Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Last week my friend, and Ricochet Member, Duane Oyen posited a question to those of us on the right, asking if it was time to "Re-Boot" conservatism. The centerpiece of Duane's post was an article by Dr. Steven Hayward, titled "Modernizing Conservatism." Dr. Hayward's piece, written at the request of The Breakthrough Institute, (an organization which Duane assures us is a "rational liberal" think tank) serves as a companion to a "modernizing liberalism" article. While Duane concedes that he agrees with a great deal of Dr. Hayward's ideas, he was curious about how others would react.
The reaction was swift as the comment thread itself became a bit contentious at times. But I thought it worth the effort to step back and read Dr. Hayward's article as dispassionately as possible, taking to heart Duane's admonition that, "… we also need to look at ourselves or we ourselves are unserious." Now to be sure, there are "pet conservatives" here and there whose primary occupation is tearing down those who advance the conservative cause. Because I don't count Duane in that category, I've spent no small amount of time considering the issues as Dr. Hayward frames them.
Dr. Hayward begins by citing the recent success of the Tea Party and the 2010 elections, and concludes that we're in trouble. "Conservatism," he says, "is failing on its own terms." As indicators, he points to a stagnant minority underclass and a middle class that is not only stagnant, but showing signs of economic regress. "Stagnant income growth and mobility and a shrinking middle class are considered unhealthy by most conservative understandings of social health, cohesion, and well-being," writes Dr. Hayward, but concludes that these issues, "…have attracted only the attention of Charles Murray." A categorical statement of this order, contradicted as it is by virtually every conservative publication and website in the country whose headlines and tables of contents regularly overflow with considered and urgent analysis of the catastrophic condition of the economy on both a macro and micro level, makes Dr. Hayward's conclusions something less than irresistible, …which is a polite way of saying, "Strike One." Yes, these issues are existentially important not only to conservatism, but to the survival of the country itself, which is why so many of us are utterly distraught by the choice in candidates offered to us in 2012. But Dr. Hayward doesn't really explain how the tragic indicators he cites can be called a failure of conservatism. Certainly the policies of the last two and a half years, which have brought the country to its knees, didn't originate from the right.
Then comes this statement, which is breathtaking:
By allowing their well-reasoned and often well-founded critiques of government action to metastasize into a categorical rejection of all prospective government action, while continuing to deny the basic political economy of the welfare state, conservatives increasingly find themselves in an ideological and practical straightjacket.
I, for one, categorically reject the idea that conservatives categorically reject "all prospective government action." What conservatives reject is unconstitutional government action. Conservatives have either proposed or passed, to standing ovations from other conservatives, one prospective government action after another, from "Cut, Cap, and Balance," to the Ryan Plan. The Constitutional distinction is a basic tenet of conservatism, yet curiously absent from Dr. Hayward's lengthy article. As to his assertion that conservatives, "…deny the basic political economy of the welfare state…" I know Dr. Hayward is aware of Paul Ryan's efforts in that very arena because he writes of them approvingly, so I'm at a loss to explain his assertion of a conservative denial. Strike Two.
One of the lynchpins of Dr. Hayward's argument that conservatism needs a restart, is something he describes as the failed "starve the beast" strategy. This strategy purports to reduce the size of government by reducing revenues into the government. Indeed, from a 1981 speech by President Reagan, we read;
Over the past decades we've talked of curtailing government spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. Sometimes we've even taken a run at doing that. But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn't be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance.
Conflating tax rates with tax revenues, Dr. Hayward continues;
Rigorous analyses from centrist economists Christina and David Romer of UC Berkeley, and from libertarian economist (and Reagan White House alumnus) William Niskanen conclude that the starve-the-beast strategy fails. Strikingly, Niskanen's analysis found that lower taxes correlated with higher levels of federal spending. As a result, Niskanen argues that raising taxes may be the most effective way to reduce government spending.
And that's really what he seems to be after here; higher taxes. The paradox of which he writes is really not so striking when you consider the fact that it was the tax rate that Reagan lowered, not tax revenue. In fact, revenues to the government increased from $517 billion in 1980 to over $1 trillion in 1990, according to the Heritage Foundation. Adjusted for inflation, that's an increase of 28%. The beast, therefore, was never starved. The government simply blasted through the additional revenue, over President Reagan's veto, and continued running a deficit. Strike Three.
