Specter Flips
As many of you know already, Specter is switching parties. The Democrats will have their filibuster-proof majority. Cunning Club for Growth tactics and the urge to purge have won another famous victory. The upshot is that the now-Democratic incumbent will sail to re-election (Democrats and independents in Pennsylvania actually like Arlen Specter), Republican prospects of shrinking the Democratic majority in the Senate have grown dimmer and Obama’s domestic agenda is that much more likely to pass without effective opposition. It is significant that Specter explained his decision by referring to the backlash against his vote for the stimulus bill:
He said he has experienced a change of heart since the response to his vote for the stimulus legislation.
“Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion,” his statement said. “It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”
No doubt, the early polling showing him twenty-odd points behind Toomey in the Republican primary prompted him to make the decision now. However, it does seem worth noting that this is the second major political event since the passage of the stimulus bill over unanimous House Republican opposition and near-unanimous Senate Republican opposition, and it marks the second setback for the GOP (the other being the blown race in NY-20). Of course, this exact turn of events was not foreseen by anyone and has taken everyone by surprise, but if you consider the changes in Pennsylvania’s electorate and the pattern that has developed in statewide races in the last few years Specter’s party switch is not so surprising. In the end, as in NY-20, the candidate who embraced Obama’s legislation will be going to Washington, and the unfounded claim that the GOP was repudiated because of its spending excesses becomes even less credible (if that is possible). The strategy of focusing opposition on that bill now appears to have been more misguided than I ever imagined, as it has now indirectly and unexpectedly added the final piece to a Democratic juggernaut in Congress that will push through legislation far worse and more permanent than anything contained in the stimulus bill. The GOP made their stand at the wrong time on the wrong legislation based on faulty assumptions about the electorate and their own electoral defeats, and they are already paying for it.
Specter’s switch pretty well clears the way for Toomey to win the GOP nomination without much difficulty, so Toomey will have the chance to test his proposition that Pennsylvanians don’t want Arlen Specter’s brand of politics on a grand scale in the general election. The result of that contest will confirm what some of us have been saying for a while: of all the places to try to vindicate support for Club for Growth economic policy and the Iraq war, Pennsylvania is one of the worst places imaginable. If one had wanted to hasten the day when Club for Growth-style economic conservatism appeared to be nothing but a liability for the GOP, one could not have put together a better scenario than this one.
Somewhere out there, there’s an Alf Landon slouching towards Topeka to be born.
I think Ponnuru was right several months ago when he said the 60 vote majority didn’t mean a whole lot, or at least wasn’t grossly more significant than a 59 vote majority. What is significant is that Pennsylvania will not be sending a Republican to the Senate anytime soon as you note. More significant is that the Republicans are down to 2 state-wide office holders, lt. gov and ag. From Minnesota to Pennsylvania sans Indiana, the GOP party is showing weaknesses to be even competitive anymore. Yes, there are ebbs and flows. The ebb however is now the Northeast and through the Great Lakes.
“The strategy of focusing opposition on that bill now appears to have been more misguided than I ever imagined, as it has now indirectly and unexpectedly added the final piece to a Democratic juggernaut in Congress that will push through legislation far worse and more permanent than anything contained in the stimulus bill. ”
Really? IMO the stimulus bill and last year’s immigration bill were the most uniquely horrible pieces of domestic legislation that I can ever recall. George W Bush was not a good President in holding down the size and expenditures of government. But GWB at his worst was never within a county mile of the stimulus bill. The fact that the GOP held the line in opposing them is seed of its revival.
It’s becoming clear to me and I think it will be getting clearer to others that, politically speaking, the GOP is the way out of the Demo recession/depression.
So now the GOP has credibility on spending, immigration, and abortion. But I’m sure you have really important reasons for not voting for them. And btw, what exactly are the far worse pieces of legislation that the GOP now has no defense for?
A health care entitlement is the obvious piece of legislation that, if passed, will work to destroy the right politically for 20 years at least and permanently shift the political spectrum to the left. Pushing Specter out the door helps make that more likely, and making the stimulus into some great litmus test made Specter’s defection possible. Of course, it is more satisfying to moan about the stimulus and pretend that the GOP now has “credibility on spending” now that it has opened the door to a massive new expansion of entitlements. The GOP has been short-sighted and unimaginative as usual.
Of course, the issue is not whether I vote for them at the national level, as I did in 2008 except for McCain, but whether all the people who have been lost to the Congressional GOP can be won back. Spending matters did not lose them Congress, and austerity by itself will not win it back for them. That’s the reality.
TARP, as passed under Bush, was far worse than the stimulus under Obama. After the Bush deficits and TARP, GOP prattle about “socialism,” pork, waste, deficits and taxes is so much chin music.
“A health care entitlement is the obvious piece of legislation that, if passed, will work to destroy the right politically for 20 years at least and permanently shift the political spectrum to the left.”
I don’t think so. Maybe if we were still in the 1978-2006 political culture this might true, but if that were the case the GOP would be institutionally strong enough to prevent it anyway.
