AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

From Robert Creamer:


The Republicans have a set of dirty little (actually not so little) secrets they don't what you to know -- and certainly don't want you to think about when you go to the polls in November.

And the fact is that some of those secrets could provide Democrats with silver bullets this fall. But first let's recall the context.

Over the course of eight short years -- between 2000 and 2008 -- the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- slashing taxes for the wealthy. They eviscerated the rules that held Wall Street, Big Oil and private insurance companies accountable to the public. They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs. They ignored exploding health care costs, tried to privatize Social Security, gave the drug companies open season to gouge American consumers and presided over a decline in real incomes averaging $2,000 per family. They entangled America in an enormously costly, unnecessary war in Iraq, pursued a directionless policy that left Afghanistan to fester, and sullied America's good name throughout the world.

Their economic policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating big Corporations failed to create jobs. In fact, over his eight year term, George Bush's administration created exactly zero net private sector jobs. They inherited a Federal budget with surpluses as far as the eye could see and rolled up more debt than all of the previous Presidents in the over 200 years of American history. And in the end they left the economy in collapse.

This was not a disaster that could be remedied overnight. By taking bold action at the beginning of his administration, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress prevented the financial crisis from morphing into a Great Depression -- but the Republicans, some Democrats, and the powerful special interests have done everything they can to throw sand into the gears of change. Most importantly, they have stood in the way of providing enough economic stimulus to launch a robust, widespread economic recovery.

But notwithstanding Republican opposition, Obama, the Democrats and their progressive allies have -- after a century of trying -- finally passed health care reform allowing America to end its status as the only industrialized nation that did not provide health care as a right. They are on the brink of reining in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. And they have set the stage for massive long-term investments in economic growth and clean energy.

But it has been hard to pull the car out of the deep economic ditch and Americans are angry at the slow pace of economic recovery -- and also at the special interests that profited from their economic pain.

So the Republicans now have the audacity to argue that President Obama and the Democrats are somehow responsible for the hardships that they themselves created. In effect they want the election to be a referendum on whether the Democrats have mopped and swept fast enough cleaning up the mess that they created.

They will do everything they can to prevent America from focusing on the real choice before them in the fall elections -- a choice between going backward to the failed policies of the past that caused this catastrophe and a new direction that will create sustainable, long-term, bottom-up, widely shared economic growth. The real question before the country is whether it is willing to hand over the keys to the economy once again to the same gang that just caused the most serious economic pile up in 60 years.

That's where the dirty little secrets come in. It turns out that the leaders of the Republican Party have learned nothing from the reckless escapade that caused so much economic pain, and came perilously close to inflicting mortal wounds on the American economy.

They still actually believe -- despite what we have all just experienced -- that by "freeing" big oil, the insurance companies and Wall Street banks of the "burdens" of government accountability, that the plutocrats and the "invisible hand" of the market will lead American into the promised land of economic prosperity.

Some of the things they believe are not only dangerous to the economy, luckily they are also politically radioactive. And quite remarkably, many key Republicans are actually willing to say them out loud. Here are a few:

Meet Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. If the Republicans once again take control of the House, he will be the Chair of the Budget Committee. Ryan believes -- and says out loud -- that Medicare, one of the most popular Federal programs in history, should be abolished and replaced with vouchers for private insurance. Let's recall that one of the ways Republicans stirred up opposition to health insurance reform was by falsely accusing Democrats of wanting to cut Medicare. They convinced some unwitting seniors that "Government" should keep its hands off Medicare -- which is, of course, a "Government" program. Democrats need to make it crystal clear in this campaign that Republicans -- who opposed Medicare from its inception -- actually want to abolish the program and hand over control of health care for America's seniors to the same private insurance companies responsible for driving up rates three times faster than wages while their profits have exploded.
Congressman John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, has endorsed another Ryan proposal to raise the retirement age of Social Security to 70 years old -- a proposal that might go over fine with a guy like Boehner who makes speeches for a living. But it won't be very popular at all with someone who has laid bricks, or run an earth mover, or waited tables for forty-five years.