"Thus, conservative attachment to a failing strategy has rendered the Right incapable of reducing government spending," continues Dr. Hayward, who prefers a "serve the check" approach framed in the manner of making Americans pay for all the government they receive. In other words, an increased tax burden. Dr. Hayward's statement that the current arrangement, "…allows Americans to receive a dollar in government services while only having to pay 60 cents for it," strikes a discord in the ear of a free man, presuming as it does that the taxpayer is somehow ripping off the government, when in reality it's the other way around. From Tea Parties to town halls, from letters to newspapers and across the internet to the wave of citizen legislators we sent to Washington in the last election, we keep telling the government to spend less, and yet somehow we are being allowed some sort of unfair bargain when they spend more? In the first place, we didn't order all this stuff off the menu, and we aren't terribly happy about paying the checks for almost 50% of the population. Hell, we didn't even get to read the menu in the case of Obamacare, which was passed against the popular will. Who, aside from leftists, demanded quantum increases in operating budgets for administrative agencies? Secondly, increasing the tax burden depresses economic growth which, in turn, can actually depress revenue and further exacerbate the problem of debt, unemployment, economic stagnation, etc. But in the final analysis, the beast will be starved because we are broke. Across Europe, governments are, "running out of other people's money," as Margaret Thatcher so famously and astutely observed. Raising the cost to the productive sector is not the answer.
Again, from Dr. Hayward:
It may be that internal ideological reformation must precede bipartisan political compromise. Ideological extremists in both parties have repeatedly succeeded in scuttling tax and entitlement compromises pursued by moderate reformers in their respective parties, and at the moment, the prospects for any compromises seem remote.
I'm always intrigued by this kind of language. The left in general, and President Obama in particular, have shown outright hostility toward the Constitution. Conservatives, on the other hand, have tried to restore and conserve it. What is this "extremists in both parties" business, exactly? I understand that working to undermine the law of the land is indeed extreme, but what is extreme about trying to preserve it? What part of the Constitution ought we to compromise, exactly? On a micro level, if we're going to compromise, how about doing so on the left side of the playing field for a change? Regarding taxing and spending, the compromise always assumes that both taxes and entitlements will increase and so we compromise on the rate of increase. This, we are told, is the smart and moderate thing to do. We pat ourselves on the back, and continue toward the cliff though at a slightly adjusted speed. Just once, how about telling the left that we will compromise on the rate of decrease? I suspect that would be labeled, by both the left and some on our own side, as intransigent. Conservatism doesn't need a re-boot, but rather a renewed fidelity to the enduring principles that made this nation great.
- Comment (77)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Mendel
...
The debate about how to deal with our looming debt has escalated to the point where change will only come when both sides take a hard blow to the gut. Even if the Republicans were to sweep the 2012 elections, public opinion combined with Democrat filibusters would still prevent any sweeping changes without oxen on both sides being gored.
...
That, in my opinion, is the only way to get things turned around. Both sides will have to take it in the gut.
We can argue until the cows come home about which side is more to blame for the budget getting so out of control, but the fact is both parties are guilty.
This is where the strong, wise President I mentioned earlier comes in. He gets some folks together to craft a plan that spreads the pain roughly equally. Using the bully pulpit, he sells it to the middle of the electorate that swings most elections by appealing to their patriotism and the disgust for rank partisanship the middle is supposedly so tired of, then rams it through Congress.
It might not work, but everything else I've thought of seems even less likely to succeed.
Nov '11
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Of course, this is all academic, since we don’t have a strong, wise President, and don’t seem likely to get one anytime soon.
Jul '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
That is the crux of the problem: a failure of leadership. Which side is to blame? Both sides, that is why the Tea Party resonates. The current president served only to bring our government excess discussion to a boil, this is a conversation that started in softer tones more than a decade ago.
The failure at that time, and in my mind, was the abject failure of leadership in the Republican congress. Why should we be surprised when conservatives like Doctor Hayward talk this way? Our leadership was soft and seemingly made little effort to safeguard the future during times where our opportunity was greatest. If conservative leaders, for many years, accepted the creep of increased government spending, is it not rational for someone to conclude that is the only direction it can go? Election cycle after election cycle we talked about reducing spending and it never happened.
I do not defend the rebooting Professor Hayward proposes, nor do I accept that those that hold a much more limited vision of government are "extremists." We should hardly be shocked, however, or up in arms when someone identified with our point-of-view puts these ideas forward.
