Replies

I think the most insightful passage to this Klein piece is the following:

The week's events illuminate a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans on domestic policy. The Democrats are boxed into complicated and unpopular positions because they tend to stand on principle—although the principles involved are often antiquated, peripheral and, arguably, foolish. The Republicans, by contrast, have abandoned traditional conservativism to gain political advantage (with the elderly, for instance) or to pay off their stable of corporate-welfare recipients. The Medicare bill contains large gifts to pharmaceutical manufacturers; the energy bill is a $23.5 billion bequest to traditional-energy producers, with additional billions worth of free-range pork tossed in. "This is classic machine politics, the sort of thing we used to do," said a prominent Democrat. Hence the Wall Street Journal's opposition to both bills. After all, Bush is running such huge deficits that they might imperil the prospect of endless tax cuts—and even "increase pressure to raise taxes to pay for" these new programs, the editors noted.

Now take a look at the passage in bold: yes, this is machine politics. Republicans are in a position to reward friends and punish enemies. Yet most of us came of political age during the sixties, the seventies, and the early Reagan years. In those days, Democrats controlled the Hill and the machines of patronage. We argued against that kind of politics in part because we were ideologically opposed to it (a foundation of Goldwater conservatism was restraint in spending). However, in large measure we opposed it because we weren't the ones handing out the goodies. Now we have power, and we are playing classic reward and punish politics. That's what parties that have power do.

And something else. Klein has figured out what Common Tator figured out some time ago, yet so many Republicans refuse to remember: Presidents and parties win by doing what the voters want them to do. George Bush is putting in a hideously expensive prescription drug goody for Medicare. We will pay for it out of our asses in future years. But we want it, the seniors want it, and most of the boomers who are approaching retirement want it.

Bush is giving us what we want. If he didn't give us what we wanted, Howard Dean would beat him over the head with it, and if Dean won, then he would give us what we wanted. Every time I see my fellow rightists go on about Bush spending too much, I can see why Goldwater lost his ass so bad to Johnson. Goldwater didn't get it; Johnson did. Goldwater stood on principle. Perhaps he was a visionary, but not in 1964. Goldwater lost, and Lyndon won. Why? Lyndon gave the American people what they wanted: War on Poverty, Civil Rights legislation, and the Great Society.

Now you might come back and say that Goldwater's vision triumphed in the end, when Reagan won, and I would tell you that you should step away from the crack pipe. Reagan gave the people what they wanted, higher defense spending. Yet he didn't cut back on subsidies, farm price supports, or welfare. That was all a Democratic party myth. Reagan was sharp: he understood that people wanted tax relief and higher defense and social spending. Reagan's genius was to be anything but a green eyeshade, sourpuss Republican. That kind of Republicanism that gave us Mary Louise Smith, the RNC chairman in 1974, who claimed that there was "no recession"-in the deep recession year of 1974. Reagan, on the other hand, understood that tax relief would increase tax receipts, and he was right. He also understood that voters wanted to have their cake, and eat it, too. Carter didn't understand that, neither did Mondale. The rest is history.

But Reagan did nothing to reduce spending. Nor did he abolish the Department of Education. Nor did he get the Human Life Amendment through Congress and the States and into the Constitution. That he did nothing in that regard is because he, like Bush the Younger, understood what people wanted. Bush the Elder, Goldwater, Mondale, and in all likelihood, Howard Dean, haven't quite figured that out.

We will pay for all this in the end. But we will pay for this because it is what we want. And when time comes to pay the piper, the People and the Opinion Leaders in the Press will all bitch and moan that Bush and the Republican Congress didn't Plan For the Future. They will not admit to themselves that they were "wrong" to want all these goodies. Voters never tell themselves that they were wrong.

No election was ever won by the guy who set up the Rainy Day Fund.