But things are different now, which is why I for one think the stimilus package is such a game changer. Basically IMO we have at most 3-5 years to go in the direction Obama is taking us before we see some real adverse changes in the American economy. I don’t think business as usual will be a credible option for very much longer. And for all the GOP’s sins, they are the ones who can make the transition.
Good point, GOM. GOP “credibility on spending” is barely three months old and does not bear much scrutiny, especially at the leadership level.
Specter would have signed onto health care legislation anyhow. He would have quibbled over some details, as he did with the stimulus, but he would have gone along. While it’s depressing to see the opposition party sink so low, there is some refreshing honesty here, too. No more do we have to hear the lie that Specter is a “socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.” The stimulus bill was as good a time as any to show his fiscally conservative bonafides, but –amazingly– they were not in evidence.
Daniel is right that the GOP can’t really make a stand on fiscal responsiblity. As GOM notes, their record is just awful, but the road to repentance has to start somewhere. They were facing years in exile anyhow, so a stand against that pork-laden monstrosity was worthwhile. It’s not the only thing that needs to change, but it’s a good start. After some needed time for reflection, aided by a more thwacks at the polls, the GOP can start looking at their disastrous record abroad.
So, of all the time to kick Specter out, the GOP chooses to do so now, in its ineberated helpless state. Instead of waiting for GOP to recapture the House and Senate and THEN purge Specter, the GOP is kicking out Specter when they have absolutely zero power! The result would be that Obama would have a greater majority than he does now as Specter would not have any reason anymore to oppose Card Check and other awful legislations under the cover of being moderate. The stimulus package is not the worst legislation passed (that would be Bailout 1, Bailout 2 and the budget) even though I believe it to be wasteful but obviously the republicans cannot wait to kick out Specter just because he voted for the stimulus!
This is madness, madness!
Once an entitlement is passed, it is never going to be repealed. Creating a vast new constituency for government will make entitlement reform impossible for decades and increase the number of voters that will be inclined to favor the party that supports protecting and expanding the entitlement. This will be a political and policy disaster for the right.
The stimulus will count as nothing compared to the outlays a health care entitlement will require. Once such an entitlement is passed, fiscal austerity becomes even less politically viable in the medium and long term. For short-term satisfaction, those who are most interested in combating spending have just made massive government expansion more likely by making the stimulus into the crucial litmus test that has ended up aiding the party that intends to push for a health care entitlement. This is not a good thing, unless you want to see that entitlement signed into law.
I think you seriously overstate the Democratic support for Specter. Perhaps Obama, Reid and Rendell can hold the line for him, but I think most libs find him to be a treacherous, gutless, unprincipled swine. Glenn Greenwald has a good column on this today. He was actually sort of more valuable as long as he was on the Republican team.
Perhaps in a few years, the economy will implode and Obama will have blood in his hands and the GOP will sweep the house and the senate. And then, the GOP will have credibility for having criticizing the stimulus. But by that time, I fear too many bad legislation would have passed and it is almost impossible to undo bad legislation. And we would be screwed anyway.
So long as Specter was a member of the GOP, he might still be corraled by the minority leader. For his support on major votes, he could have been permitted to deviate from the party line on less important matters. EFCA went down to defeat because Specter was still facing the constraints of being a Republican, despite his traditionally very close relationship to the unions, but now he will have very few reasons to continue to oppose it in the future regardless of what he said. What happened with EFCA might very well have been replicated during the health care debate, but now that won’t happen.
“TARP, as passed under Bush, was far worse than the stimulus under Obama. After the Bush deficits and TARP, GOP prattle about “socialism,†pork, waste, deficits and taxes is so much chin music.”
I disagree, for two reasons that the GOP should not be allowing people to forget or put under the rug:
1. Except for Bush and McCain, the GOP opposed TARP. And Bush and McCain are gone.
2. TARP was in response to an _imminent_ crisis. Ie, do this or 90% of all economic activity will stop _by 4 o’clock this afternoon_. We are obviously have severe economic problems now, arguably more difficult now than then. But they are far less
imminent, to the point where we can concentrate ourselves on getting something right as opposed to getting something out there.
“I think you seriously overstate the Democratic support for Specter. Perhaps Obama, Reid and Rendell can hold the line for him, but I think most libs find him to be a treacherous, gutless, unprincipled swine. Glenn Greenwald has a good column on this today. He was actually sort of more valuable as long as he was on the Republican team.”
Specter isn’t beholden to them any more than he was to Trent Lott or Mitch McConnell. Basically, his career is in the hands of PA Demo primary voters (if there is a contested primary) and that’s it.
“So long as Specter was a member of the GOP, he might still be corraled by the minority leader. For his support on major votes, he could have been permitted to deviate from the party line on less important matters. ”
You would think so, but you could never be sure which issues you could get him back on the reservation. More importantly, for the times that you could keep him on the reservation, there was always some credibility-sapping cost, to mainstream and dissident conservatives both.
So long as Specter was a member of the GOP, he might still be corraled by the minority leader.
