Useful Myths And Delusions
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Newt Gingrich continues his practice of writing counterfactual history:
When congressional Republicans forgot that their party was the party of taxpayers and government reformers, they lost control in 2006. When they accepted the Bush big-spending plans of 2008, they further lost ground.
This is utterly untrue, and I am doubtful Gingrich even believes these statements. Then again, I’m not sure which would be worse: that Gingrich is claiming something he knows to be untrue because he finds it useful, or that Gingrich actually believes something so far removed from reality. Whenever anyone wants to understand why I criticize the GOP’s recent discovery of fiscal restraint, it is because of this falsehood and the repetition of this falsehood as the central political lesson of the last few years. One cannot separate this embarrassing revisionism about the causes of Republican political woes from the general culture of mendacity that typified the years of unified Republican rule, and this is something that conservatives cannot afford to indulge even when it yields modest improvements in rhetoric and Congressional votes.
P.S. One of the unintended, counterproductive effects of the discovery of fiscal restraint and this accompanying myth about ‘06 and ‘08 is that advocates for this position will lose a significant part of their badly-needed credibility when this focus on fiscal restraint yields a poor (i.e., fewer pick-ups than 1978) result in 2010. The argument that deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives needed to be making for the last several months and years was that fiscal responsibility, reducing debt and curtailing spending are the necessary things to do even if it leads to electoral setbacks in the near term. Instead, they have been pushing these myths that lack of restraint lost them the majority and more seats in ‘08, and have been selling their agenda in no small part on the political benefits to be reaped by pursuing it. When that fails to pay off, as it probably will fail (because the public did not rebel against excessive spending then and is not likely to reward restraint in the future), fiscal conservatives will find themselves in an untenable position of having spent the better part of at least two years deceiving themselves and failing to pay attention to their greatest weaknesses with the electorate. Having made fiscal restraint the centerpiece of their opposition agenda and having identified excessive spending as the reason why the GOP is in its current state, fiscal conservatives will have few political arguments to make when their meliorist rivals use continued Republican electoral weakness against them. Like Toomey’s kamikaze run in Pennsylvania, the fixation on fiscal restraint now is going to do more harm to the limited government cause than it is going to help it.
Filed under: politics
There were no arguments for fiscal restraint when we entered Iraq. There were few arguments for fiscal restraint when it came time to rebuild New Orleans, and those that called for restraint were deeply unpopular. People still think the electorate opposed adding drugs to Medicare. The electorate is against what they perceive to be rampant and wasteful spending, a delusion both parties are more than happy to encourage. The GOP’s mistake will be if they take every initiative as an example of “wasteful” spending, particularly the health care debate coming up. The GOP will get no credit for claiming we can’t afford health care reform. They can get credit is they have an alternative, even an alternative that doesn’t heavily involve the government. They will however be evaluated on the merits of their alternative and not just its bottom line. Failing this, they could be looking at a generational loss.
Moreover, a Republican recovery requires both an effective message and effective messengers. The old crew blind to their hypocrisies like Gingrich, Rove, Limbaugh, Cheney et al., can only self validate inside of the constricting mainstream Republican orbit.
Their rantings and ruminations may be wildly applauded by the myopic remnants holed up at The Weekly Standard and NRO. But they only generate derision outside of that camp. Those guys are washed up as conservative spokesmen. Negative millstones around the Republican Party neck. It’s amazing they still receive the deference that they do. Gingrich is on his own self-absorbed planet, Rove gets a dumped on every week at the WSJ for his pathetic hypocrisy, Limbaugh is a rejected gasbag and Cheney is a lunatic. I don’t know what the personality solution should be, I just know that it’s not those guys.
What programs does Newt Gingrich suggest we cut? What programs has he ever supported cutting in the past?
Fiscal restraint has always been nothing more than a code-word for deep-sixing popular social support programs and defunding regulatory agencies so everyone can run buck wild, and it has finally become known to most after the years of Republican control of the budget.
As I’ve made the point over at Front Porch Republic, people aren’t especially concerned with the procedural elements that Republicans keep harping about such as government growth, government control, etc. What they ARE concerned about, however, are certain benchmarks being hit. If Obama enacts his healthcare platform, and is able to take a significant chunk out of the uninsured rolls with it, than he’s just won the next election.
I never thought I would say this but, as far as effective messengers go, Jeb Bush is sounding rather calm and rational lately. Fortunately for the Democrats the family tarnish will probably prevent him from running the political ball back to the other team’s endzone. However, I can sort of see him helping to evolve some policy….assuming they don’t purge him.
The first thing to note is, that the immediate reason why the GOP has lost so much has nothing to do with spending, the war, or any policy matter. Rather, it is because the electorate has contempt for the Republicans (well-earned of course).
We might have lost an election here or there on the war or Medicare Part D or whatever, but the wholesale repudiation of the party is primarily a psychological/”relationship” phenomenon. This isn’t to say that policies had nothing to do with it, au contraire, because the contempt of the GOP was earned by the policy decisions.
