Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Today I had a chat with a distinguished political scientist here at Stanford, a friend who's a lot more conservative than not. Are we witnessing a realignment? A decisive rejection of the welfare state?
As I asked, my friend simply stared at me, wide-eyed with disbelief. "Of course not," he replied. "What we're seeing is a simple reassertion of the great American center." Voters didn't want a lurch to the right under Bush, he explained, so they punished Republicans in the midterm election of 2006. In the presidential election of 2008, voters threw their support behind Barack Obama not because he was a man of the left but because he seemed, in the midst of the economic crisis, calmer and more competent than John McCain. Now that voters have discovered Obama isn't a post-partisan figure but an ideologue after all, they're preparing to punish him in November by electing Republicans.
"Voters don't want a conservative revolution," my friend said. "They just want Washington to adopt a pragmatic, moderate, problem-solving approach."
Which brings me to Ricochet's own Dr. Rahe.
Paul, I very much prefer your view your view that we're about to witness a rejection of the welfare state and a reassertion of our ancient liberties. Believe me I do. But as best I can tell, my friend's much more modest explanation fits the political facts pretty darned well.
Where is he mistaken?
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
I have a hard time accepting this assumption:
How did Bush represent a lurch to the right? Didn't Americans punish Republicans in 2006 because they had soured on the Iraq war?
The left-wing media likes to portray the Bush administration as a crazy far-right cabal, but I fail to see where Bush and the Republican Congress up til 2006 implemented any significant conservatives policy initiatives at all.
I'm not fond of this fellow's narrative, but perhaps that's because I prefer the sunny optimism of Professor Rahe.
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Tax cuts, a ban on federal funding for stem cell research that would have destroyed human embryos, and, yes, the neoconservative (with an emphasis, for these purposes, on the final four syllables of that word) approach to international affairs, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--that's the policy substance of Bush's conservatism. So at least I make out the argument. Add to this--and this is a point that my friend the political scientist mentioned--add to that Bush's Texanness. He embodied the religious outlook and the folkways of the conservative South, a particular kind of stylistic conservatism that the rest of the country--so my friend would argue--finds mighty hard to take.
I ain't making this argument, you understand. I'm simply trying to present it fairly.
Jun '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
About 70% of us (35% on each side) are not lurching from side to side. Not at all. The ones lurching from side to side are in the middle, and what does the middle want? They want competence, stability, and prosperity--sort of a three-legged stool. But if the stool is falling over, the center 30% wants to give the other side a try. They're the ones lurching back and forth, and it's not based on ideology. It's more just trial and error.
May '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
How did Bush represent a lurch to the right? Didn't Americans punish Republicans in 2006 because they had soured on the Iraq war?
The left-wing media likes to portray the Bush administration as a crazy far-right cabal, but I fail to see where Bush and the Republican Congress up til 2006 implemented any significant conservatives policy initiatives at all.
Diane,
I'd much prefer a President Milton Friedman or a President Hayek to any of the available choices. Or a President Coolidge, Reagan, or H.W. Bush. I agree that W. Bush's failures weren't conservative. But the political coalition known as the conservative movement lent him their staunch support for a long time. And so I continue to have a hard time trusting it.
I hope the GOP retakes Congress in 2010. But in 2012 I am undecided. I'd prefer getting rid of Barack Obama and his domestic policy. But not if it means four years under the foreign policy and civil liberties agenda of Bill Kristol.
Whether others feel as I do I can't say, but that's one right-leaning independent's answer.
Jul '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
His first and foremost mistake is that Bush did not lurch right, he didn't even veer right. Bush spent most of his presidency in Left Light mode with a few bones to the right.
Yes he cut taxes, and he offset that with Kennedy written No Child left behind, McCain Feingold, Prescription Drugs etc.
Yes he was tough on the Terrorists after 911, (Henry Scoop Jackson would have done no differently) but that was about it.
I'd also advise your friend to actually listen to talk radio, if he had, he'd have been aware of the mood of the Right in 2006. Ask any host what the No. 1 comment they received from callers in 2006 was.
THE REPUBLICANS DESERVE TO LOOSE!
That was the RIGHT, not the left or the center saying that. And they stayed home in droves.
This time they are making sure they get the candidates they can trust, and they most certainly do want a lurch to the right. They do NOT want caretakers, they want people committed to pushing back on this agenda, and not acclimating us to it so it becomes the norm for the next time Dems return.
Jul '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
I will follow by noting that Bush made his most sever error in his, "New Tone"
By that I mean he capitulated to the left when he should have been advocating for his own position. By letting the media dictate the script (unlike Reagan who would point out their bias - There you go again - ) he should have stood up for himself, and the things he was doing.