How many times has that counterfactual been trotted out? Look, your view on the politics of the stimulus bill were pretty sound, but that kerfluffle did show how treacherous the “moderates” can be. The vote wasn’t about whether or not there would be a stimulus. The GOP was putting forward an alternative. The question was about how big that stimulus would be and how long lasting. THAT was the time for Specter and the Maine sisters to show that they really were part of the team, even if they dissented on social issues. Had they hung tough on the filibuster, the GOP could have negotiated down the total cost and shown some relevance. In fact, had Specter done this, Toomey wouldn’t have been an issue.
But, as usual, the moderates stabbed their own party members in the back at a most crucial moment. And for what? Some niggling amount*? These weasels would have done the same thing with health care, all the while professing to be loyal Republicans.
*There is some poetic justice, as Collins is being blamed for the Swine flu now by liberals.
“So, of all the time to kick Specter out, the GOP chooses to do so now, in its ineberated helpless state. Instead of waiting for GOP to recapture the House and Senate and THEN purge Specter, the GOP is kicking out Specter when they have absolutely zero power! ”
This is just another typical Specter sellout. The GOP didn’t purge Specter, Specter flipped. The GOP establishment was behind his reelection, but even if they want to they can’t wish away a primary.
“Except for Bush and McCain, the GOP opposed TARP.”
This is not true. I assume that you don’t know the extent of GOP support for TARP in Congress, or else you wouldn’t make such a statement.
“TARP was in response to an _imminent_ crisis. Ie, do this or 90% of all economic activity will stop _by 4 o’clock this afternoon_.”
TARP was never used for the purposes laid out by its initial supporters, and in any case it took months to get it up and running. The “imminent crisis” was not meaningfully addressed by passage of the bill creating the TARP, and the “imminent crisis” portrayed by the bill’s supporters was vastly exaggerated. As of February, they still hadn’t figured out how to make the program work, and to this day the program has served mostly as a pile of cash to be disbursed as and when the executive branch sees fit without any real accountability. The Senate and House GOP leadership and a large percentage of their members signed off on this.
“THAT was the time for Specter and the Maine sisters to show that they really were part of the team, even if they dissented on social issues. Had they hung tough on the filibuster, the GOP could have negotiated down the total cost and shown some relevance.”
Of course. Btw, we’ve heard the “fiscally conservative-socially liberal” canard for decades now. But it’s a complete crock. The problem with the usual “moderate” GOP usual suspects is that you never get the half loaf you’re promised.
“The GOP didn’t purge Specter, Specter flipped.”
The Pennsylvania GOP probably was going to “purge” him in the next year inasmuch as the primary challenger was going to defeat him. He flipped because he was on his way to losing an intra-party fight. I don’t insist on calling it a purge, when it was much more democratic than that, but it’s not as if Specter jumped ship despite the best efforts to keep him on board. Everyone kept telling him to get lost, and so he did.
“TARP was never used for the purposes laid out by its initial supporters, and in any case it took months to get it up and running. The “imminent crisis†was not meaningfully addressed by passage of the bill creating the TARP, and the “imminent crisis†portrayed by the bill’s supporters was vastly exaggerated. ”
That doesn’t make a difference. The point being, that _was_ perception in the market, among financial institutions, and economic participants. Ie, the world is ending _right now_ and the government is going to let it happen.
I don’t know if those fears were exaggerated or not. But, you ought to know if you don’t already that they were taken very seriously by people of every political and economic stripe, _and_ no one has convincingly tried to refute it.
If these things were not true, there would have been no TARP. But we were in a different situation in February, and the D’s _still_ forced through the stimulus bill, and at final passage they had _zero_votes to spare in the Senate.
Everyone kept telling him to get lost, and so he did.
True, but let’s at least acknowledge that there was some good reason to tell him to get lost.
You aren’t going to get 100% of your caucus. The dems couldn’t hold their whole caucus. Very rarely could Specter afford to provide political cover, but he could on occasion. He still was one more vote in the GOP caucus though and that makes a real difference, particularly when you have 3 or 4 flipped districts could give you commitee control. What is it, something 90% of the stuff is passed on unanimous or near-unanimous votes? If you are in the majority, you have a lot more power to write those bills and decide which ones get moved. That is why losing Specter hurts.
“I don’t insist on calling it a purge, when it was much more democratic than that,…”
The GOP establishment has not supported a challenger against an incumbent for a long long time (in fact, I can’t remember the last one),
It’s true–the atmosphere of panic and alarmism irresponsibly created by the government contributed to support for the TARP, which remains less justifiable on the merits than anything that has passed Congress since then. By February, such alarmism was no longer credible and the government had already assumed massive amounts of new debt from all the bailouts, so there was much less tolerance for additional debt than there had been in September. The stimulus vote was as close as it was because many red-state Democrats were balking at spending more after having already signed off on an indefensible financial sector bailout. There have been serious establishment consensus views on invading Iraq and providing amnesty, too, which didn’t make either policy any less horrible and obviously so.
I just find it amusing that a defender of the GOP’s supposed “credibility on spending” is in any way defending the passage of the Stabilization Act, which was the most irresponsible appropriation bill to pass Congress in the last decade at least.
“This is not true. I assume that you don’t know the extent of GOP support for TARP in Congress, or else you wouldn’t make such a statement.”
