Posted by
Wil on Sunday, August 03, 2008 10:45:51 PM
According to this article in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103061.html , The reason that McCain is not getting any traction as a candidate in their view is because the voters have finally wised up and are beginning to separate themselves from the delusional and dangerous tenets of right wing thinking. I think this article is as important as it is wrong. I believe that the main reason that McCain is not gaining traction, the reason the congressional Republicans are languishing as a minority, and the reason the Democrats made big gains in 2006, are that Republicans are insecure in leadership and do not really trust their policies to work as well as they say they do. I am going to go point by point through the highlights of this article, which in my opinion are almost exactly backwards, and conclude by explaining what in fact McCain and congressional Republicans ought to do if they want to win in November.
At long last, the conservative juggernaut is cracking up. From the Reagan era until late 2005 or so, conservatives crushed progressives like me in debates as reliably as the Harlem Globetrotters owned the Washington Generals. The right would eloquently praise the virtues of free markets and the magic of the invisible hand. We would respond by stammering about the importance of regulation and a mixed economy, knowing even as the words came out that our audience was becoming bored.
First of all, the Republican party is hardly conservative as a rule, and certainly not a juggernaut. Both major parties are coalitions of disparate interests that only hold together as long as each fragment believes it is being served by the coalition as a whole:
The Democratic coalition has been made up of "underrepresented minorities", agnostics who call for expanding the "wall of separation", environmental extremists,labor unions, industrial and large family farmers who rely on subsidies and trade restrictions to prop up their farms, Ivy leaguers who see themselves as Platonic "Philosopher Kings", and west and east coasters who see themselves as sophisticates in comparison to the rednecks and hicks in middle America, and internationalists who want American sovereignty subservient to international law.
Meanwhile the Republican coalition has been made up of giants of industry and business who seek a mostly hands off regulatory and financial sector, free traders who want open markets around the world for their goods, Religious conservatives who want societal norms (such as marriage) protected and government hands off their churches, small businesses and farmers who tend to be hurt by protectionism, outdoorsmen who above all want the second amendment protected, a few who joined the party in protest of the Civil Rights movement, but at heart like government programs, libertarians who want less regulation and government in all aspects of life, and foreign policy hawks who believe that true security comes from an Americanized (or at least more free) world.
Both of these coalitions are fragile and show signs of cracking in almost every election. There is always tension between the disparate groups of both coalitions. In Europe and Israel, parties exist that cater to specific interest groups, and these small parties are voted for by their own blocks and then form governing coalitions. In the US, except rarely, the coalitions form within the two parties, promising more than they have any hope of ever following through on, often making diametrically opposed promises to different groups. This is how the parties have existed since 1796. The names change and the coalitions change, but the principles do not.
Further, the Republican "juggernaut" was only such in name. During the Reagan years, much of his conservative ideology was unable to be passed into law through a Democratic congress. In 92, even earlier in 1990 in fact, when the Cold War ended, and Bush I used the Democratic ideal of coalition foreign policy and raised taxes, it appeared Democrats were becoming ascendant. Only in 94 when Newt and his Contract With America caught the voters imaginations did much Conservative legislation make headway, and by 1996, some of it had been neutralized by Clinton. Again in 2000, Conservatism made a brief resurgence, but by 2002, weakness was already seen, and 2006 was in the works long before it occured. So the "juggernaut that the author describes only really existed maybe 6 or 7 of the last 30 years. Much more realistic is this scenario: America is made up of three groups: Dedicated conservatives who almost always vote Republican, dedicated liberals who almost always vote Democrat, and the apolitical and/or emotional middle third who vote based on feelings and emotion, rarely on adherence to a political ideology. Reagan captured these peoples imaginations, as did Ross Perot in 92. Newt impressed them in 94, but they turned on him after a relentless negative drumbeat by the media and mistakes on his part. They liked the sound of Bush and his "compassionate conservatism", and some of the ones paying attention like Obama and his vacuous message of change. But these voters are unstable and can change quickly. The big shifts happened in 84, 92, 94, and 2006 when some of the "reliables" walked away for an election. In 84, it was because Democrats had no answer for Reagan and his relentless optimism. 84 was so much better than 80 for most people, a retread of the Carter Administration held no appeal, even for Democrats. In 92, Bush I had frittered away his massive approval from The Gulf War into a stalemate of no fly zones, containment, and humanitarian adventures like Somalia. He had further alienated his base with his tax hikes, and these people had a third option to choose in Perot (he never really believed in supply side economics, after all the phrase "Voodoo Economics" was his). In 94, Clinton had failed at implementing Hillarycare, compromised into don't ask don't tell, and failed to follow through to liberals on the extreme things he promised when he won in 92. And in 2006, Bush appeared to be heading for defeat in Iraq (whether on his own or by congressional cut offs of funds), and he and the Republican congress had moved further and further left to placate moderates on economic issues. It didn't work, but it angered his base.