The whole Republican crew wants to resurrect the failed Bush proposal to "privatize" Social Security. The defeat of Bush's privatization plan was the turning point in the Bush Presidency. It was all downhill from there. Yet -- whether it's to pad the investment accounts of their friends on Wall Street or because they are "private markets uber alles true believers" -- the Republicans want to try it again. Only this time retirees won't have to work very hard to imagine what it would have been like if their Social Security checks had plummeted in value the way their 401K's did when the market collapsed just two years ago.

The Republicans want to weaken and repeal the new law to rein in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. Most Republicans and Democrats voted to bail out the big banks to prevent a 1930's style market collapse. The difference is that Democrats supported legislation to rein in their recklessness -- that had cost 8 million Americans their jobs -- and assure that a bailout was never allowed to happen again. But with very few exceptions, the Republicans voted to a person against holding Wall Street accountable. Given a chance, they plan to team up with their pals on Wall Street to free them to return to their reckless ways at will. In fact, they told the titans of Wall Street as much in fundraising meetings, where those "masters of the Universe" were asked to ante up. Republicans claim to oppose more Wall Street bailouts, but they refuse to support legislation that would prevent one in the future and hold Wall Street accountable. That -- coupled with those big contributions from Wall Street -- is a position that is very difficult for average voters to swallow. In fact, the polling says it's down right toxic.

Republicans have consistently voted against extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been laid off because of Bush-era policies and the recklessness of Wall Street. Remember, people who get unemployment benefits -- by definition -- are looking for jobs that the economy doesn't provide. In addition, many Republicans actually believe that the best way to spur employment is to lower the minimum wage.

Finally, meet Congressman Joe Barton. If the Republicans win back control of Congress, he would once again most likely serve as the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- the Committee that oversees the oil industry. Congressman Barton has never met an oil company he doesn't like. In fact, he's the guy who actually apologized to BP when they were forced by the Obama Administration to take economic responsibility for the disastrous Gulf oil spill. As a political matter, that's like apologizing to Jack the Ripper.
These are politically radioactive positions that do, in fact, define the core of Republican policy if they were once again to control the gavel in either House of Congress.

We hear a lot about how Democrats have to "localize" the elections to have a chance of victory in November. And it is true that people vote for people in elections -- and the quality of Democratic candidates will give them a major edge in many races. So while it is a good idea to "personalize" the races for Congress, the last thing Democrats should do is to "localize" them, because the party that nationalizes a midterm -- and dominates the national dialogue -- almost always comes out ahead.

Instead, Democrats need to take the offensive and dominate the national conversation by talking about what the Republicans actually believe and what they would do if they win in November. Voters must be offered a stark choice between Democratic and Republican policies in the fall. If they are, "Conventional Wisdom" that keeps predicting a Democratic disaster will be proven wrong, the same way it was when it predicted that America would never elect a tall, skinny African American guy named Barack Obama.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.

Excellent post ..much better than the blue and red propaganda wall charts the teabaggers can muster. I can never understand why the republican actions and its disastrous results still have support in the working classes of America. From a European perspective the divide in politics is so much more in America than what we see here. Am I getting a false impression from certain forums?

Wow! There is a lot to discuss in your post!

First, I can not take credit for the summary on the Republicans that I posted. It is the work of Robert Creamer but it is excellent. Succinct.

Also, I have sometimes looked at France which goes back and forth between being more left of center than America ever is and something close to being as right of center as some segments of America currently are. The comparison isn't exact because France never had the states rights/federal government issue that is part of American politics and America never had royalists to contend with. I'm also not certain whether Catholicism is France functions as a fundamentalist religion and how much of a force Protestantism was/is in France although I suspect religion has not had in the impact on modern French politics that it has on American politics.

But France and England and the United States grew into modern nations together and helped each other change and develop. All three nations owe each other a great deal and always have.

I think that French leftists sometimes dominate and then French rightists take over, that there is a continual domestic war of ideas and public relations there.