People like Andrew Sullivan constantly get on Bush because he is spending so much. I respect Andrew, and happen to agree with him on the issues. Yes, the Medicare bill is a budget catastrophe in search of a generation to pay for it. Yes, the Energy Bill is a pork-laden monstrosity. But I understand what Andrew appears not to understand. Bush knows that he will win by giving the electorate what it wants: guns and butter!

Now before Conservatives turn into the Stupid Party again and sit out the election in disgust, they had better figure out that it is Bush who will win the war. Howard Dean might win the war, but he is just as likely to lose it, because he lacks the ruthlessness and guile needed to defeat the likes of Bin Laden, Saddam, the Chia Pet in North Korea, and the Mullahs in Tehran. Bush is a nice guy, but he has ruthlessness and guile in spades. He's his mother's son more than he is his father's.

Is "guns and butter" the best thing for the country? No. I prefer that we focus on guns. But we haven't had a truly mass casualty attack on the Hiroshima scale yet, so much of the electorate is still living in the Nineties. For example, the decision of the Nightline staff to focus on Michael Hershey Highway instead of the President's Three Pillars speech tells you where most of the Democratic Party still is-as James Lileks remarked in his blog. Bush has to work with the political environment he's got. It's not Starship Troopers time in America quite yet. Because the nation as a unified mass hasn't been shocked into running off and joining the Mobile Infantry quite yet, Bush has to maintain a policy of foward attack while practicing Great Society politics at home. Republicans who ignore this reality are Republicans who are good for one thing: losing elections to liberal Democrats who get it.

It's either Bush or Howard Dean, and my larger purpose is to vote for the guy who is focused on winning the war at the expense of all other things, even when he has to spend money on other things to keep members of the war coalition on board. That's Bush, not Dean. Andrew should know that, as well. But he doesn't. Bush does, however, and that makes all the difference.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Chris Thanks for a great post, the real heart of which is

We will pay for all this in the end. But we will pay for this because it is what we want.

Brings to mind two questions:

What party/candidates should those of us support who don't want "this"??

In a hundred years, will it make a difference whether our republic falls to external terrorist attacks, or if our republic falls in internal collapse because there is no one left to cash the checks we keep writing to ourselves ?

Excellent post.

From my point of view, the #1 issue in 2004 is keeping the U.S. safe, in the wake of 9/11. You have to have a country that can function, before you can worry about what programs we should and shouldn't have, how much government should be involved in social issues, etc.

I may oppose some of Bush's domestic agenda -- and I think the Patriot Act went too far in some quarters. However, the only Democrats who I think actually get that the nations needs to be protected are Lieberman and maybe Gephardt, both of whom I have other issues with.

One other thing. Within the Socialist movement were the Fabians. Their strategy was not immediate revolution, but slow, incremental steps. Looking at how things went through the 20th century, the Fabians seem to have won out.

The Fabian strategy is admirable. The country is not philosophically or emotionally ready to be dropped into a stripped down conservative/libertarian society, no matter how much many of us on Free Republic would like it. Adding free market aspects to federal programs is a small Fabian-like step. It's not great by purist standards, but by practical ones -- well, it could easily be a lot worse. I think some of the left recognize that and know their history. That is why they're going nuts.

As for the stripped-down government, it's not going to occur until the people are ready and wanting it. That means ground level work in creating a society where personal responsibility is the expected standard, honored in the observance, rather than in the breach. A lot of hard, Fabianesque slogging to get that done. But the way society is going, it may well get done -- though I suspect I'll be an old man when I see it, if I ever see it.

Chris, you had some good points. I would have included some other things that Bush is doing that are obviously because he is pricipled, not just pragmatic.

Judges in particular, which I would argue is his most important item on his long-term domestic agenda.

Well said!!!

One for the archives.

Bump.

RE: Your entire post

Exactly correct. The true believers apparently lack any sort of long vision,if they have any at all. I think this Medicare thing is terrible.The up side, the Dims are destroying themselves on it. The Energy Plan? Pork laden yes, but, a plan, nonetheless.The Dims cry out for one, they now are faced with one ,,and they are howling.
Bush 43 gets this viscerally.I've said this before, this ain't cribbage; it is high risk, high stake poker.
The "pricipled" among us remain without a clue as to the whys of this strategy , nor do they want to learn it.Too easy to carp and moan.
Chris, a great analysis.

