Author Topic: Conservative Counter Attack  (Read 663 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Conservative Counter Attack
« on: November 22, 2008, 07:39:12 PM »
 Conservative Counter Attack
by Donald Devine
Issue 120 - November 19, 2008

If President Barack Obama and his Democratic Congress aggressively pursue the leftist programs of their dreams, they will fail. If conservatives do not believe this, they do not trust their own philosophy and have no business so calling themselves. The President-elect will have overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the united power of the Executive Branch including a sympathetic bureaucracy and their supporting labor unions, and a fawning and compliant mainstream media. What could possibly stop them anyway? Re-electing John Boehner as Republican House leader after he headed a disastrous election effort will not do it.

Conservatives tried to warn President George W. Bush and the GOP from the beginning that big domestic government ?conservatism? is not only oxymoronic but cannot work. They did not listen. Six months of stimulus has failed. When the Treasury Secretary marched in the nation?s nine biggest bank CEOs on October 13 and told them the government was going to buy shares in their firms and there would be no arguments about it in spite of opposition from the three healthiest firms, the fate of the Bush Administration, the John McCain campaign and probably the nation ? to say nothing of U.S. capitalism - was sealed. By not allowing the market to bottom out and instead risking turning a recession into a depression, President Bush has set the nation?s course and now only President-elect Obama can possibly correct it.

The danger of an Obama presidency to institutional conservatism and especially Republicanism is not that it will be socialistic. After President Bush has nationalized the bank, finance, insurance, ?no child? education, elderly prescription drug, and energy industries (probably followed by the auto companies), how much further could President Obama go? The danger to the political right is that President Obama will follow a Bill Clinton-like triangulation and become capitalistic, letting the market hit bottom and work itself out of the mess.

Why might President Obama turn right? First, President Bush will have exhausted every New Deal trick imaginable by the time President Obama enters office in January. The only solution left will be to let the market bottom out ? the only policy that will work - as President Ronald Reagan proved in both 1981 and 1987. Sooner or later, even fighting against his heart, the odds are that President Obama might figure this out. Remember, one of the President-elect?s few sensible advisors is Paul Volker, who as Federal Reserve Chairman led Reagan?s successful effort to wring out the market in 1981.

Second, there will be no money. It is estimated that the Bush Administration has spent $2 trillion on the bailout so far (some of which could be repaid) and is reported ready to spend much more. The deficit for the final Bush year could be the first to total a trillion dollars. It will be impossible to tax the ?rich? enough to make it up. As a result of the current economic downturn, tax revenues are already in decline. One expert estimates that even if Congressional Democrats increased the capital gains tax to what they would like, because of the decline in asset values, it would raise much less revenue (even on static assumptions) than the current rate did last year. Even more important, the entitlement spending explosion will arrive immediately on the heels of the depression. The spending party is over.

Finally, even if the leftists in the Executive Branch wanted to ignore this and proceed, Congress probably would not let them. Certainly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is by far the most left-wing person ever to hold her office. Her liberalism is very important to her, more so than ideology is for most Republican leaders. Yet, there is one thing more important ? her Speakership. She knows she needs to protect the Democrats elected in Republican-leaning districts in the last two elections to keep her job. Indeed, she previously promised the 2006 Class she would not bring up popular conservative issues for a vote at their expense and kept her word.

Underlying all of this is that America remains more conservative than not. When Pelosi?s own left of center state supported a referendum restricting marriage to one man and one woman, what other proof is required, especially since the most supportive groups were African and Hispanic Americans? Thirty states have now done the same thing. It speaks volumes that in a post election debate with his counterpart at the National Press Club, when the Republican Party chairman was asked how his party could do so poorly and the conservative referenda so well, he disclaimed knowledge of the matter. For Democrats, gays in the military is an unlikely early priority and anything major on abortion is too. Likewise, all the polls show people do not want their taxes increased.

Yes, the Democratic president and Congress will do bad left-wing things. But they will be few, on low-visibility issues and only on what they consider most important. They will push a payoff to the unions eliminating the secret ballot in representational elections because they cannot do without union power. There will be attempts to rig the 2010 election with districting and apportioning tricks. There will be grants to every leftist organization imaginable. Executive Orders on embryonic stem cells and overseas abortions may go but there will not be legislation on major populist conservative issues. Many are worried about the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine as a way to weaken conservative talk radio. But Rush Limbaugh has already promised to turn out a million listeners in Washington if they try. It would mobilize the right in a manner not seen in ages. Unfortunately, the Democrats are not that dumb ? at least not in the first two critical years.

