The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
Ross Douthat's column today is about V.O. Key's argument that realignments in American politics are punctuated by transformative elections. Douthat says that this theory was embraced because it clearly fit what happened in the America of the 19th century but that it has become a trap.
One reason American policy-making has become “less stable, less effective, and less predictable” — in the words of the downgrade that Standard & Poor’s handed to the United States on Friday night — is the enduring influence of V. O. Key’s theory, and the seductive dream of realignment that it conjured up.
This dream has hovered over many national leaders of the past but that it has loomed larger in the last decade as we've become more polarized. He gives some examples and acknowledges the fundamental divisions that we have in how we approach policy issues.
Our recent elections have had dramatic consequences. It will make a tremendous difference whether the next enduring majority owes more to Barack Obama’s liberalism, Tea Party conservatism, or some other worldview still.
But there’s no guarantee that such a majority will be established in time to walk the country backward from the fiscal cliff. And in the meantime, our leaders have a responsibility that transcends their ideological differences: the responsibility to work with one another to keep the country solvent.
He reminds us of some of the obnoxious things winners have said in recent elections -- President Obama to Eric Cantor (“Elections have consequences — and Eric, I won”) -- but says the hope for transformative elections isn't helpful for losers either:
This is how some Republicans are thinking today, as they crow about “the Obama downgrade” and imagine all they can accomplish in a Mitt Romney administration. Or a Paul Ryan administration, for that matter: Many conservatives are eager to see their party’s leading champion of entitlement reform enter the race, the better to make 2012 feel like a true hinge-of-history moment, a decisive choice between social democracy and free-market capitalism.
In reality, the next election may be no more transformative than 2008 turned out to be.
So here's my question. Many Ricoheters have been hoping for just a complete transformation of who holds national office. What's our Plan B? What if that victory doesn't arrive and doesn't come close to arriving? How do we close the deficit then?
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Feb '11
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
We just saw our plan B - the debt ceiling debate. And it's not much of a plan.
Jun '10
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
I think the outlook is pretty good. Americans have been taking a lot of courses at the School of Hard Knocks lately. They're not as naive as they were a few years ago.
Dec '10
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
There is no "Plan B". After the 2010 elections I really thought, I truly believed that the political conversation would be all about what to cut and where. I thought the battle would be Democrats wanting to cut the military vs Republicans wanting to cut entitlements. Then Obama released his February budget and actually tried to increase spending and for the first time I saw how naive I truly was.
If fiscal conservatism doesn't win in 2012 the next 20 years are going to suck. Its like a marriage. If there is a problem in a marriage and one partener refuses to try to fix it, or even acknowledge there is a problem, there isn't a lot of hope left
Oct '10
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
It is equally true if the problem is money and both parties to the marriage refuse to take steps to cut back. The debt ceiling compromise is an example of this kind of marriage. The GOP campaigns on the idea that there is a debt problem, but their efforts always result in an agreement that we can continue in that direction. The Dem's simply do not even pretend.
The duty of the opposition is to oppose. The GOP talks opposition and votes agreement.
Mar '11
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
Mollie--I'm not ready to discuss Plan B as of yet, but that's partially because I dissent a bit about Plan A.
Ross almost always writes something worth reading, and he's right here to point out that "radical transformation" is probably not what's going to happen. What I mean is, I don't think we're going to have a Tea Party Congress and a Tea Party White House.
I think we (Republicans) have a good shot of retaking both the Senate and the Presidency. But the Senate is likely to be won with a coalition of Tea Party candidates and more moderate Republicans--which means I don't think we'll have a supermajority, and we'll have to work with some moderate democrats there to pass legislation.
With regard to the White House, that's going to be a tough race. Unless something drastically changes, I see it as more likely that a moderate candidate beats Obama on a jobs agenda. This means that fiscal conservatism (not fiscal austerity) will play a prominent role--but so will a jobs agenda.
As always, unexpected realities may intrude in one way or another regardless who wins.
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
Ross Douhat is wrong. V. O. Key's argument described what happened in and after 1932 perfectly, and it describes what began in 2010 perfectly. Let me add that what we have seen since 1980 looks a lot like the late 19th century -- when the Republicans tended to hold the Presidency and Congress went back and forth.
