Part Of The Problem
Posted on March 6th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
After reading Ross’ final post on the Limbaugh debate, I was reminded of Reihan’s distinction between “true believers” and “evangelizers.” There is an idea that I have seen floating around in this debate that Limbaugh and his fellow radio hosts are somehow representative of “the grassroots” and are caught up in a fight with “elites,” but this is wrong. It may be that the “grassroots” like certain kinds of elites–the kinds that pander to them and flatter them–but that does not make those elites part of the “grassroots.” Reihan’s distinction is useful in that it identifies the debate as one over which direction conservatives should focus their efforts. The debate is fundamentally one between different sets of movement elites who are either oriented inwards or outwards. The former keep asserting that “this is a center-right country” and insist that nothing has happened that redoubled, intensified loyalty to principles cannot cure. The latter are much less unified in their assessment of what went wrong and what needs fixing, but they are in agreement that repeating cliches and slogans that were created thirty years ago (or more) fixes nothing and will persuade no one not already convinced.
What is so frustrating and ruinous about the pro-Limbaugh side of this debate is that it automatically cedes all serious work on policy to those who are already inclined towards a moderate and meliorist agenda, because the mainstream pro-Limbaugh side assumes, or is willing to tolerate the idea, that no work really needs to be done. Reflecting this lack of imagination, the entire post-election strategy has been that the GOP was shellacked twice because it lacked spending discipline, which is simply an unfounded myth that conservatives and party members keep telling themselves to explain the repudiation of the party over Iraq and the economy. Like the near-unanimous backing of the “surge” on the right in 2007, there has been no willingness among the “true believers” to understand the messages the public (or reality) actually did send, and so there continues to be no understanding of what is in need of correction. Inexplicably, when it comes to Iraq the idea that the “surge” was successful remains the prevailing and popular one on the right, when the truth is very different. There seems to have been no fundamental re-examination of anything related to national security and foreign policy, and this is a blind spot that afflicts reform conservatives and their more conventional counterparts. However, this lack of re-examination on foreign policy is mirrored in conservative economics, where the goal seems to be to stand pat on tax, trade and monetary policy.
On a related note, it might be worth thinking about why language normally reserved for the sociology of religion is being applied to describe what is overwhelmingly a narrowly political movement. Reihan is hardly the first or only one to do this, but it is worth calling to our attention when you have Limbaugh stating, “Conservativism is what it is and it is forever.” As Rod asked at the time: “Do they really believe politics is dogmatic religion?” In fact, they probably don’t, but in Limbaugh’s case he is speaking about a political persuasion in a quasi-religious idiom that ideologues over the centuries have used. The “cause” becomes something like a substitute religion, in this case complete with its own half-baked doctrines derived from Whig myths and Enlightenment-era fantasies that is then dubbed a “philosophy,” when it is true enough that it does not deserve the name. Like any ideologue, Limbaugh latches on to a few readily-digestible, repeatable slogans or words and deploys them as and when needed. As Kirk and many others have attested, principles are not ideology, but in the substitution of ideology for principles, which is what Limbaugh does, he and others like him are doing far more damage to any sort of sane conservative politics in this country than the occasional pundit or wonk who argues for particular policy proposals. So Limbaugh alone is not the problem, but he is a significant part of the current problem.
Filed under: politics
Inexplicably, when it comes to Iraq the idea that the “surge†was successful remains the prevailing and popular one on the right, when the truth is very different.
I’m not so sure anyone knows the overall ‘truth’ of Iraqi politics, including those in the thick of it. When I hear the Maliki has arrested some Sunni leaders, I don’t know if that means he is trying to crush the Sunni completely and they will soon rise up again, or that he is cutting deals with some Sunni leaders and suppressing their rivals. If Maliki ultimately succeeds in consolidating power, the surge could well be judged a success. (I’m being a devil’s advocate, as I opposed both the Iraq war and the surge.)
The popular view on the right is hardly inexplicable. (Am I taking you too literally again?) Few Americans care about Iraqi politics. If American casualties are minimal, then the anti-American bad guys must have been defeated.
There seems to have been no fundamental re-examination of anything related to national security and foreign policy, and this is a blind spot that afflicts reform conservatives and their more conventional counterparts.
It’s natural for grassroots Democrats to blame the Iraq war on right-wing devils, on Bush and Cheney and the neo-cons. But that ignores some important history. A majority of Senate Democrats backed the war, and so did foreign policy luminaries of the Clinton administration like Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrooke. Kenneth Pollack wrote a book supporting the war.
So, what kind of re-examination can we expect? Are conservatives to be less bellicose toward a perceived enemy of American than Democratic foreign policy wonks?
However, this lack of re-examination on foreign policy is mirrored in conservative economics, where the goal seems to be to stand pat on tax, trade and monetary policy.
Monetary policy? Besides Ron Paul, does anyone of prominence even talk about monetary policy?
Republican tax and trade policies didn’t cause the recession, nor are they in themselves especially unpopular with swing voters. Bush wouldn’t have won a second term if they were.
We are about to hear a hell of a lot about monetary policy, when we take the double-hit of decades of artificially low interest rates and insane amounts of national and personal debt. These will lead, quite unavoidably, to either mad inflation or a massive default. It really is Economics 101. Our bipartisan national denial of this reality reminds me of the frozen, deer-in-the-headlights stance of the Renaissance Popes. I will be amazed if we can stall this denouement for even a decade. Judging our monetary policy, if we can call it that, by temporary fluctuations in partisan electoral results is nothing short of unhinged.