That’s right. Apparently a majority of the GOP Senate voted for the TARP, though a majority of the GOP House voted nay (bigger majorities of the D’s voted aye of course).
“……irresponsibly created by the government…..”
No, no, no, no (I’m assuming that you’re arguing that the alarmism was created by the gov’t instead of the underlying economic crisis which is more plausible).
There is no way that the crisis that created the TARP was just some gov’t Chinese fire drill. _No one_ thought so at the time and for that matter no one has demonstrated it since.
I agree that spending is not what caused the GOP to lose. Although it did caused some conservatives to set on their hands or be less enthusiastic. But I disagree that the GOP needs to accommodate the current political landscape. (They need to change certain policies but that is a paleo vs. neo issue, not a hard core vs. moderate issue.) They need to attempt to alter the current landscape. That entails losing some in order to win. Not moderating. (The GOP is better off without Specter and would be better off without Snowe and Collins as well. They hinder the message.) The TEA Parties are a good start at attempting to alter the landscape. Obama is radicalizing people. I understand that many would not be protesting had McCain won and was spending extravagantly, but you have to start somewhere. What’s that they say about a gift horse?
BTW, for those who don’t like Club for Growth style economics and Iraq War policy, then support Peg Luksik. She used to be in the Constitution Party so I assume she is more open to non-interventionism although I don’t know that for sure.
“I understand that many would not be protesting had McCain won and was spending extravagantly,…”
I’m no big fan of McCain but there is no way McCain would be spending like Obama has been. McCain’s inclination, the politics, and the economic situation all go the other way.
I’m no big fan of McCain but there is no way McCain would be spending like Obama has been.
Yes, he would have only spent 3/4 as much as Obama.
Or maybe 7/8, or 15/16 or 31/32…
“Yes, he would have only spent 3/4 as much as Obama.”
Why? Because the Democrats would have forced it on him?
The Democrats and his constituency in the media, and all the responsibility would have been pinned on the GOP. Too, McCain would have pushed an almost instant amnesty, with its consequent growth in spending. Ironically, under Obama, we’re less likely to see that.
It’s quite amusing to drop by David Frum’s site today….not for anything he says, which is predictable “todja so” stuff….but for the unhinged remarks by his commenters. It seems he had no sooner started this “New Majority” stuff than all of the Free Republic types targeted it. Of course, in their alternate reality going further into the minority is actually a good thing – majorities are for sissies!
“The Democrats and his constituency in the media, and all the responsibility would have been pinned on the GOP. ”
McCain _wants_ to cut spending, why would he be afraid of accepting that responsibility?
“McCain _wants_ to cut spending, why would he be afraid of accepting that responsibility?”
McCain would have been filled with guilt after he defeats Obama. To atone for his sin, he probably would become a Democrat lite fiscally which is not too difficult for him since he has been democrat lite on many other policies. It is not like McCain is principled about anything but amnesty.
The same interests that lead to Obama pushing TARP II would also lead to McCain pushing the same policies and Democrats would have a jolly time targeting this “McCain-Bush” policy of corporatism and take up the populist mantle. In addition to that, He probably would have invaded Iran by 2010.
“The TEA Parties are a good start at attempting to alter the landscape. Obama is radicalizing people. I understand that many would not be protesting had McCain won and was spending extravagantly, but you have to start somewhere. What’s that they say about a gift horse?”
People complaining about taxes on income tax day is what amounts to a the start of a game-changing sweep for the Republican party? Really? What were the demographics of the tea parties that indicate that in many of the “purple” states, they represent a significant threat to the waves of Democrats who have been elected in recent years?
There is a great presumption that a miraculous silent majority is just waiting to be tapped. Certainly Nixon, when he made that speech, was arguing rightly that the cultural changes sweeping the country had created a fertile backlash amongst the people who constituted a dependable voting bloc i.e. white, middle-class suburban voters. Those voters are not only leaning Democratic these days, but they don’t pose the threat they used to, for a variety of demographic reasons. And their sway will continue to diminish as time goes on.
As I’ve stated before, if one accepts the conventional narrative of a constant back and forth between the parties as far as control of the government goes, you would, rightly, presume that Republicans will eventually crawl back to the top. But thats simply not the case. With the exception of the White House which is the political equivalent of the World Series (its an aberration, not proof of a party’s popularity) Democrats have consistently held onto or been close to, legislative power for years. Theres no reason to believe that will change anytime in the near future, between staggered Senate elections, and a strong House operation.
Regardless of our differences vis-à-vis TARP, the stimulus and Specter, I think we can all agree on Koz being the worst commenter here.
“It’s true–the atmosphere of panic and alarmism irresponsibly created by the government contributed to support for the TARP, which remains less justifiable on the merits than anything that has passed Congress since then.”