Right now, as long as the Democrats insist on an increase in the share of GDP going to the federal government from ca. 18% to ca. 24%, there is not and cannot be a Plan B. To compromise is to accept a permanent increase in the percentage of GDP going to the federal government -- and that alone will stall the economy and produce a high rate of structural employment -- as it has done in post-1975 France.
Barack Obama is the Democrats' answer to Herbert Hoover, and we are in the midst of a realignment.
May '10
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
Paul A. Rahe:
Barack Obama is the Democrats' answer to Herbert Hoover, and we are in the midst of a realignment. · Aug 8 at 7:40am
This is why a good history professor is worth his weight in gold. (I'm not at all prejudiced ;) ) Again, history does not truly repeat itself, but human behavior often results in it rhyming. Government borrowing and spending is our generation's version of 95% margin. It's going to lead to some economic pain and a massive political realignment. Most voters will be dragged kicking and screaming into reality. Any chance we can get Paul Ryan to rethink his opposition to running? History is calling him...PDR is our FDR.
Jan '11
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
I don’t buy the assumption that ideology is a luxury, and should be set aside when “practical” matters arise. We believe in limited government and low taxation, not because they’re luxuries like language beauty or mathematical efficiency, but because they’re the foundation of all truly practical solutions.
We have an adversarial system. An adversarial system starts with a worldview in which reality is a mix of good and bad. Situations become contentious because they have plusses and minuses; benefits come with costs. An adversarial system is designed to make sure that no solution can proceed without paying due respect to the costs. The alternatives are weighed by how they promote some values rather than others.
Normally the adversaries share the same values, but not here. We’ve reached the point where those who insist on economic equality are in basic conflict with those who insist on economic freedom. The equality camp insists that government must take from the wealthy simply because they’re wealthy. The freedom camp insists that the more capital in the hands of wealth creators, the better. Those two approaches cannot be reconciled.
Dec '10
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
Plan B: A Democratic Senate, and a Conservative house and President with the line item veto.
Populist sentiments trend away from limiting the power of government and cutting entitlements. Fiscal conservatives need clear and decisive victories to point to if they hope to sway enough of the electorate to make dramatic change in the direction the country is headed.
Edited on Aug 8, 2011 at 7:56amOct '10
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
So, hoping for a single transformative election to be able to reverse the disastrous course the Republic is on is folly - there will be too many folks in the process wedded to the status quo, or wanting to move in a different direction.
It seems plausible to me, then, that the goal becomes to shift the electorate so that the centrist position becomes closer to the 'right' one.
It also seems plausible that reaching across the aisle and playing the usual games isn't going to change anyone's mind, where symbolic actions and consistently yelling 'The Sky Is Falling' just might. Because the sky is, in fact, falling.
As to the objection that alienating the center now by extreme rhetoric will just entrench the statists control for the medium term - well, how different an outcome is that to the one achieved by the accomodationist strategy?
Mar '11
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
Mr Douthat is a young Mr Brooks - how else would he write for the NY Times?
It's very simple - there is no plan B.
Jun '10
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
What a great question on the release date of Mark Steyn's new book, After America.
But... a plan B? I would suggest the best plan B would be to get your family in a stable, debt free state. The time when we could count on a very secure and sound US government is passing.
There is nothing any one of us can do about the closing of the federal deficit. We will continue to vote for conservative small government/big freedom candidates. But personally, we can't control that much.
However, getting our own house in order ensures that our families won't have to rely on an increasingly unstable state and that at least one small group of citizens will prosper.
Apr '11
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
President Sarah Palin. Would that qualify as transformative?
Dec '10
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
The only redeemer of freedom and wealth from the confiscatory powers of the administrative state is the invisible hand of market forces.
Unfortunately, an irresistible force seemingly nearly equal to it is the wishful thinking that any Republican having more than one term of incumbency will hold steadfast against the threats of ostracism by Washington’s ruling class.
Incumbents ignore far more easily the will of their constituents than the pressure of accreting their power with each new prefix added to “-illions.”