England's political system is sufficiently different from the American system to make comparisons just as difficult and we are separated by a common language and what we have done with a common heritage! However, it is my impression that the three main British parties are capable of working more efficiently together than the American parties are.

This country has always been to the right of both France and England, even when they swing to the right. I am not certain that the sheer bulk of America makes it ungovernable and that we would have been better off if Napolean hadn't sold Louisiana to the US.

Maybe we (the a2k crew) should find an English forum to camp out on!

As to the impression you might have from this forum, I think that more people here are centrist to liberal than are conservative. However, the conservatives are more strident, more vocal and more aggressive, although they have less to say!

Somehow, the American right ignores history. I think the Brits relish history and celebrate it.

BAck to England . . . sorry, I'm not as organized as I would like to be . . . I think that the same left/right dichotomies do not apply. The Labor Party moved to the center in recent years but Churchill, who was supposed to have been a conservative, was in favor of universal health care which is considered liberal (leftist) in America.

What Americans fail to grasp is that both the American right and the American left descend from "classical liberalism."

As I write this, it occurs to me that the English are far more pragmatic than Americans: that they see problems and work to correct them rather than worry about where everyone stands.

I do think Maggie Thatcher represented a significant move toward what the Americans call the right.

I also think that the American left came to the fore during the Vietnamese WAr and made a stand. After wars, societies tend to quiet down and sink into a sort of luxurious repose. We did it after the Civil War, after WWI and WWII and again after Vietnam. It we hadn't, the left might have ended up stronger.

Creamer writes his half truths, misrepresentations, and lies quite well. If I was so inclined, I could take the time to take all of his points - point by point and refute them, but I doubt it would do any good. Those that already get it, already know it, but those that don't would never get it anyway.

Thanks for that, you enforced much of what I had observed. I find the press and intelligent money have more influence than they represent. Saying that I think modern citizens are becoming so much more able to distinguish truth from propaganda. Maggie , to me was a terrible episode in our history , she engineered a war that could have been avoided and created monopolies in our amenities that we still suffer from. Churchill even though I oppose his parties politics is a man I highly admired and as you say very pragmatic in his approach to a problem. I have not been able to read my posts by the way..thanks xris

Why don't you just pick one or two points and show how they are incorrect? For, I believe that he is not incorrect in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

You can't read your posts? Is it your computer or your network or a2k?

Yes after further reading I must agree that Ryan's Roadmap has some major flaws that I, as a conservative with a libertarian bent, have some problems with. Overall, it’s a start and politically I think most Americans in the present climate would agree with. I think though that if that political realities turn towards conservative's favor after Nov 2010 there is no reason the GOP cannot use the Roadmap in a more conservatively Beefed-Up way. Longer term, if after the 2012 elections with a conservative majority in both houses and, perhaps, even a GOP Executive conservatives may take even bolder steps: (This comes in Taranto's argument as to why Obama/Pelosi/Reid efforts to force legislation through the 2010 lame duck session of congress might be futile--an interesting read in itself)

Generally speaking the Roadmap was written before Obamacare was passed so some of Ryan's assumptions must be reworked. Also, Ryan is in the "repeal and replace" school as opposed to our "repeal and start over with more targeted changes (tort reform, etc)" camp. After Nov I feel the latter will resonate better with Americans. Even if we cannot repeal we may be able to tie it up by blocking funding, perhaps, until 2013. But specifically, I have some concerns first being his 'consumption tax' on corporations. Ryan might counter that this would replace the present corporate tax but it is really a VAT. I know you prefer this tax but there are some problems:

1. This tax is too easily concealed from those that pay the tax
2. And, therefore, it is too easily increased, especially in the context of 200 years of increased government intervention in American's lives.
3. Erick Erickson has pointed out, correctly, that should Pelosi et al push for a VAT the GOP would be hard pressed to argue against it with one in their own proposal (Roadmap).