So the whole premise of the article is flawed, because his view of the last 30 years and of the Republican party is flawed.
The belief system and finely crafted policy pitches that enabled the right to dominate the war of ideas for the past 30 years have produced a relentless succession of governing failures, from Iraq to Katrina to the economy to the environment.
First of all, Iraq is not yet a failure no matter how often we are told that it is, no matter how much the left wishes it were so. It may still be if it is mismanaged, but it has hope.
Second, Katrina was a Natural Disaster. Bush is no more responsible for Katrina than Carter was for the massive east coast blizzard of 1977 that did billions of dollars worth of damage. FEMA failed, and it was blamed on Bush in the aftermath, but what it should have shown is that well prepared local and state resources are much more efficient that federal ones. They are more nimble and quicker to respond. FEMA failed not because of conservative ideology but because it is a federal behemoth that crawls when people need quick reaction. What Katrina has shown is that church groups and other private sector disaster relief have been far more efficient than the government in all its glory.
Third, the economy is not having the problems it is having from a lack of oversight or government intervention. It is having its problem because people got greedy. I did myself, buying a house that was out of my price range thinking equity would keep going up. Mortgage companies got greedy thinking they could loan to anyone, and they are now being rewarded with a federal bailout. It wasn't government that caused the problem, but government is exasperating it by bailing out the failures. And much of the economy outside of housing is in difficulty because of high oil prices, which are much more attributable to government policies than failures of the moderately free market.
Fourth, the environment is a strawman, the idea that global warming is human caused is the ultimate ego trip. But as long as the media keeps reporting that every weather issue from floods to heat waves, to blizzards, even earthquakes and volcanoes, are somehow due to human activity, peoplewill buy it if they do not think for themselves.
A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that, by a 53-to-42 percent margin, Americans want government to "do more to solve problems"; a dozen years ago, respondents opposed government action by 2 to 1.
This question is basically worthless. I want government to do more? How vague is that? Basically the pollster can make that mean anything they want it to, or the poll taker can read into it different things at different times. Ask what you want government to do and how and it would mean more.
As I listen to leading voices and thinkers on the right pondering the condition of their ideology, it is increasingly clear to me that they face a fundamental dilemma -- one that cannot be resolved anytime soon and that might well leave the conservative movement out to pasture for as long as we progressives have been powerlessly chewing grass. That choice is whether to stick with rhetoric and policies wedded to free markets, limited government and bellicose unilateralism, or to endorse a more robust role for the public sector at home while relying more on diplomacy and international institutions abroad. Either way, conservative Republicans seem destined to have a much harder time winning elections for the foreseeable future.
The economic problems have not come from free markets and limited government. Rather, they have come in part from the expansion of government in the name of "compassionate conservatism" and tax cuts without associated spending cuts. Tax cuts are great and they do stimulate investment and economic growth far more than the misnamed "economic stimulus" that gave people 300 or more dollars most often of someone elses money. The problem has been with both Reagan and the current Bush that the compromises crafted to push through the tax cuts have actually led to more spending. No Child Left Behind was a massively expensive program, as was the Prescription Drug Program and the new Aid to Africa program I was recently educated about. Bushnot only has incrementally increased spending to placate liberals into passing tax cuts, he has called for programs Clinton never would have been able to push through, and because they had his name on them, Congressional Republicans supported them. This is not a problem of conservative ideology, it is an abandonment of a portion of conservative ideology.
As for Bellicose Unilateralism, I am just about sick of this charge. Does Austrailia not count? Poland? Spain? Italy (in the beginning)? We had a coalition of over 40 nations when we entered Iraq. Just because Germany and France said no, accoring to most liberals, we should have quaked in our boots and stood down. Lest we forget, Germany and France have been at the center of 3 massive European wars over the last 140 years. Lest we forget, Germany and France are only two nations, both with shortcomings and weaknesses of their own. And lest we forget, Germany said no to Obamas call for more support in Afghanistan in his oft praised speech to 200,000. These nations do not have our self interests at heart. Historical closeness is not the best measure of future closeness. After all, we fought two wars against England, but they became a close ally. We fought a brutal war with Japan, but they too are an ally. The charge that our foreign policy is either bellicose or unilateral insults the allies who support us and the diplomats who speak for us. And oh, by the way, we tried the international diplomatic route with Iraq for over 12 years after assembling the largest coalition ever in 1990. And what did Iraq do in the face of "world resolve"? Feel no remorse or fear in breaking 14 UN resolutions, shoot at American planes serving UN missions, and continue to bellow real bellicosity in supporting suicide bombers of Palestine. International coalitions failed.