Market forces will prevail, collectivist policies will implode, and politicians will point fingers at each other for their loss of power to the only one beyond their control—the invisible hand.
Plan B is economic collapse laying waste Leviathan, followed by the return of free markets.
Edited on Aug 8, 2011 at 9:39amSep '10
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
It used to be commonly said:
"As goes California, so goes the nation."
Six years ago when I lived there, California, like the US now, was fighting tooth and nail about how to govern itself. The base case was cruise control on hog-wild spending and tax increases or borrowing as necessary to meet the balanced budget requirements. But, in CA you needed a super majority to raise taxes, so Republicans could block this plan. Grey Davis did not openly advocate for a specifics, but figured out over time that the base plan was not acceptable to the population.
So Plan A was a Republican executive with Milton Friedman inspired ideas about how the government could be shrunk and the system fixed through targeted spending cuts, better governance, (and perhaps) some tax increases if necessary. Despite being well to the left of the tea-party, he got no cooperation on his plan and over time was politically destroyed by special interest groups who thrived on gov't largesse.
Oh, and plan B was Jerry Brown.
So, America seems remarkably like CA except more Republicans, no balanced budget amendment, and money presses.
Jerry Brown in 2016 anyone?
Mar '11
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
"Barack Obama is the Democrats' answer to Herbert Hoover, and we are in the midst of a realignment."
Prof. Rahe: Nothing would please me more. Two decades of truly conservative reform would be precisely what is necessary to undue the two decades of Progressive transformation that began in 1932 and didn't have the brakes tapped until Eisenhower was elected.
But I'm not foolish enough to conflate my wishes with facts.
Here's the test your prediction must pass to render it analogous to 1932: the Republican nominee defeats Obama by nearly a nearly 20% margin, the Senate turns red and Republicans hold 59 seats, and we maintain 300+ seats in the House.
I can see a very plausible case for the last of those. I have already said something like the middle one is possible--but it will be a coalition of Tea Partiers and more centrist Republicans--and the first of them I cannot imagine happening at things stand today.
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
Keith Preston
Paul A. Rahe:
Barack Obama is the Democrats' answer to Herbert Hoover, and we are in the midst of a realignment. · Aug 8 at 7:40am
This is why a good history professor is worth his weight in gold. (I'm not at all prejudiced ;) ) Again, history does not truly repeat itself, but human behavior often results in it rhyming. Government borrowing and spending is our generation's version of 95% margin. It's going to lead to some economic pain and a massive political realignment. Most voters will be dragged kicking and screaming into reality. Any chance we can get Paul Ryan to rethink his opposition to running? History is calling him...PDR is our FDR. · Aug 8 at 7:51am
I wish that Ryan would run.
Edited on Aug 8, 2011 at 10:53amRe: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
Crow's Nest: "Barack Obama is the Democrats' answer to Herbert Hoover, and we are in the midst of a realignment."
Prof. Rahe: Nothing would please me more. Two decades of truly conservative reform would be precisely what is necessary to undue the two decades of Progressive transformation that began in 1932 and didn't have the brakes tapped until Eisenhower was elected.
But I'm not foolish enough to conflate my wishes with facts.
Here's the test your prediction must pass to render it analogous to 1932: the Republican nominee defeats Obama by nearly a nearly 20% margin, the Senate turns red and Republicans hold 59 seats, and we maintain 300+ seats in the House.
I can see a very plausible case for the last of those. I have already said something like the middle one is possible--but it will be a coalition of Tea Partiers and more centrist Republicans--and the first of them I cannot imagine happening at things stand today. · Aug 8 at 10:30am
I agree. But we do not have to win the Presidency by 20%. We simply have to win a thumping victory there, and I think we will.
Mar '11
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
I share your wish that Ryan would run, and there is much to be done to ensure that, whoever gets the nomination, we win that thumping victory.
May '11
Re: The Folly Of Hoping For Transformative Elections. What's Our Plan B?
I have long had the luxury of being cynical about politics all the while knowing that it didn't really matter. I thought our system of checks and balances and an economy that was only partly driven by government could survive 4 years of any fool's presidency. We have already had a transformative election (2008) and we lost.