…..The admittedly somewhat disjointed reaction to the financial crisis by the Bush admin including the passage of TARP was one of its few successes. I’m afraid anyone who dismisses the need for TARP and the many other measures taken in collaboration with the Fed has absolutely no understanding of the seriousness of the financial crisis threatening the country from March of 2008 onwards. You were looking at the failure of maybe the top 25 financial institutions in the country and then a domino effect that would engulf hundreds more. For some reason on the far right and far left there is an appetite for this sort of nihilism which reminds me strongly of the sort of atmosphere that must have prevailed in European capitals in July/August 1914. I even saw some similar phrases used like national cleansing of the system. Basically I put it down to ignorance and stupidity. These are enormously complex matters far beyond the understanding of most Americans but at the same time easy to turn into populist causes. The effect of these moves and those by the Obama admin have essentially stabilized the US banking system. The problems are going to take years to work out but the danger of a collapse has been averted.
Just a quick question. I’m youngish and not the most well read on American history (at least on the specific policy actions of our presidents).
May I ask who was the last President who helped make government (not just taxes) smaller? It couldn’t have been any of the ones in my lifetime (Carter-Obama)….
A few thoughts about Specter and the current condition of the GOP. My memory extends back to Truman but my political consciousness really begins in late Eisenhower so I’ve had the opportunity to observe the ebbs and flows of political fortune. Most of that time I tended to vote Republican but basically jumped ship in the late nineties really over the Clinton impeachment. It’s interesting reading the comments of far right true believers here because I really do think they are a fairly accurate representation of the mindset of the base of the Republican party today. Self delusion, adherence to all kinds of urban myths, misinformation, irrationality, denial of science and empirical evidence, it’s all there to be seen by anyone. To me the surprising thing is that it’s to found everywhere on the right, even in supposedly responsible venues like the WSJ. And it’s totally out of touch with the most basic realities of most people’s lives or the practicalities of governance. When you get down to it their entire anticipation for a return of Republican dominance is based on belief and hope that the Obama administration is going to fail. I wouldn’t bet my life’s savings on it. Perhaps the most interesting question is how did the GOP get here. Essentially it’s the product of two, too clever by half strategies: the southern strategy and polarization. The first was inevitable. The south was alway much more conservative than the rest of the country so once civil rights was off the table they were going to gravitate to where they really belonged which was on the right of the Republican party. Polarization is really a product of the last 25 years where the most reactionary and obscurantist elements in the country on a host of issues have been drawn into the party and since many of these same people were southerners also they have gradually taken over the party at just about every level and imposed an extraordinary doctrinal rigidity . Even during the Goldwater enthusiasm it wasn’t remotely like this. There were still plenty of moderates in the party and they largely regarded Goldwater as a sacrificial lamb because there was no way anyone could beat Johnson in ’64. In truth I don’t see how the GOP gets itself out of the canyon it’s ridden into, certainly not in the medium term.
“Regardless of our differences vis-Ã -vis TARP, the stimulus and Specter, I think we can all agree on Koz being the worst commenter here.”
And way past whoever is in next-to-last place.
“…..The admittedly somewhat disjointed reaction to the financial crisis by the Bush admin including the passage of TARP was one of its few successes. I’m afraid anyone who dismisses the need for TARP and the many other measures taken in collaboration with the Fed has absolutely no understanding of the seriousness of the financial crisis threatening the country from March of 2008 onwards. You were looking at the failure of maybe the top 25 financial institutions in the country and then a domino effect that would engulf hundreds more.”
I think it’s giving the Bush Administration too much credit to call TARP a success, but Otto is correct to emphasize the environment that created it. One important thing to note was how close the “regular” non-financial economy was to collapse, ie, Winn-Dixie being out of milk and cereal, gas stations being out of fuel, and ATM being out of money. If these things would have happened, the consequences would have been completely unpredictable, and likely not good.
The essential point of TARP was, that the gov’t was going guarantee whatever financial transactions required to make sure this didn’t happen.
“What were the demographics of the tea parties that indicate that in many of the “purple†states, they represent a significant threat to the waves of Democrats who have been elected in recent years?”
“…white, middle-class suburban voters. Those voters are not only leaning Democratic these days, but they don’t pose the threat they used to, for a variety of demographic reasons. And their sway will continue to diminish as time goes on.”
Sean, that is part of my point. There is clearly a demographic component at work here, that the libs/Dems clearly get, but the conservatives largely refuse to, frightened as they are that someone might dud them un-PC. But this willful blindness can only last so long because what is going on is so blatantly obvious. Those angry white folks at some point are going to have to realize that like it or not, there really is a demographic component that they can’t avoid. That starts to bring the moderates, who might have wanted “change” but not THAT MUCH change our way.
There is only so many time some self-righteous self-loathing white lib can celebrate multi-cultural triumphalism and the demise of the white man before people start to catch on. Tell Joe White Guy at the TEA Party that he is going the way of the Dodo bird and you’re quite happy about it, and he is likely to not be too happy about it.
Koz: ” Basically IMO we have at most 3-5 years to go in the direction Obama is taking us before we see some real adverse changes in the American economy. I don’t think business as usual will be a credible option for very much longer. And for all the GOP’s sins, they are the ones who can make the transition.”
Two comments – first, I remember Phil ‘Texas A&M econ professor’ Gramm predicting that the first Clinton budget was a one-way ticket to a recession. Talk like that is cheap.
Second, after the GOP trashed the economy, there’s a certain lack of credibility that the Evul Librulz will trash the economy.