Oddly, Daniel echoes the GOP establishment line that spending doesn’t matter as a front-burner election issue. And they’re both wrong, at least in the context that they’re arguing. The basic anatomy of the GOP slide from 2005 to the present is this: President Bush is stupid, the Republicans in Congress are venal, therefore the GOP in general is venal _and_ stupid. Venal + stupid = contempt, and relationships don’t survive contempt.
Again, the financial and sexual improprieties of GOP Congressmen was the “venal” part of this equation. This doesn’t necessarily mean that once the GOP is known to be financially corrupt that everybody will vote Republican again. But, we obviously have severe financial problems right now. The economic policies of the GOP will lead us out. We have to trust that the voters will figure this out.
“What programs does Newt Gingrich suggest we cut? What programs has he ever supported cutting in the past?”
I dunno, Medicare for starters. Is 1995 before your time?
“Medicare for starters.”
Right–Gingrich wanted to cut Medicare about as much as Obama wants to cut the Pentagon budget. In other words, there were no cuts involved. Repeat after me: reductions in the rate of increase.
The charge that Gingrich was going to cut Medicare was first-rate fearmongering by the Democrats.
“If Obama enacts his healthcare platform, and is able to take a significant chunk out of the uninsured rolls with it, than he’s just won the next election.”
This might have been true in 1999 or 2001 or so, but the issue has changed a little bit since then. Right now, the political urgency of health care has to do with the covered at least as much as the uninsured. The broke and the working poor have adapted to going without health care services or using the emergency room when issues can’t be ignored.
But in addition to that, insurance is covering less, co-pays and preexisting conditions are costing more. Most workers didn’t see any real wage increase during the Bush recovery since their compensation increase went directly to health insurance premium increases. David Frum has been banging on that particular drum for a while now, I hope that source isn’t ritually tainted for some of the readers here.
In any case, the two main problems of health care, lack of coverage and lack of cost effectiveness are essentially competitive with each other. Obama has to manage expectations here, and for now I don’t think he has any idea how he intends to do it.
“In other words, there were no cuts involved. Repeat after me: reductions in the rate of increase.”
Of course. This gets back to the current services baseline and the fiscal debates from that era. But, as limited as the GOP reforms were we’d be in much better financial shape now if they had gone through. I think that any fiscally literate person not grinding an anti-GOP axe has to admit that.
“Fiscal restraint has always been nothing more than a code-word for deep-sixing popular social support programs and defunding regulatory agencies so everyone can run buck wild, and it has finally become known to most after the years of Republican control of the budget.”
There are a lot of us who wished that were the case, but plainly it’s not. It’s amazing that people can still believe this after the Bush Administration (either one, really).
Btw Daniel, I asked you about TARP a couple of days ago. I know you think the credit crisis threat was overblown. Are you going to make a case for that (maybe you already have?), or is that supposed to go without saying?
“There are a lot of us who wished that were the case, but plainly it’s not. It’s amazing that people can still believe this after the Bush Administration (either one, really).”
It’s fairly easy to believe when you see the only things that are threatened to be so are the social welfare programs. Do people forget that Bush wanted to, and failed, to privatize social security? Or that he wanted to enact HSA’s as the principle form of insurance coverage? The fact that he failed at both of these things because of an emboldened Democratic majority (or what was a minority soon to be on the ascendancy) does not mean he did not attempt to do so.
There is a truth to the idea that no Republican president nor Congress has ever attempted to seriously slash the whole budget, even with the “federal freeze” Newt oversaw. But that doesn’t mean that significant damage wasn’t done. Hell, in a sense we had the worst of both worlds, money spent in an effort to appear that such and such program was doing its job, while ensuring it was never enough to do the job properly. That takes a special case of mismanagement.
To add to Daniel’s point, no one is going to cut Medicare because it would be a political death sentence for any member of Congress not running in Michelle Bachmann’s district.
People like Medicare- it is actually pretty popular. Which just reinforces Daniel’s point on spending, and, for the most part, the Republican position on damned near everything these days. They stake out the most extreme, most unpopular position on any issue, call it “conservative,” and then pretend that that has always been the “conservative” position and that even St. Ronnie of Reagan himself supported that position. They then work overtime to cast out anyone who points out that a.) that isn’t a conservative position, b.) the position makes no sense and is actually counter-productive, c.) is wildly unpopular.
That is the modus operandi for the current GOP.
“Right–Gingrich wanted to cut Medicare about as much as Obama wants to cut the Pentagon budget. In other words, there were no cuts involved. Repeat after me: reductions in the rate of increase.
The charge that Gingrich was going to cut Medicare was first-rate fear mongering by the Democrats.”