The real challenge to the conservative movement is if President Obama and his Congress let the market work and hit bottom, are careful about spending, and keep away from hot-button social issues. Conservatives who understand their philosophy know that this strategy will work and President Obama will be successful and elected to a second term with an even stronger Democratic Congress, when all of their worst fears will indeed come to fruition.

Paradoxically, only the leftist intellectuals who dominate the mainstream media and the universities can save conservatives from this wrenching dilemma. Nobel economic winners Paul Krugman of Princeton and the New York Times and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page both have encouraged the President-elect to spend and regulate his way out of the economic crisis. They admit the conservatives have been right that the Great Depression lingered a decade because of the New Deal policies but claim it was because Franklin Roosevelt refused to spend enough! Their lesson for President Obama is to spend enormously more and to put much greater controls on business and the marketplace. It is an appeal that would cause any leftist heart to go pit-a-pat.

The left is an incredibly closed world. Study after study has proved that few conservatives exist in the academic or mainstream media universe to provide a counter argument. In a media where self-described progressive David Brooks is hired as the ?conservative? voice of its most prestigious newspaper outlet and its most serious TV newscast, leftist intellectuals just might convince Democrats to go against their survival instincts. In a recent ?debate? with Bill Clinton?s favorite progressive Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne on NPR, both he and Brooks agreed that the only way the Republicans can recover from the 2008 election or even to survive is to become progressives like the Democrats. It must be comforting (and blinding) to believe both left and right must be leftists.

If the intellectual media can convince the Democratic pols who control Congress and the Executive that in fact there is no thinking person to the right of Brooks, why not go for the whole leftist agenda when they have the power to do so? Anyone who knows spending and controls will not work and wants an early Republican revival should shout, Bring on the biased leftist media when we really need them. But it is a dilemma. Do conservatives root for the leftist intellectual program and so prove this philosophy is nuts - and be ready for a big comeback in 2010 - or do they root for President Obama to follow President Reagan, which will result in quick recovery but also a Democratic future as far as the eye can see?

Either way conservatives are pretty much irrelevant to the outcome. The first move is all up to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi. In that sense, re-electing Mr. Boehner as the GOP leader perfectly fits the situation we are in. Maybe the best initial attack strategy is to play dumb.

Donald Devine, the editor of Conservative Battleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 and is the director of the Federalist Leadership Center at Bellevue University.

http://acuf.org/issues/issue120/081115news.asp
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Counter Attack
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2008, 07:56:02 PM »

The real challenge to the conservative movement is if President Obama and his Congress let the market work and hit bottom, are careful about spending, and keep away from hot-button social issues. Conservatives who understand their philosophy know that this strategy will work and President Obama will be successful and elected to a second term with an even stronger Democratic Congress, when all of their worst fears will indeed come to fruition.

=============================
It looks like the market is going to "work and find its bottom" no matter what Juniorbush or Obama do.

Allowing everything to go totally to Hell and doing nothing on the grounds that this is the only thing that can be done is like allowing a bubonic plague to kill off as many as it can. This fool seems to be a worshipper of the Holy Market as though it is Shiva, the Destroyer.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Conservative Counter Attack
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2008, 08:01:00 PM »
CONSCIOUSNESS OF A CONSERVATIVE

A Philosophy Without a Party

Conservatives betrayed by GOP

Traditional conservatism still popular

Rigid laissez faire dogma rejected by voters

NEW YORK--Conservatives think the election results prove that conservatism is in trouble. Actually, conservatism is fine. It's the Republican Party that's in trouble.

For the sake of argument, however, let's posit that Obama represents a dramatic political realignment and repudiation of the Republican Party. Certainly, Republicans do face massive demographic challenges, mainly as an influx of Latino immigration and naturalization turns places like Arizona, Colorado and California's Orange County from red to blue. The GOP may well have to get used to losing. But that doesn't mean conservatives do.

In the United States, conservatism is a philosophy without a party. Take Ronald Reagan, considered the patron saint of late 20th century conservatism. Coupled with extravagant military spending, Reagan's tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations increased the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, transforming the U.S. into the world's biggest debtor nation. Under Reagan, William Voegeli wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2007, "government did nothing but expand. In 1981, the federal government spent $678 billion; in 1989 it spent $1.144 trillion. Factoring out inflation, that was an increase of 19% in real spending. Republicans never expected that Reagan would leave office with a 'federal establishment' one-fifth larger than when he arrived."

story continues below
advertisement

George W. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative," but conservatism was as absent from his governance as compassion. He has increased the federal deficit from $3.3 to $5.9 trillion. Add in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--estimated at $2.4 trillion as of 2007--and he will have put the country a staggering $5 trillion deeper into the hole. He hired 180,000 federal employees for a new cabinet-level department, Homeland Security, all to make you take off your shoes at the airport.

