Austerity and Peace
On the eve of Rand Paul’s likely primary victory over Trey Grayson, I want to make a few observations about the importance of Paul’s candidacy and the apparent failure of party and movement establishment figures to defeat him. First of all, Paul is one of a very few Republican candidates in the country who is truly serious in his desire for fiscal responsibility. In his hostility to expansive government and reckless spending, he does not make exceptions for military spending, and he is appropriately skeptical of government power whether it comes in the form of military adventurism and empire-building or sweeping social legislation and bailouts. Paul is the candidate of both austerity and peace, which is why he is particularly terrifying to David Frum, who has spent many years arguing for an agenda that values neither.
It is possible that Paul’s positions will be too fiscally conservative and too sensible on national security for his state’s electorate, but it is also quite possible that Paul could be representing Kentucky in the Senate next year. Oddly, Frum consistently makes the same mistake that many Republican officeholders and activists make in their total opposition to any and all of the administration’s agenda: all of them believe that the policies that they believe are correct are also going to yield electoral success. Right now, winning by default during poor economic times and total rejectionism seem to be working for the GOP, though perhaps not as well as many Republicans think they are, but this is the opposite of what Frum said would happen if the GOP did not become more accommodating. The Kentucky Senate seat is not going to be in jeopardy if Paul wins tomorrow, nor are we on the verge of a massive Republican blowout in the midterms driven by a public backlash against government spending. Virtually everyone on the right is investing election outcomes these days with far more ideological meaning than they actually possess, and to the extent that there is an ideological message in the backlash going on right now almost everyone is misinterpreting it.
In another state at another time, Paul’s Senate run might have ended up as nothing more than a protest candidacy, but things seem to be coming together to make victory possible. Fiscal austerity is generally a very unpopular message: it demands that voters either pay for the services they want or it says that they have to do without those services. It is not normally a vote-winner, because it goes against the basic assumption of most democratic voting for at least the last eighty years that we should regularly look to government for assistance. Even if Paul wins, it will not necessarily prove that unflinching fiscal conservatism is always the key to electoral success, even in Kentucky, and Paul’s example may not be easily repeated elsewhere. In many ways, Kentucky is a very unrepresentative state. While Democrats have a significant registration advantage there, the state still went heavily for McCain (57-41%) during a second consecutive Democratic wave election and it has voted heavily for Republican candidates for President in the last three cycles. What succeeds in Kentucky will not necessarily translate to larger, more urbanized, more diverse states. That is an argument for giving local candidates more flexibility in how they appeal to their voters and recognizing that a party trying to push a uniform agenda nationwide is going to make itself uncompetitive in many parts of the country.
What Paul’s likely win tomorrow suggests is that the close identification of national security conservatives with the party leadership significantly blunted the impact of Grayson’s attacks on Paul on these issues. If the Kentucky primary electorate is in a fiercely anti-establishment, anti-Washington mood, what could be better for Rand Paul than to be denounced on a fairly regular basis by establishment Republican politicians and pundits? For his part, Paul has been careful to emphasize the issues where most Republican voters seem to agree with him rather than stressing points of dispute. The efforts to misrepresent many of Paul’s views on social issues also seem to have backfired and weakened the effectiveness of the overall negative campaign against Paul. The push to derail Paul’s candidacy because of his insufficiently hawkish views should also remind rank-and-file Republican voters that national security hawkishness trumps all other issues.
The problem with trying to be anti-austerity is that in recent history it tends to mean you lose your house and your job, but your taxes stay high so that Goldman Sachs and the other Banksters can get their bonuses when they should be in receivership.
Mainstreet turns into a Dickensian dystopia while the pre-spirit-visit Scrooge becomes PM.
The austerity message then becomes – you’ve already lost your house, you’ve already lost your job, so why are we giving taxpayer money to the filthy rich?
As an avid reader of your blog and someone “on the ground” here in Paul’s hometown of Bowling Green, let me add a few thoughts:
1.) What will happen tomorrow is still hard to say. Polling suggests Paul has a double-digit lead, but you’d be amazed at how many college kids from around the country, especially the Midwest, are here working for his campaign. They are young and hip and attractive, and for the most part are pretty crunchy/lib types, and they’ve done a great job at getting “the youth vote” enthused about Paul. But will these people vote tomorrow? Are they even registered Republicans? The reason Kentucky is heavily Dem-registered but trends Republican in Senate and presidential races is because, until the past 10 or so years, literally EVERYONE was a Democrat, and being a Republican meant not getting to vote in our closed primaries. (My 69-year-old father, a former politician and hardly any sort of liberal, still votes straight-ticket Democrat despite his disagreement with almost all of the hot-button issues. Why? Because that’s what he’s always done.) Personally, I think Paul will win, but not by double digits. And if so, it will be because of the next two points.
2.) The McConnell Backlash. People here are starting to get fed up with Mitch, because for all the earmarks he has brought back to this state — and every time he’s up for re-election, these are the singular focus of his campaign ads in every region of the state — he is seen as someone who really isn’t in touch with his constituency. He is seen (rightly, I think) as a pompous pol whose main goal is his own self-preservation, and whose knee-jerk rhetoric so often echoes that of Limbaugh and the like that it is almost comical. Meanwhile, we boast one of the highest tax burdens in the nation (when sales tax and income tax and business taxes are all taken into account) and a state legislature that is among the laziest in recorded history. In Kentucky, the only politicians you actually like are the sheriffs and jailers… all the others are bums, and at the end of the day you just try to figure out which one you dislike least.
