Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Dan McLaughlin, one of the blogosphere's best writers and most gifted analysts, has written a must read piece this week on the nature of the Republican Establishment, and the divide that exists between it and the base. I think McLaughlin's points are overwhelmingly accurate and in some cases profound.
The great GOP debate of 1933-1956 or so was how to react to the New Deal: try to moderate its excesses, or assault its premises. Dwight Eisenhower, in the long run, won the battle within the party in favor of the former; William F. Buckley, jr., in the long run, won the battle within the conservative movement in favor of the latter (hence the slogan “standing athwart history, yelling ‘stop!’”). Yet even Buckley and his magazine spent more effort combatting the status quo in national security policy than on the size of government.
From Goldwater’s failure in 1964 to Reagan’s victory in 1980 and Newt Gingrich’s victory in 1994 and failure in 1995-96, the common thread has been that conservatives win arguments about cutting taxes and restraining domestic discretionary spending, but lose arguments about dismantling the entitlement state created by FDR and LBJ and the auto-pilot budget-bloating processes of the 1970s. George W. Bush cemented this consensus in 2000-05: he could get the public behind cutting taxes and (sort of) restraining the growth of discretionary domestic spending but couldn’t get the public behind Social Security reform and was only able to get elected in 2000 by promising – then delivering in 2003 – a pricey new Medicare prescription drug entitlement. It seemed at the time that conservatives would have to content themselves with winning battles on taxes, national security, social issues/the courts and occasionally discretionary spending, but couldn’t challenge the status quo on the entitlement state and its compulsory collectivist impulses.
Then we got the multiple whammies of 2006-2011, which collectively pushed a lot of people on the Right from a position of accepting that they might be naive about how much change was possible, to being determined that the Establishment was naive about how long the old system could stand...
McLaughlin's piece - which rebuts, thankfully, the idea that this is about cocktail parties and such - is likely to spark a great deal of discussion, and in many ways it serves as a follow-on to Steve Hayward's recent controversial arguments about spending, which I responded to here.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Well this makes me hopeful.
Dec '11
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
I enjoyed that article as well.
May '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
So, the result of the old stalemate was massive deficits. And now, we've all woken up to the realization that the old stalemate has reached its limit.
It's really, really sad we didn't figure this out earlier; fixing the deficit 30 years ago would have been a piece of cake compared to today. Still, better late than never.
Dec '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Thanks for posting this, Ben. It's great to have clarity on the intra-party division. Now I know I'm an Outsider.
Feb '11
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
McLaughlin doesn't confront the central problem head on (which is why I think all the talk of reforming the entitlements along the lines of private accounts on the right will fail and why the divide between establishment and anti-establishment has less substance than he states). There is a huge explicit obligation to those over 65 to continue with social security and medicare. There is a huge implicit obligation to those under 65 that social security and medicare will continue. If private accounts are established, then where are you going to get the revenue to pay for social security and medicare for those over or approaching 65? Politicians talking about such reform are talking about either blowing a hole in the budget that makes what Obama has done look like small change OR you have to sharply reduce the benefits of medicare and social security. It's one thing when you are borrowing a huge amount of money to improve the infrastructure of the country and it's quite another to borrow to subsidize consumption, which we would have to do if we went to private accounts. That's why I don't find anything conservative about private accounts.
May '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Great article. Thanks, Ben.
Sep '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Consider two things:
In the last four decades labor's(wages) proportion of GDP has fallen from 67% to 62% and profit's(capital) has resin from 8% to 13%.
During the same period of time total government spending has increase for 27% to 41 % of GDP.
Pointing out that neither trend is healthy, that there may be a correlation between the two and that people who have opted for a career in politics and the associated careers such as journalism have benefited from both is neither anti-capitalist nor anti-government. Add to the above a consumption glut funded by debt and I see little hope in the future especially when neither party and the "journalists" who carry their water refuse to discuss it in any serious manner. Corruption not ideology is the primary problem faced by the country.
I would suggest that outsiders are discussed with the corruption and want the bums thrown in jail and the insiders say, "who me". That is the real difference and articles such as this while entertaining are really just more blather.
Sep '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
These arguments lack a sufficiently long time frame. Socialism can take several generations to kill itself. Necessity will make all of this moot as it has in Greece and is about to in Italy. It won't be politics that takes the Buckley / Goldwater approach, it will be mathematics.
Apr '11
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Provocative post Ben. To me it displays two sides of the establishment coin. On one side is the go along to get along way of thinking as Hayward espouses where those in power create the system, know how to game the system and after relinquishing power, live comfortably above the havoc their policies wreak. The other side is the I'm the true conservative who is much smarter than you the be-knighted and can lead us to the promise land side where Newt and his ilk espouse their "wisdom" and "policies" that eventually leads us, the electorate, to despair.
You mentioned Coolidge in your post and we see Ron Paul harping ad infinitum on returning to the gold standard or something similar. How about we return the Republican party to the "Coolidge Standard" where it seemed, for the most part, that policies were still judged by how they measured up to the constitution and where government concern was balancing a budget, spending what you have and paying off past debt because all those things were fundamentally right and good.
Dec '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Entitlements are a pact with the devil. Once you sign up your soul is no longer yours. And, in both cases, there is no escape clause.
Dec '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Can you expand on this? I think the article helps elucidate the issue, but I'm seeing little to be hopeful about -- and a little hope would be welcome about now.