Koz, on April 29th, 2009 at 7:31 am Said
“I think it’s giving the Bush Administration too much credit to call TARP a success,”
….Did the financial system collapse? So the various measures, of which TARP was an essential part, that were undertaken by Paulson, for it was he, and Bernanke, and then followed up by Geithner/Summers/Bernanke were a success. They would have been a failure had the sytem gone into meltdown. You can’t have it both ways.
joypog, on April 29th, 2009 at 5:25 am
“May I ask who was the last President who helped make government (not just taxes) smaller? It couldn’t have been any of the ones in my lifetime (Carter-Obama)”
….Clinton….govt expenditure as % of GDP and absolute headcount both shrank substantially during the Clinton admin. Under Bush expenditure/gdp expanded substantially but this wasn’t reflected fully in headcount which did grow but not by much because of the amount of sub contracting of govt activities. Taxes as % of GDP are going to be at the lowest level (around 15.5% of GDP) since 1950! Although you’d never know it to hear Newt Gingrich talk. Traditionally taxes as % of GDP have been in a 18-21% range, mainly nearer the bottom end of this range. I expect them to got to the top end in order to get some fiscal sanity back. Bruce Bartlett had an excellent piece at Frum’s blog on the whole subject which pointed out as we all really know that the US is actually one of the lightest taxed societies in the western world.
“….Did the financial system collapse? So the various measures, of which TARP was an essential part, that were undertaken by Paulson, for it was he, and Bernanke, and then followed up by Geithner/Summers/Bernanke were a success. They would have been a failure had the sytem gone into meltdown. You can’t have it both ways.”
Well, yes but two things: first there’s some chance the economy could have found a place to hold before collapse and more importantly assuming that the gov’t had to do something to reassure the financial world, esp bank depositors, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they had to do TARP.
Given the kluge-y design and severe time pressure the best we can say for it is that it was a necessary evil.
“Two comments – first, I remember Phil ‘Texas A&M econ professor’ Gramm predicting that the first Clinton budget was a one-way ticket to a recession. Talk like that is cheap.
Second, after the GOP trashed the economy, there’s a certain lack of credibility that the Evul Librulz will trash the economy.”
First of all, we’re in a Bush/Democrat recession right now, and Bush is gone. Once the Demo’s go, we’ll be in decent shape.
And about the 90′s recovery I think Barry has a selective memory. Among other things we wouldn’t have had one if Hillary’s health care plan had passed. And another thing: back then I recall very clearly Rush Limbaugh telling President Clinton that the economy was fine and that we didn’t need his “help”. Of course he was right and that was the beginning of the Republican turnaround 18 months later.
“Bruce Bartlett had an excellent piece at Frum’s blog on the whole subject which pointed out as we all really know that the US is actually one of the lightest taxed societies in the western world.”
I saw that piece and his real complaint as I read it against the Norquist strategy of holding the line against taxes at all cost while turning a blind eye to all sorts of expenditure shenanigans, and I agree with him to that extent.
On his disparagement of the Tea Parties is misguided because the Tea Parties also represent a reversal of the Norquist strategy. Ie, we’ll start protesting now for the taxes that will be coming later (Bartlett’s argument that the US is lightly taxed is from 2006 data). And about his complaint that the Tea Partiers need to find something real to cut besides earmarks and helium funds, that’s not exactly their function. But that doesn’t even matter because there’s a really easy answer for that one anyway: we can cut the stimulus package which, let’s remind ourselves, every Republican in Congress opposed except for three Senators and one of those flipped to the other team which is of course the genesis of this thread in the first place.
No, to a substantial extent the real issue for the revival of America is for the Bartletts and Larisons and various other dissident conservatives to figure out a way to be team players.
“There is only so many time some self-righteous self-loathing white lib can celebrate multi-cultural triumphalism and the demise of the white man before people start to catch on. Tell Joe White Guy at the TEA Party that he is going the way of the Dodo bird and you’re quite happy about it, and he is likely to not be too happy about it.”
He’s also irrelevant, and increasingly not even an example of the opinions or the political attitudes of his claimed ethnic identity. It’s hard to argue, with a straight face, that the fairly large segment of white America whom voted is made up of “self-righteous self-loathing white lib”s, or that accepting racial diversity is some sort of “sell-out”. That kind of logic is like a moebius strip of political loss: its why Republicans sound like idiots when they bring it up. No one, outside of the hard-core TownHall.com crowd gives a damn, nor views it as anywhere near threatening as the likes of Steve Sailer want it to be. people simply DON’T care.
“that the fairly large segment of white America whom voted is made up of “self-righteous self-loathing white lib’s”
I’m not talking about most whites who voted. I’m talking about the libs who come on conservative websites and celebrate the demographic demise of majority white (and Christian) America. The two parties are already ethnic identity parties whether people want to admit it or not. The Dems the party of ethnic and religious minorities and urban/+/-suburban white libs. The GOP the party of rural and +/- suburban whites. The balance is how the middle group of whites vote. They will either increasingly cast their lot with the Dems or start trending back to the GOP. Obama’s radicalism and the triumphalistic behavior of the self-righteous multicult fetishists will make the later more likely.