But this is part of the problem from the alt right perspective, is it not? The GOP SHOULD want to cut Medicare (phase it out) because it is grossly unconstitutional. The fact that people like it doesn’t make it any more constitutional. Politically you can’t talk about ending it right away, but you lose any right to call yourself a conservative or a constitutionalist if you defend the basic legitimacy of the program or act appalled that anyone would dare suggest you want to cut a program that is clearly not authorized by the Constitution.
How can someone have any credibility saying that Obama is disregarding the Constitution, ushering in Socialism, or saying nice things about following the Constitution or whatever and then act aghast when some Democrat says they want to cut Medicare?
“Politically you can’t talk about ending it right away, but you lose any right to call yourself a conservative or a constitutionalist if you defend the basic legitimacy of the program or act appalled that anyone would dare suggest you want to cut a program that is clearly not authorized by the Constitution.”
Okay, that’s true. Which means that most Republicans since at least 1995 shouldn’t be able to call themselves by either name. Gingrich had no intention of reducing the size of government, which is why accusations that he was going to do so were attempts at fear-mongering. That doesn’t mean that reducing the size of government and scaling back or eliminating these entitlements are undesirable–I think these things should happen–but that the charges against Gingrich et al. were false. We might wish that they had been true. That would have been a fight worth having. As it was, Gingrich was every bit as much of a “tax collector for the welfare state” as Dole. That was what I was trying to say.
“How can someone have any credibility saying that Obama is disregarding the Constitution, ushering in Socialism, or saying nice things about following the Constitution or whatever and then act aghast when some Democrat says they want to cut Medicare?”
Exactly–he can’t. This is why Gingrich and a lot of people like him don’t have credibility when they moan about the evils of “Obamanomics,” even when they may be right that Obama’s domestic policies are quite bad.
“It’s fairly easy to believe when you see the only things that are threatened to be so are the social welfare programs. Do people forget that Bush wanted to, and failed, to privatize social security? Or that he wanted to enact HSA’s as the principle form of insurance coverage? The fact that he failed at both of these things because of an emboldened Democratic majority (or what was a minority soon to be on the ascendancy) does not mean he did not attempt to do so.
There is a truth to the idea that no Republican president nor Congress has ever attempted to seriously slash the whole budget, even with the “federal freeze†Newt oversaw. But that doesn’t mean that significant damage wasn’t done. Hell, in a sense we had the worst of both worlds, money spent in an effort to appear that such and such program was doing its job, while ensuring it was never enough to do the job properly. That takes a special case of mismanagement.”
Sean, I have to say that I am a bit flabbergasted at the direction some of the commentary has been going here recently. I really didn’t realize that the unconstitutionality of Medicare and Social Security was anything other than taken for granted in paleo. alt right, constitutionalist, Ron Paul supporter circles. (For the record “privatizing” Social Security is an incredibly stupid idea. It is simply forced investment in the stock market. But the phasing out of Social Security is a no brainer. Also, in a truly free-market it is likely that HSA would be the market outcome.) What is going on here? Did I miss the new found pragmatism memo?
“As it was, Gingrich was every bit as much of a “tax collector for the welfare state†as Dole. That was what I was trying to say.”
Come on Daniel, that’s just not so. The GOP had a lot of stuff on the table then: welfare reform, Medicare reform, the elimination of three cabinet-level departments.
Oh, Koz…
[...] the [...] reason why the GOP has lost so much has nothing to do with spending, the war, or any policy matter. Rather, it is because the electorate has contempt for the Republicans [...].
[...] the contempt of the GOP was earned by the policy decisions.
A. The GOP made bad policy decisions
B. The voters have contempt for the GOP stemming from A
C. Due to B, the voters do not vote for the GOP
Hence, we can apply the transitive property to this logic, and reasonably come to the assertion that the GOP lost so much because of policy matters.
Oddly, Daniel echoes the GOP establishment line that spending doesn’t matter as a front-burner election issue.
The GOP establishment’s line IS that spending is a front-burder election issue. Don’t believe me though, take it from Michael Steele.
In your next post you argue that giving poor people health insurance won’t make them beholden to the Democrats. I’ll just leave that as that, and let readers take away what they will.
SeanS, I guess you must have wondered what I was in a snit about. Sorry. You are not the SeanS I thought you were.
Arriving late in the game here.
The problems involved in trying to seriously cut back the size of government in a republic where most of the population LIKES most specific govenment programs (especially the large ones) is exactly an unfamilair problem. Most of the proposals for how to solve that problem end up sounding hypocritical at best and mendicious at worst.
But as much as I loath movement conservatism, I have to say I have SOME sympathy for the sincere fiscal conservative who wants to accomplish all that he can in the way of limiting government without cutting his own political throat. So I’m not sure that it is fair to say, for example, that failing to advocate the end of medicare deprives someoen of the right to argue against an expansion of government.
That said, certainly those “conservatives” who went along with the Bush era expansions of government don’t have a leg to stand on.
“not ecactly and unfamilair problem”, that is.