I must agree with Ican here:
1. The 16th Amendment must be repealed then and only then:
2. Ryan’s flat tax can be enabled. I disagree with Ryan's 2 tiers of 10 or 25% or a choice of the old system. If Americans are in tune with Ryan’s efforts towards a simpler more fair tax why not eliminate the old system altogether and go for a top rate of 7-8%? What American in his right mind would rather pay 10% or 25% as opposed to a flat 7%?


I would go further and require that the Feds would not be able to pass a budget (conservatives, unlike this Democratically controlled congress, would pass an actual budget) greater than the amount of federal revenues taken in the year before and perhaps a mandated cap might require tax payers getting money back. Also, Defense spending should be first in line.

On Social Security reform Ryan's private accounts contribution limits should be higher than an upper limit of 6%, if possible. I am for a more aggressive rate and implementation should politics allow and for the eventual elimination of SS altogether that still takes care of those who have planed their retirement around it with Ryan's phase-out. Here Ryan has the right idea but, perhaps, we may be more aggressive regarding conservative goals. Further I would need a clarification on what part of the personal account would be guaranteed and how this would be done (think Fannie and Freddie). This could just be switching one entitlement for another here.

Generally Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance should have a heavy market influence to lower costs. I think Ryan recognizes this when he notes the disconnect between those that purchase insurance and those that consume it. Until the consumer pays for what he consumes, price signals will be ignored and costs will continue to climb. (Subsidize something and you get more of it. Question to all: If the government gave you a voucher for a car and a college education with you to pay only $500 would you buy a Chevy or Mercedes, go to State U or Harvard? Actually the government has done both hasn't it? What happened to those prices? To those who might argue the prices of the cars did not rise--What would have happened to their prices if the government had not handed out free money for their purchase?)

As to your general thoughts on decreased taxation, you are correct. This is a Win-Win for Americans. Essentially put more in the economy (less given to the government middlemen) has the effect of stimulating the economy plus gives less money to those in government and breaks the statist cycle and the influence of government on the economy by decreasing its ability to pick special interest 'favorites'. Capital used by those who legitimately earned it is more efficiently used.

As to education reform, this is another area where price signals and quality of the product is circumvented by, mainly, teachers' unions by way of their political influence over politicians (special interests again). Michelle Rhee of the D.C. public schools and the schools in New Orleans have benefited from common sense applications by short circuiting some union influence. Mayor Fenty a, Democrat, deserves accolades for his support of Rhee over the years. Sen. Durbin deserves to be panned here for his successful efforts to cancel the D.C. poor kids scholarship program to magnet charter schools in the D.C. school district. His actions here were purely a sop to the unions.

Ideally, I thought federal standards could be used to improve education but this hope of mine has been dashed by the politicization of just about everything in memory since the Vietnam War (think the left here) and M. Steel’s publicized comments (think RNC chairman’s private remarks about Afghanistan here) and, maybe even earlier (think Federal highway funds). These events argue in your favor regarding education reform that endorses local control. After all, if my argument insists that prices must be informed by those consuming the product are valid, then there is no reason why said prices should not inform the prices of education and its quality with the individuals locally consuming such. The added danger of leftist influence here is lessened by local control of school curriculums.

Overall, I am in agreement with you about kinks in Ryan's vision for conservative reform. But we must temper our criticisms with the fact of his (and conservatives' in general) immersion in a political climate that, in the past, has only allowed limited, at best, conservative principles of government to be entertained by our politicians. I hope the American political climate has changed. But, if it has changed, I would venture to say that that change of the American attitude might be more attributable to Democratic executive and legislative excesses as an exhibition of Madison's "tyranny of the majority" than anything the GOP has done since the Shrub's election.

Hey, be a happy conservative warrior!


JM
* http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365121771999434.html

Many opinions your post does lay out for us POM, but this caught my eye:

This is, indeed, true. Perhaps we could have you post the definition of "classical liberalism" (wikipedia, amoung others, would be fine) and show the similarities and differences of the American Right and Left with that definition, it might prove instructive to all.

