and that’s not the case. I’m more concerned with what I perceive to be a passivity in him when it comes to budgetary matters. He doesn’t seem to provide the same level of proaction that he does to GWOT issues. I’d just like to see that Veto dusted off fir a few budget imperatives. It would give my black, fiscally conservative heart a warm and fuzzy, ya know?
That having been said, he has been willing to raise tough issues like SS reform, prescription drugs and results based education. I am also aware of the Democratic shell game that wails about the “legacy for our children” with regards to deficits but rails about “cuts” in entitlements when growth slowing proposals are made and “tax cuts only for the rich” when middle class families received real tax savings.
BTW: On transportation: I recognize that the Government (both state and federal) have received a boondoggle on gas taxes due to the increased prices. If those taxes were distributed proportionally back to the states based upon their contributions, then I wouldn’t have any complaints with “bridges to nowhere.” Unfortunatly the projects tend to be centered around those Senators who are most effective at twisting arms and knocking heads. Alaska already has several economic advantages over most other states because of their unique oil revenue status. A disproportionate share of the Tranportation funds should not be one of them. Ted Stevens gets kudos for promoting increased domestic oil production but doesn’t get a free bridge, especially when he’s promoting something that will greatly benefit his state in and of itself.
All and all, we are pretty much on the same wavelength along with that Goldstein guy. The dem’s will now have to match the fiscal rhetoric of the campaign to the fiscal realities of the budget. Time will tell.
I continue to hope (possibly in vain) that the time will come when less shell gaming will be done and more reality based
And which side is looking for universal health care?
Sounds like its getting back to pay as you go. And ON the last one, I do have to agree, sticking with the bush tax cuts is not an increase. He designed them to expire, so gets blamed on them expiring.
Oh, it wouldn’t be this expensive. Look at how much of our health care is tax-financed compared to other countries. Ones with national care. In some cases we outspend them!
actus
The ‘sunset clause’ was put into the Bush taxcuts because the usual out-of-touch-with-reality Dems were CONVINCED that tax cuts would decrease government revenue.
They have been proven wrong…spectacularly. So there is no reason to allow the taxcuts to expire except spite.
Meaning the huge numbers of low and middle income people who say themselves either removed from the income tax rolls altogether, or watched their tax rate drop 1/3 from the 15% bracket to the newly created 10%, will find themselves back in the IRS clutches.
Not to mention all the two-earner married couples will be paying the marriage penalty yet again.
Source?
BTW…. do you WANT to have a healthcare system like England or Canada that delays stuff like treatment for breast cancer or heart bypasses so people will die before they are treated? Or maybe like France that refuses to aircondition their hospitals and the elderly then die during the summer?
How fun…pay your draconian taxes and have the government decide you are not worth saving.
They kind of do. Greg mankiw’s best estimate of them is that they can be up to 50% self-financing.
I think the cuts here set to sunset because dubya didn’t want a cut that would last. I think he wanted the biggest cut he could take credit for now. He could have made a cut in the same present value that would be smaller but last longer, perhaps perpetuity. But he didn’t.
I’d like a system where people with money can buy care and people without money can get care like they get in canada. Right now if you don’t have money you’re worst than canda. You experience ‘delay’ in getting care. The delay being forever.
I’ve heard the VA has done a good job of become a national care provider.
The expense isn’t reflected in how much of our care is currently tax financed, it’s in how much of out care is NOT.
Or travel to America to get, because it isn’t available in Canada. Our system provides the very best health care available anywhere at any price.
Or whenever you apply for your Medicare/SSI, whichever comes first. Or until you find your way to an emergency room…
That’s almost as silly as this:
Because he wouldn’t want a philosophy that works to continue in his absence…
Thats very expensive. They also don’t do certain things. Need a new heart? you’re not going to get one at the ER.
How are you measuring this? because there are places with better or similar health stats that spend less of their GDP on health.
Not if you’re not paying. The point is, that your “Wait until you’re dead to get care” spiel is a load of crap.
Yes, and you’re not going to get a radial arm saw at 7-11. Thanks for pointing that out. Did you know that lots of people with money and insurance don’t get new hearts either? Like old people. That’s sooooo ageist. But at least we don’t euthanize them, like they do under socialized medicine.
Overall quality of readily available care, especially in specialized areas of medicine.
Its expensive for those who are. The rest of us. ER’s aren’t cheap.
Right. You can go there to die.
Whats your ‘quality’ measure? Life expectancy?
But it’s also available, and taken advantage of regularly, which is the opposite of the point you were arguing.
Congratulations. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Standard of care, efficacy, availability.