Having raved about that, I feel the need to again suck up to our host. His posts are usually intelligent, but this one borders on the profound insofar as it touches on the substitution of a puerile but complex theology for real thought on the part of much of the GOP. The putative left also has it’s foolish orthodoxies,of course, but at the moment those appear to be working for them, whereas nobody believes that the hoary shibboleths of the right have any traction at all.
Sorry for the mixed metaphor.
It’s true that very few people talk about monetary policy, but as jetan says we are going to be paying the price for this indifference to irresponsible easy money policies. I should acknowledge that Paul Ryan has specifically raised this issue and made a proposal for the GOP to argue for a sound money policy, albeit not one tied to gold if I understood correctly. The point is that an imaginative and serious party would pay attention to the damage monetary policy has done and continues to do, and they would argue for something else. That’s the sort of substantive, but boring work that the radio hosts aren’t going to do and shouldn’t be expected to do. However, aside from Ron Paul and Paul Ryan, though, I don’t know of anyone doing that.
I respectfully suggest that if you believe the GOP’s trade policy is popular, you have been misinformed. Like many other things, it is popular with many people inside the party, but free trade and globalization generally are viewed negatively by at least half the country and have been for several years. In general, people prefer tax cuts, I agree, but then why haven’t we seen payroll tax cuts at the top of their agenda and pushed on a daily basis as part of an alternative stimulus bill? For the most part, they remain wedded to changing marginal income and capital gains taxes. That’s what I’m talking about when I say they are standing pat on tax policy.
Back when interest rates were very high -the Paul Volcker/ Ronald Reagan days that everyone says they are so nostalgic for, though they would freak out if they actually had to do it again – I remember Bob Novak prosletyzing in favor of low interest rates and scourging “those cowardly bond holders” who were understandably concerned that the then rampant inflation would eat their profits, if not their principle (I think that this when Larry Kudlow came to prominence, as well).
Obviously, Novak and Kudlow got their wish and the now almost meaningless Dow and S&P zoomed.- this in spite of not adding one iota of value to the American economy or, as we are now all too aware, to any of the companies that were traded on those exchanges. If I traded you a share of GM for a share of Anaconda Copper, at least the share certificate of AC would have some historic value.
Even now, we see hacks – not to name names (Glassman, Kudlow, Cramer, Santeli) -still trying to flog their produce even though it is depressingly clear to all that their wares are long past their sell-by date.
I quite agree that the payroll tax cut would be both wildly popular and very stimulative. So much so that it is a mystery why Democrats haven’t embraced it. I suppose they are afraid of the Republicans getting their nose under the tent of Social Security.
Daniel Larison:
I should acknowledge that Paul Ryan has specifically raised this issue and made a proposal for the GOP to argue for a sound money policy, albeit not one tied to gold if I understood correctly.
Thank you.
Sound policy is more important than a tie to gold. In the 1970s a tie to gold didn’t prevent inflation. Inflation eventually killed the tie to gold. Even in its heyday, the ‘gold standard’ didn’t prevent the government from using fractional reserve banking to manipulate the money supply.
Monetary policy is in the stratospheric ozone for the average voter. I would be delighted if the conservative movement would rediscover Milton Friedman, but that’s not what will get the Republican Party back into power.
Jetan:
Judging our monetary policy, if we can call it that, by temporary fluctuations in partisan electoral results is nothing short of unhinged.
I agree. In this context, however, the point is a strawman, and moreover concedes the actual point at issue.
I respectfully suggest that if you believe the GOP’s trade policy is popular . . .
I didn’t say ‘popular’. I said ‘[not] especially unpopular with swing voters.’ The difference matters.
Yes/no poll questions are of limited value. They don’t tell us how people prioritize issues, or what will move their votes.
My point is that the GOP’s electoral fortunes have been mostly the results of Iraq, Katrina, and the recession. Recent increases in protectionist sentiment may have contributed in some geographical areas. But there is no need for people who oppose protection on policy grounds to go running to embrace it out of electoral panic.
Editing my last comment, I inadvertently deleted a parenthetical remark that I don’t consider ‘protectionist’ a pejorative term, as some apparently do. To me it seems a perfectly neutral descriptor, and really the best term for the concept.
Daniel Larison:
In general, people prefer tax cuts, I agree, but then why haven’t we seen payroll tax cuts at the top of their agenda and pushed on a daily basis as part of an alternative stimulus bill? For the most part, they remain wedded to changing marginal income and capital gains taxes.
I don’t know, but I would guess that the latter types of cut are most favored by the party’s donor base. Politics needs money as well as votes, and donors have the public choice advantage of being a more concentrated and informed group.
There’s also the problem Jetan alluded to with regard to the Democrats. Payroll taxes are linked to the fiction that Social Security and Medicare are forms of insurance. Theoretically these taxes aren’t even taxes.
For Republican lawmakers to get together on an ‘alternative stimulus’ seems attractive at first. But wouldn’t hammering out all the compromises require a lot of staff work for something that certainly won’t pass and probably won’t even be voted on? Do American parties in opposition usually do that kind of thing?