Wow. That conflates a lot of different things doesn’t it?
As a low-tax, low-regulation, civil-liberties oriented, trad Catholic I should be a natural target for the GOP. But I’m also mixed-race, enough so that most Mexicans assume I speak spanish, incorrectly guessing that I am hispanic.
As to the two parties already being “ethnic identity parties”, I remember when the ethnic demographic was presumed to be breaking sharply for the conservatives. The hispanic community – heavily Catholic, ferocious family values orientation, strong work ethic – were widely considered to be a perfect fit for conservative outreach. God knows how the party screwed that one up. The Democrats didn’t even have to work for it. And does anyone else remember Grover Norquist’s idea of outreach to the American Muslims?
If the Republicans really want to be the party of “Joe White Guy” they are doomed and they probably should be. Maybe they could try representing “Joe American” without regard to his ethnicity. I have a beer with “Joe White Guy” sometimes and not only is he less numerous these days, he probably doesn’t like to think of himself as “Joe White Guy”.
As to libs polluting conservative websites with our perverted, communist, Arab-loving ways….well, I guess I plead guilty. Though, except for my reluctant assent to state-run health-care, I actually agree with much of what I see here. I haven’t seen much liberal trolling here.
“The GOP the party of rural and +/- suburban whites. The balance is how the middle group of whites vote. They will either increasingly cast their lot with the Dems or start trending back to the GOP. Obama’s radicalism and the triumphalistic behavior of the self-righteous multicult fetishists will make the later more likely.”
Pointing out that trends are not in the favor of a given party is, to a certain extent, a form of triumphalism. But its one backed up by winning; certainly the Republican party, after 2004, claimed itself a mandate. In a newer post Danial essentially makes the same argument that the Republican’s made a critical mistake in believing that the unity after 9/11 represented a significant sea-change in politics, one that led them down the path to lose in 2006 and 2008.
I don’t think its fair to assert that the two-party system represents some sort of ethnic/confessional political divide, or atleast it doesn’t willingly. This isn’t Northern Ireland nor Lebanon. But there has been a clear, conscious decision, as far back as the Nixon Southern strategy, to make the Republican party an explicitly white party. The fact that they’ve gotten what they’ve worked so hard for doesn’t mean, as is often claimed, that the Democrats have become the “party of minorities” because they sought it (which would be an interesting surprise to anyone whose witnessed internal Democratic wrangling), but by virtue of a two-party system, thats whats ended up happening.
If we didn’t have the kind of ossified party structure we have, I can imagine a fracturing of the Democratic party into a broader range of parties along the spectrum of centre-left and social democrats, resembling the kind of split between Canada’s Liberals and the NDP. But as things stand, we will instead be stuck with a kind of Japanese LDP leviathan, one-party with effective control, but whoms factions represent the “true” competition politically.
“The Hispanic community – heavily Catholic, ferocious family values orientation, strong work ethic – were widely considered to be a perfect fit for conservative outreach.”
jetan, that was always a myth. While that may describe some older, established, multigenerational American Hispanic families, it never described recent Hispanic immigrants. Recent Hispanic immigrants vote very heavily Democratic, almost as heavily as blacks. And based on the number of out-of-wedlock births, crime rates, etc. are not exemplars of family values. This is why Republicans must oppose amnesty and should be restrictionist on legal immigration.
Sean and jetan, read the 2nd article down by Michael Lind. It was written a couple of years ago but it is even more true today post the election of Obama.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/what_is_left_what_is_right_does_it_matter_4048
That the two parties are now identity parties is not an opinion. It is a demonstrable fact. Sean knows that I am no White Nationalist and never had much sympathy for Sam Francis’ Middle American Radical idea, but I know unfair when I see it. That the Dems can celebrate their diversity, their specific minorities can celebrate their specific ethnic identity, and that the white saps who vote with them can celebrate their moral superiority, but whites Republicans are supposed to be ashamed of any perceived group interest is Cultural Marxist BS. And I don’t think that the tolerance for this blatant double standard can last indefinitely. Especially if it is overplayed and flaunted.
I think that is why the left was so intent on discrediting and ignoring the TEA parties. They fear white consciousness and perceived group interests more than anything.
Red, I hope that I did not suggest that you were a White Nationalist. If I gave that impression, I apologize. Having said that, I do confess that I find phraseology such as “white consciousness” a tad jarring.
As to the merits of your argument, the resistance to unrestricted immigration is not limited to either party or to the white population. Polling indicates that this is quite a widely based position, one that cuts across all party, class and even ethnic lines. Certainly the Democratic leadership has tried to play the immigration matter – and has done so rather adroitly – but on the whole they are doing so in the teeth of their constituents. Republicans should know how that feels.
As to the hispanics, I repeat that their work ethic is simply awesome. As to their family values, I feel no need to rely on polls and white papers…..I have defended them in Court, have met their Moms and Sisters, attended Church with them and gotten loaded with them. Yes, much of the community is ravaged by drugs and they are at the bottom-barrel of the criminal justice system….but you could say the same thing about the poor, rural whites here in Oklahoma.