JM

Pretty much. But, you are right not to bother. This is an opinion piece posted sans link but we can only guess from what publication (and that publication's slant) it comes from. No, matter it is only an opinion piece that is honest only insofar that it doesn't take anybody's quote out of context, but then there is not a single quote or link backing up Creamer's opinion, not one. His literary trick that begins "Meet Mr. so-in-so" conjures up a real life profile that is questionable because all that follows is Creamer's 'unvarnished' opinion. So the piece is simply an American's exercise allowed by the left's greatest foe: the First Amendment.

JM

I just hate it when people post definitions, particularly in the okie and omsig style with the enormous type face.

My, aren't we pretentious?

I want to clarify the fact that I am not in favor of a VAT. VAT is a totally different animal than a retail sales tax. A retail sales tax only collects the tax once at the final point of consumption at the retail level. A value added tax collects tax at many points of a product reaching the market, and is an extremely burdensome and economy killing tax. And to clarify further, I am only in favor of a retail sales tax as a replacement of the income tax completely. The income tax would need to be totally eliminated as a requirement for my support of a retail sales tax. I fear that instead of reforming our tax system and improving it, we will only add more crap to it, such as the current administration toying with the VAT tax. They will keep the income tax, and possibly add the VAT tax and maybe even some kind of wealth tax or tax on assets, which I have read about, which would be murder to an economy they are already killing.

The beauty of a retail sales tax is the following points:
----- We already have the infrastructure pretty much nationwide, that collects state and local taxes, so it could be done easily, while eliminating most of the current IRS and all of its convoluted laws and regulations.
----- It would place every product sold in this country on a level playing field, without regard to where it is manufactured, so we could eliminate the need for companies to go offshore for tax purposes, which could provide a huge boost to domestic business and manufacturing.
----- The tax would apply to everyone, even if they are drug dealers or people that are flying under the radar in regard to paying taxes now.
----- There might be some attempts to avoid the retail tax, such as bartering, but I believe the ability to monitor and apprehend offenders would be much easier than it now is. Instead of checking up on hundreds of millions of people, we can assign watchdogs to a few of the top retailers in this country and we would keep the vast majority of the system honest. And since local people and governments are already keyed into identifying businesses that are non-compliant in collecting sales tax, they would help the feds in these efforts as well. With the current system, locals really don't care if somebody is avoiding income taxes.
----- Although the retail sales tax rate would be severe, perhaps on the order of 20%, plus or minus, the cost of goods before tax would be drastically reduced, possibly resulting in a final price not much different than now. Furthermore, people would have much more money in their pockets to spend, due to not paying income tax.
----- For those concerned about progressivity, we can exempt shelter or housing to a certain threshold, and food, and perhaps energy, since those are pretty much the core essentials for living. I think the debate over what to exempt would or could be a healthy debate. Finally, some in favor of this tax have proposed we provide a rebate to the very low wage earners, and this could be done. After all, we may still need to have a small remnant of the IRS to administer the payroll collections for SS and Medicare, and we already give rebates to low wage earners, so that could continue if the political powers will it that way.

a2k they tell me its because of interference.

I find computers to be weather sensitive.

I do like the idea of a national sales tax (that replaces income tax). It would especially benefit people like myself, who save most of their income.

We have to either accept taxation is essential or it is not. Then you have to realise they will get your money one way or tother. You can only scrutinize where it goes and who should pay the most. Most governments try to hide the way they tax you because it looses them votes, open taxation system like VAT or retail tax, taxes the poor more than the rich because it involves essentials . Most systems encourage dishonesty and therefore the easy to recover taxes become more popular for government, hence VAT.

mass spamming..spams off...

... yes, this is what is known as a Regressive tax. It is specifically designed to help the rich and hurt the poor.

Cycloptichorn

It doesn't HAVE to Cyclops. Okie laid out some good ideas that would still make the tax progressive and protect the poor. I'm sure you don't disagree that doing so is important.

Our country needs incentives to save more money; this is one way to help that.