Whatever the issue, conservatives proposed substituting market forces for government -- pushing the bureaucrats aside and letting private-sector competition work to everyone's benefit. So they advocated creating health savings accounts, handing out school vouchers, privatizing Social Security, shifting government functions to private contractors, and curtailing regulations on public health, safety, the environment and more. And, of course, they pushed to cut taxes to further weaken the public sector by "starving the beast." President Bush has followed this playbook more closely than any previous president, including Reagan, notwithstanding today's desperate efforts by the right to distance itself from the deeply unpopular chief executive. But in practice, those ideas have all failed to deliver on the promises the conservatives made, and in many instances, the dogma has actually created new problems. Particularly after Hurricane Katrina, when Americans saw how hapless the Federal Emergency Management Agency was, the public has begun to realize that the right's hostility toward government has produced only ineffective government.
Once again, this assumes that ideas became practice. Tell me where we see school vouchers. Tell me, when did we replace social security or medicare with private savings accounts? This assumes that the things Bush talked about actually occured, then proceeds to call them failures. Most of them were never implemented other than the tax cuts. As stated before, most government programs were actually increased and broadened, not converted to the free market. And blaming FEMA problems on privatization? Tell me, what part of FEMA was privatized?
One can see the results in recent headlines: a Justice Department where non-conservatives need not apply; tainted spinach, jalapeño peppers and pet food; dangerous imported toys; poorly enforced environmental laws and a warming planet; the regulatory failures that led to the subprime mortgage fiasco. Meanwhile, large tax cuts (as under Reagan) have weakened the country's fiscal health without significantly improving the lot of the vast majority of citizens. And the right's enthusiasm for Bush's brand of "benevolent hegemony" in foreign policy, which insists on the U.S. right to wage preventive war and dismisses the United Nations as a band of meddlesome bureaucrats, has weakened our security -- most notably through the unnecessary calamity in Iraq -- by diluting our military capabilities and diverting their focus from genuine threats from al-Qaeda.
So now what? In new books, two conservative stalwarts, former House speaker Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax guru Grover Norquist, don't even bother wrestling with such failures. Instead, they argue for an even stronger dose of the medicine that has, so far, produced mainly toxic reactions
Where to begin? Every headline failure listed above is a failure of perception more than reality. Jalapenos, spinach and pet food? How many cases of food poisoning go unreported and no one knows its a crisis. The USDA could inspect every piece of produce as it leaves the farm, at a massive cost that would bankrupt much of our agricultural sector and send food prices through the roof. People thrive on crisis, they seem to love it. If it isn't food issues, its school shootings or car accidents. The 24 hour news cycle gets bored. It seems to me things that would have been local news or not news are bandied about, and of course the liberal press demands that government fix it all. I remember tainted aspirin as a kid killing people. I remember a Jack in the Box food poisoning scare that killed people. These things are not the fault of Bush or newly lax environmental regulation. They are a symptom of fallible people making mistakes. So of course people like Gingrich should ignore them. They are beneath the purview of the federal government. They always have been. And once again, to blame conservative free market policies that have never been implemented is dishonest.
Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, a pair of conservative authors decades younger than Gingrich and Norquist, argue in their new, much-hyped book "Grand New Party" that the time has come to "move beyond the Reagan legacy and the mindset of the current Republican power structure." They suggest plenty of proposals that many progressives would support, including a fairly ambitious and expensive national health-care plan, subsidies for entry-level jobs and more investment in infrastructure.
And this, THIS, is why conservatives are failing. Democrat lite is not a feasible alternative, you need to either offer Democrat ideas, or go in a whole other direction and push harder for Conservative ideals. What ideals are these? An honest effort to solve the health care crisis by divorcing health care from jobs. People should buy health care like they buy car insurance. If they change jobs or move to a new city, they should be able to take health care with them. If they want to risk cheaper premiums and higher copays, let them, but then don't bail them out, make them pay the costs if they have to. It would take time to transition to a real free market health insurance system, but costs would begin to come down as soon as monopolies were broken by the separation of work and insurance. He chastises retirement savings accounts, but we have never seen them. We still are taxed 12+ % of income for social security. Don't compete to become better democrats, make the case for conservative solutions, then fight for them.
I believe that for McCain to win, he must do with other policies what he has done with energy, make specific detailed, and contrasting policy ideas to deal with the problem. The problem for McCain is his words will not be taken seriously because in many cases, when congress called for some of these changes, he stood in their way. Looking at the man and his policies though, a few stand out as winners. Vouchers, which liberals refuse to talk about because of their ties to the NEA, are an idea whose time has come. McCain has supported them consistently. Reduced regulation on nuclear plants, refineries, and drilling are popular and things McCain has supported, keep pushing them. Free trade agreements such as the one with Columbia allow sectors of the economy to grow greatly. Go to Columbia and tout this plan. Don't make the mistake of Bob Dole, a great heroic figure and legislator who failed because he ran as the anti-Clinton. Make yourself talk plans, give specific and detailed proposals to vote for, in addition to pointing out Obamas flaws. That is what is lacking, certainly not moving to the left.