The Bush adminstration responded to Katrina faster than the Clinton Administration's response to Fran in 1996, but Bush never defended himself, he always let the accusations stand.
By Never speaking up and leading he allowed a cumulative effect to erode public perception of his administration into a crazy far-right cabal.
May '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
In my experience, there are so few politicians one can trust that it is impossible to make sure of getting one.
Jul '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
How did Bush represent a lurch to the right? Didn't Americans punish Republicans in 2006 because they had soured on the Iraq war?
The left-wing media likes to portray the Bush administration as a crazy far-right cabal, but I fail to see where Bush and the Republican Congress up til 2006 implemented any significant conservatives policy initiatives at all.
I'm not fond of this fellow's narrative, but perhaps that's because I prefer the sunny optimism of Professor Rahe.
Ms. Ellis, you are correct on both counts: Bush did not lurch to the right, but the Left made him out to be a right-wing loon. The perception of Bush as an ultra-conservative is key.
I agree with Mr. Robinson's friend in that the US is inherently a center-right country. The electorate will correct what is perceived to be swings to either extreme. That is exactly what is happening now, and it is presumable that since the media was successful in convincing liberals and independents that Bush was governing from the far right, that is what happened in 2006.
Sep '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Suppose for a moment that the Tea Party encompasses the newly active or re-awakened voters who have been the difference in these primaries and will be the swing votes in November.
The political scientist may be correct if it is his understanding that most of the Tea Party activists have more in common with the Ross Perot voter of '91-92 than Newt or Rush. The Tea Party-tistas I've heard are angry about irresponsible spending, deficits & bailouts - general behaviors from government and "Big Corporations" that diverge wildly from their own way of life. The lack of results from the "stimulus" irks the Tea Party as much as it does any conservative who disbelieves the Keynesian myths.
However this doesn't make the movement conservative. Those gripes could be satisfied by an effective technocrat or "CEO of the Government." This Super-Perot would only view greater economic liberty as a potential means-to-an-end. I'd bet that if Obama were somehow able to get the job done with Stimulus and Ivory Tower Leftism, the Tea Party would dwindle down to the conservative core that always dislikes that stuff, and the swing vote would dwindle proportionally.
Sep '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
For years the Republican party has been moving leftward, chasing the moderates who are socially libertine but who are also healthy capitalists. The problem was, it is much easier to appeal to emotion, while the economic argument is more difficult to make and considerbly more boring. So what did many Republicans have to do?
Moderate,compromise, hide.
But this is 2010. Times have changed.
Americans have tried the Keynesian solutions and are finding it lacking. They have had cause to think about it, and intuitively understand that make~work government jobs funded by taxpayers is a net drain on the economy.
This is the opportunity to make the case for free enterprise and how it makes for the stunningly vibrant economy that we all are beginning to remember fondly.
Americans are also becoming alarmed at the pace of socialism and how it expands. It moves slowly under Republicans and rapidly under Democrats... and there will be a point of no return, if we havent crossed it already.
The Tea Party phenomenon is a backlash against creeping socialism above all, and where there are Republicans who are guilty of abetting the march toward collectivism and state control, they will be defeated.
May '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
That's right, and it may even be only 10-20% that are volatile.
We keep looking for grand theories to explain elections, when, in reality, the repudiations of 2006 and 2008 were no more complicated than a reaction against perceived incompetence (Iraq, Katrina, the economy) and corruption. Obama ran as a centrist--even center-right, at times--figure (tax cuts for 95% of the people, let me at 'em in Afghanistan) who appeared competent. There was no ideological swing in the people. That's why they're so angry today.
And if the above is true, it's good news: We don't need to change minds; all we need do is be competent in making a center-right case and then competent in executing it once we have power. Yes, we must keep nudging (gently, so as not to scare) the electorate rightward, but there needn't be a revolution. Reagan did that.
Jul '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
"...the great American center[?]"
The "center" either do not have a coherent thought on which side of freedom they stand or do not have the cajones to defend their stance. And there ain't nothing "great" about that.
Aug '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
That and the rest of Jaydee's post pretty much sum up why the "rejecting a right-wing Bush" line is silly. Although it's true that Democrats ran against Bush, to the exclusion of having any other platform of note, that doesn't mean the voters bought it.
Another line cries out for easy rebuttal:
If that were even remotely the case, we would be talking about President John McCain right now. Like his friend Joe Lieberman, McCain's only reliable, identifiably conservative stance was on the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan; everything Jaydee said about Bush is doubly true for McCain, plus his execrable Gang of 14 capitulation.