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Freeven
Can you expand on this? I think the article helps elucidate the issue, but I'm seeing little to be hopeful about -- and a little hope would be welcome about now. · Jan 18 at 8:31am
What makes me hopeful is that many on the right are recognizing that the Establishment is naive when it comes to reform. The article says that these people previously accepted that the Establishment could handle the problems caused by entitlements but now they realize that was naive. That seems to me to be an important first step.
Apr '11
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
MacLaughlin is onto what libertarian-conservatives have been saying for three decades.
Neoconservatives accept and even praise the Administrative State erected by FDR and other Progressives. No other conservative ideology accepts the authoritarian state.
The dividing lines in the party are philosophical and cultural. (It's the cultural part that leads to cocktail party sneers.) I suspect no compromise is possible. This is a battle for control of the Republican Party. It's an ideological war of annihilation, a civil war in the party.
Apr '11
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Jeff Younger: MacLaughlin is onto what libertarian-conservatives have been saying for three decades.
Neoconservatives accept and even praise the Administrative State erected by FDR and other Progressives. No other conservative ideology accepts the authoritarian state.
Reagan praised and defended the New Deal, and added the then largest expansion to Medicare ever. I'm not sure if you're wanting to declare both Bushes, Eisenhower and Nixon neo-cons, but other than the Bushes, no GOP President has taken a real swing at the entitlement state, and Bush '41 only succeeded in getting rid of Reagan's addition, '43 failing utterly. There have been plenty in congress, too, who are not neo-cons who were comfortable with the Reagan position.
Today, there are a ton of TEA Partiers who don't want their entitlements cut. When Gingrich talked about Right Wing social engineering, he wasn't pandering to elites and insiders, but to outsiders. When he chooses to focus on a ridiculous 15% flat tax rather than spending cuts, likewise. There are discretionary spending cutters and tax cutters on both sides of the insider/ outsider divide, and entitlement reformers likewise. Bush '43's social security efforts were not hopeless.
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
I am completely with you. Zombie Coolidge 2012.
Apr '11
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Straw Man. The Republican establishment will not support efforts to tear down the Administrative State. The establishment can cut spending here and there, while never challenging the agency system. Bush's proposals on Social Security were ludicrous. Put money into the existing system or put it into Fannie Mae for Social Security.
The problem is precisely these weird corporate-government hybrids and the agencies themselves. They are blatantly unconstitutional, dangerous to liberty, and expensive.
Neocons favor the agency system. They want to turn the agencies to "good" ends. Libertarian-conservatives and Tea Partiers (inconsistent though they may be) want to eradicate the agency system and replace with it with a department system with executive powers only.
The lines are clearly drawn. There is no compromise to be had.
Jul '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
James Of England ...
Reagan praised and defended the New Deal, and added the then largest expansion to Medicare ever. ...
Today, there are a ton of TEA Partiers who don't want their entitlements cut. When Gingrich talked about Right Wing social engineering, he wasn't pandering to elites and insiders, but to outsiders. When he chooses to focus on a ridiculous 15% flat tax rather than spending cuts, likewise. There are discretionary spending cutters and tax cutters on both sides of the insider/ outsider divide, and entitlement reformers likewise. Bush '43's social security efforts were not hopeless.
Reagan, working with an "entitled" Democrat Congress, made the deals he had to make to achieve tax reform and victory in the Cold War. He had to deal with existential external threats. He won unwinnable fights, but he had to choose carefully. With a Tea Party behind him and fiscal collapse pounding on the door (as it certainly is), he could and would have made good on his small, prudent government vision. He shared that vision in public forums for decades before winning the Presidency.
As for Newt, everyone gets their kids to the table for the dessert, not the vegetables. Politics.
Jul '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Ben Domenech
I am completely with you. Zombie Coolidge 2012. · Jan 18 at 9:46am
Sorry. You need the radical who will strip away the fat and corrosive and intrusive with the zeal of a TR first. Cal is too quiet for what needs accomplishing.
Dec '10
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
What makes me hopeful is that many on the right are recognizing that the Establishment is naive when it comes to reform. The article says that these people previously accepted that the Establishment could handle the problems caused by entitlements but now they realize that was naive. That seems to me to be an important first step.
You see hope in the fact that more people are recognizing that we are racing off a cliff. I don't share your hope because I see that recognition simply as an acknowledgement that we're so very close to the edge. Even the Wile E. Coyotes among us must look down eventually.
I fear our underlying naivete is alive and well, and that if we somehow manage to pull back from the precipice it will be only temporary. As soon as the immediate crises is averted, we will resume our march leftward, ever toward the cliff.
We loves us some freedom, but we loves us some entitlements even more.
Meep! Meep!
Apr '11
Re: Must Read Article: The Real Establishment Divide
Sisyphus
Ben Domenech
I am completely with you. Zombie Coolidge 2012. · Jan 18 at 9:46am
Sorry. You need the radical who will strip away the fat and corrosive and intrusive with the zeal of a TR first. Cal is too quiet for what needs accomplishing. · Jan 18 at 10:11am
The President Cal got to power with, Harding, was about as quiet, quintessentially moderate in terms of tone, and cut spending by considerably more than we need to today. TR was aggressive, but not about cutting spending. We don't need a successful progressive, of either party.