Finally, and I apologize again for going on and on, I don’t agree that with the “demonstrable fact” that the parties are racial identity parties. I suggest, respectfully, that you may be projecting a bit. If the Democrats are so in the pocket of racial politics, then apparently the memo didn’t get to the primary voters in my home state as well as in the states of W. Va, Pennsylvania or Ohio…..all states where polling indicated the most acute divide between white and black Democratic voters. And yet in the general election, the Democrats took two of those states with ease…..thereby confounding several pundits who thought that the “bitter, gun-wielding” whities would decline to support a black candidate.
I’m feeling like a bit of a prophet, in that a few months ago, viewing the GOP response to the stiumulus and Obama in general, I said that the GOP was in the midst of committing suicide by cop. Now we are beginning to see the results of this – moderates leaving the party in droves, the increasing bunkerization of ideology, and the random ravings of people who simply can’t be regarded as sane any more. The GOP has become a degenerate movement falling in upon itself, close to attaining cult-status, and the smart people who still have a survival instinct are abandoning ship. Specter is no prize, but he’s got a survival instinct, and he knows what happens when a political party decides to steer full steam directly into an iceberg. At 21%, the GOP is already approaching minor third party status, if we consider that independents at 38% constitute the second largest poilitical party in the country, and seem to be leaning democratic by about 2-1. It may be time for genuine, intelligent conservatives of the Burkean/paleo type to move towards the center and push the GOP off the cliff, rather than staying on the fringes as they tend to do. The opportunity is there if anyone is sensible enough to take advantage of it.
“That the Dems can celebrate their diversity, their specific minorities can celebrate their specific ethnic identity, and that the white saps who vote with them can celebrate their moral superiority, but whites Republicans are supposed to be ashamed of any perceived group interest is Cultural Marxist BS. And I don’t think that the tolerance for this blatant double standard can last indefinitely. Especially if it is overplayed and flaunted.”
What group interest? There is no white group interest, mostly because white’s form a far more heterogenous group (as one would expect out of the majority) that is often better divided amongst class, education, and geographical lines than anything else. But increasingly theres little to no minority group interest either, as the gulf between various classes amongst ethnic groups strains what was perceived to be a kind of cultural/racial unity.
In fact, for most of Southern political history, this divide amongst whites was the most prominent defining feature of political life, besides racial inequality. People often forget that hard-core segregationists like George Wallace, Ben Tillman, and others, ran off essentially populist platforms that would horrify the dingbats who wave around the old stars and bars today. i think if people read the Ocala Demands, which Tillman managed to get the Democrat’s to run on, and he himself endorsed, they would shit a brick.
It is only until the switch-a-roo of Democrats and Republicans in the 50′s and 60′s, and the “white flight” did a significant proportion of white’s in the South began to adopt wholesale Republican economic ideology. And again, that mostly because it was presented as the white choice. Before you knew it, people who had elected governors (like Tillman) on an explicit platform of raising taxes on the rich, started voting for guys who wanted to CUT them for the same people.
The consistent popularity of people like Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and others, indicates that the appeal of supposed cultural and racial unity is important to atleast a pretty reliable segment of the population. Unfortunately for Republicans, its no longer the WINNING segment. It’s why the article you cite is so ridiculous, and even more in retrospect; for a party the author defines as hating majority rule, his panties must be in a bunch after seeing Republicans lose handily in 06/08 by large margins.
Continuing to insist that there is some mythical unicorn of angry whites that Republicans are going to ride on back to legislative power and the White House because of what they perceive to be some insult to their “white consciousness” is absurd, and a recipe for continued electoral disaster. No one cares for “cultural marxism”/”white consciousness”/or any number of other rhetorical claptraps. It’s not merely that more minorities are in America, but that most racial animosities are no longer present in the same intensity they once were.For someone to fear “cultural marxism”, or going the way of the dodo, they would have to start to fear their neighbor, their co-worker, or their boss. And certainly, as indicated by the tea parties, there are people who are like that. But they will never represent the majority in this country anytime soon, if ever again.
Well Sean, I didn’t realize that Cultural Marxism was a controversial subject in paleo circles. Cultural Marxism is a palpable reality.
There isn’t necessarily a white group interest as people perceive it. I think we all have a group interest in restoring the Republic left to us by the Founders. Some think we have a group interest in becoming European Social Democrats. But I would think that whites would have an interest in people not publicly dancing on their graves but maybe that’s just me. I’m a bit feisty that way.
But realistically and historically speaking, WASPY urban elites should have more interests in common with middle class white folks in fly-over country than they do with new immigrants and urban blacks. Austin Bramwell recently made this point as well. But they vote with the latter. Why? Because evangelical Yahoos in flyover country are going to keep their career oriented, 1- 2 child daughter from killing her baby if she gets knocked up? Because they have more loyalty to the new globalized economy than they do to their fellow countrymen?
For the record, Michael Lind is one of those conservatives turned crusading moderate. A species that normally irritates me. He has no stake in his observations, but his observations are demonstrably true. At least they are in Georgia. Maybe things are different in Wisconsin.