Conservative? Not these guys.

For the sake of my long-suffering conservative friends as well as the country, it's time to unravel the conflation of conservatism and the Republican Party.

Why do I care? Simple: America needs conservatives--real conservatives. Deficit hawks, America Firsters and get-that-dang-guvmint-outta-my-bizness types are essential watchdogs of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom. Moreover, ideological diversity sparks intellectual innovation.

Traditional conservatism--to state the obvious, is there truly any other kind?--is, despite its flaws, an philosophy attractive to those who value the ideal of rugged individualism. Most recently articulated by Barry Goldwater after he retired from the Senate, conservatism is centered around small government, particularly on the federal level; its size, scope, and powers are kept to a minimum in order to reduce infringement upon personal liberty, keep taxes low, and thus encourage investment and free enterprise. Fiscal responsibility is the order of the day. Budgets must be balanced. Deficits are anathema.

Conservatives believe that free markets create opportunities for hard-working people to succeed. They won't help you get ahead, but they'll keep nosy bureaucrats out of your hair while you're figuring out how to do it on your own. It's a bit Darwinian, but consider the advantages: you're free to do whatever you want in your personal life. As Goldwater said when asked about gays in the military: "You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country, you just need to shoot straight."

If Bush had been a conservative, he wouldn't have cut taxes without reducing spending. He would have been an isolationist. As Pat Buchanan says, America Firsters don't rush off to invade countries like Afghanistan and Iraq that pose no threat to the United States. Bush certainly wouldn't have authorized NSA's domestic spying program, gotten rid of habeas corpus, or infringed states rights by taking control of the National Guard away from state governors.

Conservatism is far more appealing to the average American than the bastardized form that has driven Republican policy for more than half a century. In 2008 voters rejected neoconservatism, an arrogant brand of "exceptionalism" dedicated to preemptive warfare, defending Israel, and empire building at the expense of all else.

Republicans use pretzel logic to market themselves to conservatives. In 1988, Allan Ryskind, editor of Human Events, told The New York Times that Reagan had deliberately increased the deficit in order to starve future Democratic administrations of money. "It has certainly put a lid on the welfare state," he said. "The Democrats have sort of trapped themselves because they've said this is all terrible and horrible and that closing the deficit should be the first priority. The fact that they've said the deficit is such a problem," he added, "prevents them from proposing new spending programs."

Of course, it would also prevent Republicans--who remained in power until 1993--from cutting taxes, a principal tenet of conservatism.

Bill Clinton disappointed the Democrats' liberal base, rewarding their support by pushing through welfare reform, NAFTA and the WTO. But if liberals feel used by the Democrats, conservatives have been raped by the Republicans.

This isn't to say that traditional conservatives don't need to change, in several areas. One is their intellectual separation of government spending into two categories: non-military and military, the latter of which is untouchable. Spending is spending, whether it's on welfare queens or Halliburton. Another area is laissez faire, one of the few places where conservatism intersects with Republicanism.

When times are good, most Americans favor a small government that stays out of their lives and leaves them be. When a hurricane strikes, however, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps dogma goes out the window. Similarly, government should run in the black during an economic boom. When people start losing their homes, however, they look to their government for help. Conservatives should think of themselves as firefighters. Most of the time, you never see them. Firefighters don't break down your door with an ax unless there's a fire. But you're damned happy to see them when there is.

As much as Americans hate paying taxes, they hate do-nothing government more. (Besides, they've been burned so often on tax-cut promises that they no longer believe them.) One of the lessons of 2008 was that voters aren't happy to let the marketplace work its magic if the world is falling apart.

A political party that stays out of people's business while being nimble enough to jump into the fray during emergencies might just stand a chance. So might a conservative movement that refuses to vote for a party that repeatedly betrays them.

(During the 1980s, Ted Rall was a trader for Bear Stearns and a loan officer for the Industrial Bank of Japan. During the early 1990s, he was a financial analyst for a banking consulting company in San Francisco. Now he draws cartoons and writes columns for Universal Press Syndicate.)


"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."