For the political scientist to be correct, you'd have to discount the polling numbers that track the demographics in which Obama lost support over the last year. Otherwise you would have to believe the center is dumb (can't differentiate between Obama and McCain in 2008) or just completely fickle.
Aug '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Conor Friedersdorf
[T]he conservative movement lent him [Bush] their staunch support for a long time. And so I continue to have a hard time trusting it. I'd prefer getting rid of Barack Obama ... But not if it means four years under the foreign policy and civil liberties agenda of Bill Kristol.
Bravo Diane! Conservatives were forced to accept the liberal, inarticulate and poorly qualified George W. Bush as our choice in 2000 and 2004. This contributed to bringing about the Tea Party. Bill Krystol (cf. Friedersdorf) is an unlikely candidate for being considered "conservative." We have been discussing for some time now how the so-called elites came to hijack conservatism. The comment by Mr. Robinson's anonymous colleague, "Voters didn't want a lurch to the right under Bush...so they punished Republicans in the midterm election of 2006," reveals an isolated, misleading, and--perhaps ideological--bias. Claimed analyses of perception in politics is often a tool of manipulation. Focus on principles, not perceptions. Texan--and Oklahoman--is still good, despite Bush.
Edited on Sep 22, 2010 at 6:41amMay '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Peter, I'm inclined to agree with your friend that the center is "reasserting itself" except perhaps for the "re" part. The "great American Center" asserts itself every four years, and rarely gets what it wants, so we have these swings.
But this time that great American center is getting some new ideas about what it wants. The present administration has given people a taste for a what others here have described as "creeping socialism" (or not so creeping) and has done so with an evident disdain for that great center and the democratic process.
I would say that rather that "reasserting itself" the great American center is "remembering itself" and recalling that it ultimately holds and dispenses the power in this country.
Aug '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Jimmy Carter: "...the great American center[?]"
The "center" either do not have a coherent thought on which side of freedom they stand or do not have the cajones to defend their stance. And there ain't nothing "great" about that. · Sep 22 at 6:19am
I wish I had seen this well-said comment first, while I was busy struggling with mine.
Jul '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
The center -- call it the independent voter -- may not know what it likes, but it knows what it doesn't like. It didn't like a testy old man who didn't know how to send an email but was running "because it's his turn." John McCain shaped up like another four years of Bush's RINOism with a few conservative decorations to fool people. They rolled the dice on the nice young African-America not knowing he was serious about being the most liberal member of the Senate. They realize their mistake and are now in the process of rectifying it.
May '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Diane Ellis, Ed.: I have a hard time accepting this assumption:
How did Bush represent a lurch to the right? · Sep 21 at 10:56pm
That was my immediate reaction: when was that lurch to the right? I think the internet must have been down the day it happened, and I missed it.
May '10
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Everyone should think back to how McCain got nominated as the Republican candidate. The conservative vote was divided between many candidates who each seemed strong on one or two issues, thereby pulling each of them down on even ground with the lukewarm McCain.
The final candidate rarely represents voters' ideals. And voters are always forced to prioritize values. So one should be careful in drawing conclusions about voters in this way.
Jimmy Carter: "...the great American center[?]"
The "center" either do not have a coherent thought on which side of freedom they stand or do not have the cajones to defend their stance. And there ain't nothing "great" about that. · Sep 22 at 6:19am
Agreed. Generally, the voting habits of the center can be summed up neatly in the expression: "The grass is always greener on the other side." The ones who are less reactive are mainly concerned with protecting the status quo, regardless of what it is, because they prioritize stability.
Re: Dr. Rahe, Call Your Office
Scott Reusser We keep looking for grand theories to explain elections, when, in reality, the repudiations of 2006 and 2008 were no more complicated than a reaction against perceived incompetence (Iraq, Katrina, the economy) and corruption. Obama ran as a centrist--even center-right, at times--figure (tax cuts for 95% of the people, let me at 'em in Afghanistan) who appeared competent. There was no ideological swing in the people. That's why they're so angry today.
Sep 22 at 6:06am
Scott--and Humza, Joseph, Aaron, and, well, everybody--this makes sense, but weren't we all hoping that this election would provide...something more? That instead of voters' slapping politicians around at the polls as usual, something decisive would take place? Something like a real rejection of the welfare state? Some new beginning? Some reassertion of our liberties? That's what I take Paul Rahe to be arguing (and any minute now, I'm sure, Paul himself will weigh in). Do you disagree with Paul, in other words? Have I myself simply been permitting myself...to grow misty-eyed and dreamy?