Weekly Standard: Surrender to Big Government

Weekly Standard Online ^ | 11/8/05 | Ross Douthat & Reihan Salam

[redgolum]

In the early history of the United States it was generally accepted that only those who owned property were permitted to take part in the process of electing leaders. This was done precisely to avoid having the political process corrupted by people who are "security-driven" by nature, because these were typically the people in the Thirteen Colonies who were most likely to accept the idea of living under British rule.

We were more of a republic aristocracy then. We are long past that, and it wasn't so great anyway.

[ARCADIA]

Bush has no economic message for the socioeconomic insecurity of non-college educated American workers in the era of globalization.

Bush has no message for the college-educated American worker in the era of globalization either. The assault is pretty much across the board, with the possible exception of those protected by the the civil service, security clearences, and powerful public sector unions.

[redgolum]

A lot of that demographic is single mothers who are under tremendous socio economic and cultural pressure. A national health plan would go halfway to resolving her most pressing problems.

Most "single" mothers receive free health care, better benefits, and so much government cheese that there is a real and increasing economic incentive not to marry the father (or any of the fathers) of the children. It is very common to have the mother state that she is "single and alone" when the father is living in the same residence, but is holding a legal residence in a different area. As anyone who works in the child support area. Most single moms want to remain single moms because they would loose to many benefits if they get married!

[BlackbirdSST]

That is the point. The days of easy Reagan era landslides is over because the red button issues of the 80's (crime, taxes, commies) are worked to death. Bush damn near lost. He would have lost if the Democratic candidate hadn't been Thurston Howell III. The vital GOP state of Ohio was iffy because Bush has no economic message for the socioeconomic insecurity of non-college educated American workers in the era of globalization. Indeed, he plans to make their lives more miserable with a cheap labor agenda of illegals and job exporting free trade agreements.

You've nailed it to the wall Sam. Good observations. Blackbird.

[A. Pole]

"[Sam the Sham:]There is such a thing as an American mainstrean with the God-hating, pro-sodomite, cultural elite Europe worshipping secularist outside it at one end and the Social Darwinist, free trade at all costs, "Ive go mine so screw you" libertarian outside it at the other...they are both pagans so I wonder how opposite they really are?"

I thought the spectrum was more like: Sodom and Gomorrah on one end...and on the other...a Christ abiding Representative Republic.

"a Christ abiding Representative Republic"? You are joking, yes?

[Question_Assumptions]

Luckily for Republicans, the Democrats squander whatever appeal they might have for the masses on trade, labor, consumer protection, and corporate oversight by being anti-American and anti-family. Basically, the fringe of each side succeeds in scaring those on the other side to no switch sides or back a third party, even when they have substantial disagreements with the people on their own side. I get the suspicion that a lot of voting is being done more to keep "the other guy" out of office rather than to really back and support the guy that people are voting for.

[ex-snook]

thanks for ping. re: "They tend to be hostile to expanding free trade, Social Security reform, and guest-worker proposals --which is to say the Bush second term agenda"

Ya might throw in health care, college costs, unrecognized grocery inflation, the Iraq war with a second front in South America plus draft fears to sustain continuous WW III, IV, V of whatever name. Maybe they have become 'Bushed' and yearn for a conservative like Reagan?

[Seizure]

"He would have lost if the Democratic candidate wasn't Thurston Howell III."

I almost ruptured my spleen. You're such a romantic. lol

[Seizure]

My apology to Sam the Sham...I meant that for him. Mental Maalox moment.

[Seizure]

...the possible exception of those protected by the civil service, security clearances, and powerful public sector unions.


I concur. The largest sector of growth in the labor market (besides McDonald's and Wal-mart) is, surprise, government.

[Seizure]

"You are joking, yes?"

My observation includes past history. Does that exist now? Only in the hearts of those who would prefer the Republic the Founding Fathers established.

[Clintonfatigued]

I'm beginning to wonder if Compassionate Conservativism is a code word for Big Government Conservativism.

Beauracracies are by nature inefficient and wasteful, regardless of their directors' ideology.

[headsonpikes]

Even Republicans cannot make socialism work!

[steve-b]

Yet the decision to raise children continues to be treated as something akin to the decision to buy an expensive automobile--a perfectly fine thing to do, but don't expect any sympathy or support when you can't afford a tune-up or an oil change.

Well, duh. Incurring expenses that you can't pay for (assuming that it wasn't the result of a calamity that could not have been reasonably foreseen) is the mark of a damfool, and damfools deserve ridicule (if only because that's the most humane way of encouraging them to stop doing damfool things in the future).

The next GOP tax cut ought to be targeted explicitly to married couples with children

Targeted tax cuts are socialism (except that socialism is at least honest about the fact that the government is usurping your decisions).

Michael J. Graetz of Yale Law School, hardly a wild-eyed utopian, has called this the "back to the future" plan. Graetz would raise the AMT exemption to $50,000 for single-earners and $100,000 for joint returns, and impose a single rate of 25 percent on all earnings over those thresholds. To replace the lost revenue, he would also -- and this is the controversial part -- introduce a consumption tax of 14 percent.

How about introducing some SPENDING CUTS???

It would hit the idle rich -- affluent retirees drawing down their savings, trust fund babies buying penthouse apartments -- hardest, while the productive rich, and their income from investments and business ventures, would emerge considerably less scathed.

If I wanted to read this sort of class-warfare crap, I'd surf over to the DUmpster. The money spent by the so-called "idle rich" wasn't conjured into existence by magic -- it came from the same people (or their families, a concept the author claims to support) during their days among the "productive rich". It is thus impossible to punish the former without equally punishing the latter.

Yeesh, maybe I should ping PJ-Comix -- the Weak Substandard looks like a potential source of comedy material for those days when the DUmmie ants are too listless to crank out prime-grade drivel.

[steve-b]

To be a parent is to be "security driven" because your responsibility for the security of your children

What is the key word in this statement?

Hint -- It is not any of the following: "government", "taxpayer", "society", "village", or "public".

[steve-b]

Eating is a necessity, but any so-called "leader" who sponsored a law mandating a minimal caloric intake and maximum fat content in everyone's diet would be laughed out of office.

I wish I believed that, but I don't. There are plenty of people like Sham who would stand up and cheer.

[steve-b]

She can't fight Viacom for the souls of her children singlehanded. So she supports the GOP against a culture that wants to teach her children MTV values.

Politicians can't help there. The whole "Ministry of Culture" thing has been tried, and the nations that tried it are either out of business outright (USSR), transitioning to CINO regimes (China) or quaint little pockets that the world has passed by (Cuba, North Korea).

[steve-b]

But then again, Clinton carried several Southern states. So don't assume that if cultural values can be neutralized (say, by a conservative Supreme Court that will not impose California values on Georgia or vice versa) as a national issue that a Southern democrat talking economic populism couldn't repeat that.

Actually, what you need is to have the Grand Nagus pay another visit to Earth and run an expensive, but failed, campaign based on economic populism.

[steve-b]

Perot pointed the way to the politics of the future.

Yeah, that's why his political party has been doing so well lately.

[ARCADIA]

...transitioning to CINO regimes (China)...

China remains a pure communist state; they may give lip service to capitalism in order to pursade a pack of foreign idiots to invest, but they have changed none of their internal economic or political structure.