May '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
I sure wish people would look at the actual facts here. 1) The spending creep prior to 2008 was relatively nothing- it exploded thereafter. 2) The discretionary spending is relatively nothing- compared to entitlements and regulation costs to the economy. Yet, all anyone here ever talks about is discretionary spending. Can't anyone read tables or graphs?
Look at the US chart here. By 2007, the deficit was down under $200 B. And in 1997 Gingrich had a deal to take care of entitlements, blown up by the Lewinsky scandals.
Jun '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Duane Oyen
...
"Stockholm Syndrome"? It exists, sure. But this characterization is a bit overdone and simplistic. I refer you to William Voegeli. · Nov 21 at 6:08pm
I'll see your William Voegeli and raise you Mark Steyn who agrees with me:
Edited on November 22, 2011 at 5:36amDec '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
This topic has taught me one thing: I need to study economics more, specifically tax policy and its effects on, well, everything.
May '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Steyn is a smart and funny guy, studies Spenglerian and Spencerian static demography. Voegeli is a bright and serious guy, studies government spending and the welfare state.
Quote whom you wish, Larry!
Jun '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Duane, we were talking about Stockholm Syndrome which deals not with the subjects being studied but with people's motivations. That's exactly what Steyn is talking about. Here's the money quote:
You want to change the subject. I don't -- my subject is the on the question of Republicans and conservatives who give into the Dems contrasted with those who wants to fight them directly and on their own terms.
We have to take the initiative here. The terms of the debate are on how to stop spending.
Stop "studying" spending. Instead stop the spending. Reduce it drastically. Then we can study it.
Jul '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Duane Oyen: I sure wish people would look at the actual facts here. 1) The spending creep prior to 2008 was relatively nothing- it exploded thereafter. 2) The discretionary spending is relatively nothing- compared to entitlements and regulation costs to the economy. Yet, all anyone here ever talks about is discretionary spending. Can't anyone read tables or graphs?
Look at the US chart here. By 2007, the deficit was down under $200 B. And in 1997 Gingrich had a deal to take care of entitlements, blown up by the Lewinsky scandals. · Nov 21 at 8:32pm
Hi, Duane. I was actually referring to a period earlier than 2007, and I should have specified that. The time frame I meant to reference was around 1998-2004. With a bit more vision, we could have put things on much firmer ground. Yes, I think things would have been different had Newt remained as Speaker of the House.
May '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Chris O.
Duane Oyen: ................. 2) The discretionary spending is relatively nothing- compared to entitlements and regulation costs to the economy. Yet, all anyone here ever talks about is discretionary spending. Can't anyone read tables or graphs?
Look at the US chart here. By 2007, the deficit was down under $200 B. And in 1997 Gingrich had a deal to take care of entitlements, blown up by the Lewinsky scandals. · Nov 21 at 8:32pm
Hi, Duane. I was actually referring to a period earlier than 2007, and I should have specified that. The time frame I meant to reference was around 1998-2004. With a bit more vision, we could have put things on much firmer ground. Yes, I think things would have been different had Newt remained as Speaker of the House. · Nov 22 at 10:04pm
I think that you are probably right, Chris. Unfortunately, Newt has an ego-driven history of blowing up at the wrong time and undercutting his opportunities. As evidenced by the way he departed in 1998. I wish that he and WJC had pulled off their entitlements deal.
May '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Larry Koler: Duane, we were talking about Stockholm Syndrome which deals not with the subjects being studied but with people's motivations. ................
We have to take the initiative here. The terms of the debate are on how to stop spending. ....
We agree to disagree, Larry about method.
We are all on the same side- we want to chop spending and become solvent. We disagree about what is possible in getting there- on means, rather than ends. Because I, along with several other rock-solid and non-"Stockholm-compromised" conservatives, believe that this gets done when we acknowledge that thye welfare state is not going away, we are branded as RINO?
Here is that apostate, WFB, in 2001 regarding the basic US entitlements:
“What conservatives are going to have to get used to is that certain fights we have waged are, quite simply, lost. It is fine, in our little seminars, to make the case against a federal Social Security program, but it pays to remind ourselves that nobody outside the walls of that classroom is going to pay much attention to our Platonic exercises.”
The sooner we focus on what is doable, the sooner we make progress.
Jun '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Duane Oyen ...
We agree to disagree, Larry about method.
We are all on the same side- we want to chop spending and become solvent. We disagree about what is possible in getting there- on means, rather than ends. Because I, along with several other rock-solid and non-"Stockholm-compromised" conservatives, believe that this gets done when we acknowledge that thye welfare state is not going away, we are branded as RINO?