Another way of stating what you said is that Bush only has so much political capital, and can only fight so many battles. In a way, the Democrats, by attacking and obstructing on all fronts are feeling the brunt of this effect.

An excellent post demonstrating the point of many finer philosophers (from Ancient Greece onward) than me that human beings are not naturally inclined to freedom.

It does not take long in a democracy for the majority to discover that it can live off of the productive minority with a simple vote. Creating a democratic republic simply delays the inevitable.

Eventually, as always, the majority will push too far and the minority will be forced to violent revolt. It has been a sad but true reality throughout human history.

Reagan was sharp: he understood that people wanted tax relief and higher defense and social spending. Reagan's genius was to be anything but a green eyeshade, sourpuss Republican. That kind of Republicanism that gave us Mary Louise Smith, the RNC chairman in 1974, who claimed that there was "no recession"-in the deep recession year of 1974.

If was in 1962 after Brown Sr. won the governorship of California that Reagan decided to run for that office in 1966 as a Republican. Reagan had a big problem. He had been a Democrat all his life. He had been elected and relected as his union's president. He had negotiated real good contracts for his members. He had openly spoken for FDR, HST, and JFK. He had donated money and campaigned for them. He was sure to be painted as a RINO by every right wing California Republican who could talk.

The question Lyn Nofiziger, Ed Meese, and Ronald Reagan pondered was how to counter the RINO label .. especially in the primary. As Riordan found out in 2002, getting labeled a RINO in a Republican primary can cost one the nomination.

In 1964 as Goldwater sewed up the Republican Nomination several things became apparent. Many Republicans did not want to appear or speak for Goldwater at the convention. Goldwater was so right wing that being associated with him would spell political disaster. Goldwater was destined to get just a tad over 1/3 of the votes in 1964. Every Repulican office holder who could read a poll, did not want within 200 miles of Barry Goldwater.

The Reagan camp came up with a bright idea. Goldwater could not get any centrist or even moderately right wing Republicans to speak for him at the convention. So Reagan proposed that he speak in Goldwater's behalf. The Goldwater people were elated. A hollywood star,a retired union President, a FDR, HST, JFK fan would speak for Goldwater at the convention in prime time. His name was Ronald Reagan ,,, the TV star of Death Valley Days.

Reagan felt giving a speech for Goldwater would help tone down if not eliminate the RINO label attached to hin.

Reagan wrote a great speech and gave it in prime time. Ronald was astounded by the result. The media did not paint him as a RINO trying to earn points with the right... they painted Reagan as a far right wing zealot in the Goldwater tradition. The media knew Goldater was poison and that Reagan as a great natual comapaigner. The Media knew Goldwater was very unpopular with the center and the left... So they painted Reagan with a Goldwater brush.

The right in Californis fell in love with the man with the guts to stand up for Barry AuH2O. When Reagan ran in 1966, the media painted Reagan as the right wing zealot. They figured that might be enough to defeat him. But that strategy did not work. Reagan won. But from then on the charge of right wing nut was used to try to defeat him.

It is interesting to note that in the first years of the Reagan administration, his most vocal Republican critic was Barry Goldwater. To quote the Washinton Post obit for Barry, "Mr. Goldwater refused to join the Republicans of the New Right during the 1980s."

If Reagan was an extention of the Goldwater philosophy why did Barry oppose so much of what Reagan tried to do in the 80's. Barry was a constant source of stories in the Post and Times opposing the Reagan agenda from 1981 until he retired in 1986.

If Reagan was the implementation of the Goldwater agenda... you could not prove it by the Goldwater attempts to thwart that agenda' implentation by Reagan. Goldwate foght it at every turn.