3.) Grayson’s Joke of a Campaign. At my house, we have received at least a dozen mailers from the Grayson campaign, every one of which is focused on how “weird” Paul is, with all the footnoted, partial-quote madness you’d expect. Each boasts the same picture of Paul, wearing a turtleneck and Photoshopped onto a strange background that makes him look like a mad scientist or doomsday villain. But the anti-Paul points aren’t things anyone is remotely concerned about: He’d let Iran have a nuclear program! He opposes the Patriot Act! He even contracts his employees as “independent contractors” so he can avoid paying their employment taxes!!! The icing on the cake is a TV ad that boasts McConnell on the front end, then shows a list of “experienced” Republicans who endorse Grayson, and these include none other than Dick Cheney.
In short, McConnell doesn’t have the clout he thinks he has, and Grayson’s campaign is vastly overestimating how “mainstream” the Republicans in this state are. Do they oppose Obama? Sure. But the word “ornery” is still in common usage here, and it’s generally not derogatory. The fact that career politicians think they can tell the state’s Republicans how to vote is probably doing Grayson as much harm as any of Paul’s speeches are doing him any good.
“Paul is one of a very few Republican candidates in the country who is truly serious in his desire for fiscal responsibility.”
If he gets elected, how long will that last? The only politicians who are serious about fiscal responsibility are the ones who want to raise taxes and cut military spending. You know, liberals.
“[Fiscal austerity] is not normally a vote-winner, because it goes against the basic assumption of most democratic voting for at least the last eighty years that we should regularly look to government for assistance.”
What does that even mean? Are you saying a plurality of people for the last 80 years have voted for whomever promises the most assistance to them?
Man, someone should call Frum out on his dishonesty:
“Rand Paul has pledged not to condemn Israel for defending itself, unlike his father, a fierce Israel critic. Rand Paul describes himself as pro-defense; his father regularly votes against defense appropriations.”
Of course, Ron Paul neither thinks Israel should be condemned for “defending itself” (appropriately) nor is he anti-defense (as he sees our true defensive needs).
Convincing points, well made.
gcallah:
“Man, someone should call Frum out on his dishonesty”
“Well known liar tells lies” – not likely to be a big story, even if his particular brand of dishonesty didn’t have considerable special protection within the US msainstream media.
Frum is a classic case of the man who feels his own special cause justifies whatever means he chooses to use or advocate. Such men are never to be trusted.
From a quick google, it seems Rand Paul supports sanctions on Iran and refuses to rule out support for military action. In other words, the standard bipartisan boilerplate.
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/05/13/1263686/irans-nuclear-ambitions-trouble.html
I meant to say, “You know, DFH.” but my brain froze. The “artist” who drew the headshots for The Week is the worst ever. What’s up with the s or backwards s on all the guys’ upper lips? Why none for the gal? Does s/he hate men?
Daniel,
For full disclosure, I donated a small amount to the Rand Paul campaign, did the same for his father, as well as to the Campaign for Liberty. I was impressed with how Rand ran his campaign, and how he handled questions that were thrown his way.
My questions about Rand are regarding his foreign policy. How much of his lack of emphasis on the subject was shrewd politics to focus on areas where he was in total agreement with his ‘Tea Party’ base? And how much of it was sincere difference with his father’s well-known positions? Are we to believe that Senator Paul’s (if elected) foreign policy will end up being closer to Ron’s, or am I deluding myself into thinking he is actually a non-interventionist at heart? Will we (hopefully) be treated to the spectacle of a Republican candidate actually confounding his Democratic opponent by running a real pro-liberty/pro-peace campaign? Or will Rand be forced to stake out positions more akin to what we see in The Weakly Standard?
Peace be with you.
If Paul is adverse to cutting military spending, that really knocks a big hole in how effective he can be with fiscal responsibility.
I second tz – ‘austerity’ has repeatedly meant that government spending on the non-rich should be cut, along with taxes on the rich. While taxes/fees on the nonrich have been raised.
In 1983, Social Security taxes were radically increased, to cover Reagan tax cuts (primarily on the rich). A quarter-century later, we’re now told that Social Security has to be cut, due to a shortage of money. Meanwile, the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts produced jack sh*t for increased economic growth.
At this point, tax the f*cking rich, and tax them f*cking hard. It’s beyond honest argument that leaving vast sums in their hands produces anything except financial bubbles.
Wow BarryD,
Perhaps you’d like some Desitin and baby powder for when the Fed’s change your diaper too? Wouldn’t want you to experience any uncomfortable chaffing back there.
First off, the SS ‘tax increases’ had nothing to do with the tax cuts you refer to. Even though SS ‘assets’ are disgustingly used to conceal the true size the deficit, from an accounting perspective they are separate from general government revenues and expenses. Even if the general budget was running a surplus, we’d still need to make structural changes to how SS is funded, due to primarily to demographic changes, as well as the fact that it is a ponzi scheme.
Second, you seem to perceive wealth as something that the gov’t ‘allows’ us to keep, and that if we don’t use it the way the gov’t wants us to, it should be taken away. This is quite simply the opposite of how it should be viewed.
Peace be with you.