...
Well, I am being unspecific personally as to who is being comprised as a conservative -- and I see you do take my meaning correctly. If the shoe fits then ....
When I hear certain memes -- even to the exact phrasing sometimes -- coming from the mouths (keyboards) of people, it is only fair for you to allow me to ask the question of "where does that idea come from?" If someone doesn't know the provenance of said meme then I am left with two conclusions:
Jun '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
If it's number 2 (comment 72) then I apologize in advance for misunderstanding. I have found thru many years that number 2 is rare and I can generally assume it's number 1.
I am supported in this because I further object to certain damaging memes being helped by conservatives who claim to want to promote conservative values. We simply must stop damaging people who are on our side.
People like David Brooks and David Frum go after the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin with more anger and zest than the left does. This is really wrong if values really are what they want to promote.
I don't believe that these people share our values -- it's as simple as that. They are shills for the elites who disdain middle America. Their first allegiance is to the Elite Party and they only pretend to be Republicans to help them to have a more interesting voice at their little elite soirees. These people are not your friends.
As for Buckley, well, I can share his criticism of trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It is fruitless. He really does know of what he speaks.
But, Steyn's position and Buckley's position don't have to collide directly and prevent us moving forward. The problem is that we are moving backward (we all agree) and we have tried it your way for too long. Enough is enough. There is no partnership here. The left is the enemy among us. They don't play fair, they lie and they don't care about anything but fundamentally transforming this country.
Taxes have become the only thing the conservatives (and libertarians) have made any headway with. We have to make a stand. This is as good as any place.
Edited on November 26, 2011 at 9:50pmMay '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Larry Koler:.........................
I further object to certain damaging memes being helped by conservatives who claim to want to promote conservative values. ...... stop damaging people who are on our side.
People like David Brooks and David Frum go after the likes of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin with more anger and zest than the left does..............
..........Steyn's position and Buckley's position don't have to collide directly and prevent us moving forward. The problem is that we are moving backward (we all agree) and we have tried it your way for too long. ...................
1) I agree that David Brooks and David Frum have an elitist streak that causes them to denigrate non-Ivy League types. But just because they criticize Palin for her sometime intellectual laziness does not mean that they are always wrong. BTW, I have pinged Ricochet more than anyone else here for its concentration on coastal and Ivy League pals.
2) What is "your way"? In other words, I guarantee that no one has "tried it (my) way", let alone "for too long". That's an unsupported and presumptuous statement. Most of my fellow conservatives pretend, contra Buckley, that you can get rid of entitlements. Poppycock.
Jun '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
1) It isn't that they are always wrong -- you mistake me. It is their attitude of deference to their chums in the elite left. It is their allegiance that I question.
2) "Your way" is to find some way to allow taxes to come into the discussion when we have to focus on spending cuts.
May '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Larry Koler: 1) It isn't that they are always wrong -- you mistake me. It is their attitude of deference to their chums in the elite left. It is their allegiance that I question.
2) "Your way" is to find some way to allow taxes to come into the discussion when we have to focus on spending cuts. · Nov 28 at 7:55a
Bunk. That is an errant premise. Read what I have posted on this site. The question is how do you get spending cut? You don't get it by folding your arms and saying nonononono. If you try, you go home. Now, you don't believe that, I guess. I think that you are wrong.
Since you are in the Bachmann camp saying that there are no negative consequences to being the party responsible for a default, I have nothing to say. I think that the consequences of that, in an unfair world where legacy media still controls the narrative, are disastrous for any kind of sound US policies.
Deny that, be my guest. There are also people out there who still cling to an illusion that electing Obama was "good for conservatism"...?
Delusional.
Jun '10
Re: Re-Booting Conservatism (or, In Which I Disagree With A Friend)
Duane, we are not that far apart. My only point is that we can think about taxes all we want -- we just can't talk about them. Let's face it -- if we want taxes to be discussed in any fashion on any date we can get that in a millisecond. So, this discussion needs to be delayed as far as possible.
I do believe there are negative consequences to a default but we conservatives will get the blame in either case so we shouldn't try to curry favor and falsely believe we can be protected. We can't.
The negative consequences of a default have to be compared to waiting a lot longer to resolve this -- to kick the can down the road, so to speak.
(I assume the "delusional" comment above was for those who think Obama was good for conservatism. -- If so, I agree.)