The Question Conservatives Must Answer
From the "Correspondence" section of the indispensable Claremont Review of Books:
November's massive result was historic in its scope but not in its nature. Since the birth of the modern conservative movement in 1955, Republicans have gained more than 16 seats in the House only four times: 1966, 1980, 1994, and 2010. Each pickup came after the Democrats had enjoyed for a while control of the White house and control of both houses of Congress with significant majorities. The 2010 election was not unique: Americans have a history of repudiating liberalism whenever it is on full display.
Americans do not, however, have a modern history of endorsing small-government, constitutional conservatism. In 1964, they decisively rejected Barry Goldwater; in 1996, the re-elected Bill Clinton who had presented himself as a brak on an ultra-conservative Congress. Even Ronald Reagan in 1980 reassured Americans he would not challenge the core pillars of the welfare state.
The question conservatives must answer is whether this time is different.
--Henry Olsen, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.
Well? Is it?
How are we to know?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
We'll know when: a) We're no longer borrowing $200 million or so every hour, and b) the voting public votes in more deficit hawks, or at least retains the ones currently in office.
The proof, as 'they' like to say, is unfortunately only in the pudding.
Edited on Apr 25, 2011 at 5:54amNov '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
I really don't think it will be any different. The pendulum will swing for sure, but not to where we want it. I'm going purely based on my own discussions with different people. They love to complain about how much the president makes and how we should cut his salary and the salary of all of Congress. But when you start talking about entitlement cuts maybe 1 in 5 people agree with you. The rest become offended, even angry, at the suggestion that seniors have to "foot the bill" as they always do. Or they start in about how you "barely make it on Social Security" now. As has been pointed out so many times, it's those swing voters who count, and they don't vote with their intellect. They vote based on about the last 5 minutes.
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
Yes, this time is different, and there are two reasons why. First, Obamacare has everyone scared. For the first time, we have seen the liberal endgame, and it involves applying the principles of what FDR called "rational administration" to the decision as to who is to live and who is to die. Second, the welfare state is eating its seedcorn. Gunnar Myrdal warned in 1944 that social insurance for the aged would cause a demographic implosion that would undermine our capacity to provide social insurance. Well, the day has arrived -- and everyone can see it.
May '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
It certainly is different:
Don Rumsfeld mentioned "inflection points" on the podcast, and I think we're at one domestically as well; in fact, "reckoning" may better describe it. We have to regain the understanding that Washington does not make our fortunes but that it exists only to discharge the authority we have delegated to it - no more, no less. Fortunes spring from Main Street and not Pennsylvania Avenue. Our future prosperity depends on our ability to tame a giant of our own making, recapture our entrepreneurial initiative, and grow the economy.
Edited on Apr 25, 2011 at 8:07amNov '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
If the political repercussions in Madison are any indication, no, it's no different this time. This may sound very leftist of me, but I really don't care what 51% of the voting public wants. The opinion of the majority on any given issue, regardless of Rousseau's view on this thing, is very often wrong. These congressmen, if they are really interested in saving the country, have to operate under the presumption that they will not be reelected.
In a way, you have to admire Barack Obama. Unlike Clinton, he was willing to give up a second term in office to get his healthcare program passed over the objections of the majority of Americans. His idealism is what makes him so dangerous to those who would prefer to maintain the status quo. We need a little of that.
Jun '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
It's different this time in that middle America is no longer somnabulent. Obama took office in January. By April the Tea Party had mobilized millions. When have you ever seen the American middle class march in the streets? Then we got Scott Brown elected to Ted Kennedy's old seat. In 2010 we took 63 House seats. Then on to Wisconsin. Solid wins across the board.
We'll have one chance to roll back the welfare state in 2013 assuming we take the White House. We'll need a Republican president willing to initiate a scorched earth policy on the federal bureaucracy. Half measures won't do.
Feb '11
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
Highly unlikely.
The politician who promises low taxes and continued high entitlements is the one who will win. Everybody loves a Santa Claus. And voters never hold Santa Clauses responsible for anything. Unfortunately, bond markets will.
Jun '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
Hang On: Highly unlikely.
The politician who promises low taxes and continued high entitlements is the one who will win. Everybody loves a Santa Claus. And voters never hold Santa Clauses responsible for anything. Unfortunately, bond markets will. · Apr 25 at 6:26am
The bond markets will force the issue long before our political class will act. This could turn out to be a good thing. We won't have a choice. Facts are stubborn things, and so are numbers.
May '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
I think that's just it: most Americans want low taxes and considerable spending, i.e., all benefits and little cost,
Jun '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
I believe the last election represented a vote for real change in spending and creating a path away from fiscal disaster. That said, politicians are still politicians.
We have two things going for us: (1) Paul Ryan and (2) we really are nearing the brink. I think the House will do something real. The next big question is whether the Senate, once the pressure is on it, will feel enough pressure to negotiate something real with the House (I doubt it). If it does, and you end up with a real bi-partisan bill, we'll find out if Obama is a leftist ideologue or not.
In the end, it's all about 2012. Real substantive change is likely only to occur with a Republican in the White House. In the meantime, it's all about getting the Dems to sound more and more nutty.
Can the Republicans make that happen? We'll see.
Edited on Apr 25, 2011 at 8:00amDec '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
Human nature doesn't change, but the conditions in which humans operate sure do! I agree with the idea that most everyone is looking for something for nothing. I also agree that the un-sustainability of the welfare state, the day of reckoning, is about to teach us Milton Friedman's lesson: there's no such thing as a free lunch. I can't imagine this painful lesson will wait until after the next election.
May '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
I'm too much of a conservative to say this time is different, but I will allow that this time could be different, for at least two reasons:
1. Alternative media (Fox News, talk radio, Ricochet).
2. The fact that the Tea Party is not centered on one person (as with Perot). I've been pleasantly surprised by how the movement has kept its focus on a small set of issues. If we can keep that going, we have a shot.
Jan '11
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
Peter Robinson:
Well? Is it?
How are we to know? ·
The second question dictates the first. We have no way of knowing. We guess.
We elect the candidate whose platform best matches ours, but it's never going to be exact. Sometimes, we don't endorse many of his positions. We only select him because his platform is incrementally better than the other guy. That's the problem with RINOs; we vote for them even though we really don't support their positions.
Elections are the only "poll" that really counts, but they don't offer exact judgments on every policy position. National polls ask questions and publish results, but that never means that the public understands the issues that they're reacting to. Politics isn't an exact science.
That's why it's important to make your case. Elections don't guarantee that the public agrees with you. So, you tell the public what you intend to do, and why. Then you watch for clues for support. That's all you can do. It's a guessing game.
May '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
We have an easy way to know: Wisconsin. I'd argue that would be decisive even if we had lost narrowly. A result that has to have Dem consultants spooked. It's analogous to Scott Brown's winning in Massachusetts, which was determinative of the Obamacare debate.
I'm the odd position of being the sunny optimist on the board, with the possible exception of Paul Rahe.
Oct '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
I'm with Althouse--ideologues scare me.
Sep '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
Is the question will the GOP establishment co-opt the small government movement once again? I would say most likely. Paul Ryan is being praised for proposing that we continue deficit spending for the next 10 years. Never mentioned is the fact that the GOP establishment defeated a budget proposal that would have cut 30% more than Ryan’s and actually had a chance of balancing the budget. The American people have not heard small government arguments made in a consistent and articulate way and therefore it is not surprising many remain unconvinced. The GOP establishment has made certain of this and appear to be doing the same thing again. How many old-guards of the GOP are defeated in the primary season will tell a lot about what will be done.
Oct '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
Add me to the “optimistic” column of the Republican/Conservative future outlook. Scott Brown’s seminal victory in Massachesetts was the first shot heard round the world against the bankrupting welfare state.
Conservatives NEED to celebrate the incredible victory in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election against the full court press of union thuggery and Democratic Party machines. The media and government establishment will never be on our side. In order to build momentum, we need to scream from the roof tops every small victory.
Peter-we already know we are winning. Scott Brown. 2010 House wins. Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Ohio SB5. Governors cutting costs and not raising taxes.
The mountain is tall and steep. The only way to climb is one foot in front of the other.
Edited on Apr 25, 2011 at 10:10amMay '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
I sure hope that this time is different, but there are a few points of skepticism in my own analysis of the situation. How surmountable / insurmountable are these challenges?
1) Will Conservatives take control of the conversation, or will organizations like the New York Times maintain its' vulcan-like grip on a very influential sector of our electorate?
2) Are conservatives sufficiently angry to embark on the arduous process of gut-renovating and retrofitting our bloated government bureaucracy?
3) Is information penetration going to take hold below a certain level of intellectual curiosity within our electorate?
Edited on Apr 25, 2011 at 9:46amRe: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
Peter -- you may recall a dinner we had may, many years ago in D.C. with Pat Buchanan. This was before Reagan's election. Pat reiterated his belief that this was a "conservative country," but noted, "What people want to conserve is the safety net of the New Deal."
Matthew Continetti had a nice short piece in the WaPo blog a day or two ago looking back fondly on Jack Kemp and his influence on Reagan. The Reagan-Kemp message was not fundamentally one of austerity. It was about a less intrusive government, one that encouraged, rather than inhibited, the dynamism of the private sector. This was popular.
When most polls show even a majority of conservative Republicans opposing any cuts to Medicare or Social Security, I don't see how it's possible to argue that today is any different -- for the electorate as a whole. There certainly is a segment of America that is more enthusiastic about the "small government" message than it has been in recent years, and the excesses of the current administration have probably expanded that segment. But an electoral majority, or anything even close? I don't believe it.
Dec '10
Re: The Question Conservatives Must Answer
How many times has the question of smaller government been couched in terms of penalizing your kids?
"Would you rather continue the status quo on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid knowing that it will lead to a 68% tax rate for kids now in grade school?" is different than asking "Is small government better than big government?"
And the fears of seniors can and should be mitigated by the fact that no changes are being proposed for those currently receiving benefits.
It is different this time. Just don't let anyone change the subject.