Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Six Myths That Are Killing the Republican Party
1. Tax Cuts Are a Slam-Dunk Win
There’s an old saying that “God put the Republican Party on Earth to cut taxes.” But there’s also an old saying that goes “You can’t call a frying pan a Studebaker and expect me to skip church,” which is just about as relevant to the modern voter.
Tax cuts may be good policy. But tax cuts in and of themselves are not the electoral tonic they were back in the 1980s. Why? Because 45% of Americans don’t pay income taxes and, therefore, have nothing to gain from Republican tax cut plans. When Republicans try to explain how tax cuts are good for the economy, it usually goes something like “Tax cuts are good for the economy [mic drop].”
Instead of tweaking the tax code with what Democrats can easily describe as “Tax cuts for the rich,” Republicans should embrace major tax reform and educate the public on how simplifying the tax structure will bring about economic growth. There are no shortage of examples where this has worked, but they cannot assume that voters know that tax cuts are good. Certainly, they are not going to learn that from the government-run schools or Democrat-led media.
(Exit question: how many actually believe that politicians will ever really simplify a complex tax code that they can stuff with favors for wealthy donors? Show of hands?)
2. All Foreign “Trade Deals” Must Be Supported Without Question Because Free Trade Has Absolutely No Downside for Anybody. Ever. (Except Unions. Maybe.)
When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed in 1993, the American middle class was promised that:
- More trade with Mexico would grow the economy and raise the wages of the American middle class; and
- NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration by creating more economic opportunity in Mexico.
Here’s what actually happened:
- Middle class wages have stagnated and declined since NAFTA;
- American manufacturing has declined since NAFTA; and
- Illegal immigration skyrocketed after NAFTA was passed.
Here’s a dirty little secret: economists and corporations do not want the middle class to be making more money. If middle class wages increase, that means workers are more expensive, and that means they are not “globally competitive.” They want American workers to be competitive with third-world laborers, even if that would require Americans to live like third-world laborers. (Hence their desire to import massive numbers of third-world laborers.) It’s a perspective that looks a lot nicer from the editorial offices of the Wall Street Journal and the executive suites of Goldman Sachs than it does from the working class neighborhoods of the Midwest.
Should Republicans be against free trade? Not necessarily, but Republicans should side with American workers, and only sign on to openly negotiated trade deals that clearly benefit American workers.
3. Republicans Have to Always Be the Pro-Business Party
To many voters, “pro-business” means “pro-crony capitalism,” and it’s obvious even to the casual observer that the GOP is in the pocket of corporate america and the chambers of commerce. Consider what the conservative base wants: Obamcare repealed; executive amnesty defunded; Planned Parenthood defunded. “Impossible,” sighs Mitch McConnell. “The votes just aren’t there, so there’s no point in fighting for them.”
Now, consider what the GOP was willing to fight for: letting mega-banks gamble in derivatives with taxpayer money; passing Obama’s top secret 2,000 page foreign trade agreement, funding the Export-Import Bank. All of these were priorities of big donors and the US Chamber of Commerce.
Should the GOP become anti-business, like the Democrats? No, but as long as they side with big business against the middle class, their alliance is an electoral liability. Expecially when it is clear the GOP will fight for what its big donors want, but not for what its voters want.
4. The Immigration Issue Can Be Neutralized With “Secure the Border First” Rhetoric
The GOP has decided that the rhetorical response to demands to end illegal immigration is “Secure the borders first.” But they done nothing to secure the borders. In fact, the GOP Congress passed a bill requiring 900 miles of double-layer fencing on the southwestern border in 2006, then repealed the bill the very next year. The GOP’s fecklessness (and frankly outright dishonesty) on illegal immigration opened the door for Donald Trump, whose candidacy they now regard as an existential threat to the party. Gee, maybe you should have secured the border when you had the chance.
5. The Key to Elections is Winning Over Moderates and Independents
Even John McCain and Mitt Romney’s losses have not laid this myth to rest. Obama did not win in 2012 because he won over independents. He didn’t. Obama won because he did a better job at turning out his base voters than Romney did.
6. Conservatives Will Stick with the GOP Because They Have Nowhere Else to Go
The Republican Establishment has no idea how angry the base is, and even Donald Trump’s ascendance hasn’t given them a clue. As evidenced by the recent comments of moderate Republicans like Charlie Dent and Tom Cole, the Establishment still views the conservative base as whackobirds whose place is to vote for the party and expect nothing in return.
The GOP hasn’t had a single major piece of conservative legislation signed into law at the national level since Welform Reform was passed in 1996. How long are conservatives supposed to stand by the party, hoping for some results? Probably not as long as the party leadership thinks.
Published in General
Because Texas and Nevada are both subdivisions of the same country and culture.
You do understand the difference between one country and another? Or do you assume that every country is the same, with the same interests, culture, and priorities?
It seems not.
It’s not ok from the Nevadan’s perspective.
However, do you not see and feel a difference between losing jobs to Texas versus losing jobs to South Korea?
Otherwise free trade is good no matter what – provided that it’s actually free trade. Provided that the trade is actually beneficial.
Xennady, I think Jackal’s admonition to Jamie applies to you too: please ease up on the harsh tones. You raise some good points but they get lost in attack and defense rather than being discussed to worthy ends.
Economics doesn’t stop at national borders.
I don’t see a “massive” difference between tariffs used to raise revenue and tariffs used to protect a favored industry.
This is like saying there is a massive difference between a tax intended to raise revenue and a tax- you get it.
Both taxes and tariffs have historically been subject to the political process with results that varied with time and circumstance.
Only relatively lately have tariffs somehow moved beyond the pale, unlike taxes.
Here you go:
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPFT9.html
No, but culture and mutual affinity often does.
And?
I’m sorry, I’m just not seeing those harsh tones from Jamie aimed at me or from myself aimed at him.
Shrug. I see stylistic differences, not harshness. I’m not offended by Jamie and I hopes he’s not offended by me.
For once, we agree. End thread.
…..and that’s a big reason we see a substantive difference between relations with Texas versus relations with China or Mexico or India or Sweden.
1. My point was related to V the K’s original post, about how Republican politicians might need to change their priorities in order to win elections.
2. You are correct. The alternatives you mention, however, are not big vote-getters. If we don’t turn the situation around soon, Mitt Romney’s 47% will become 51% and the federal government will never reduce spending, regulation, or taxes. Protectionism might be an unavoidable cost in building a conservative electorate and avoiding the socialist death spiral.
1. Now I follow. Isn’t that reasoning the same as “the GOP needs to give up on social issues”? Changing stances on an issue isn’t necessarily wrong, but I think it should be done for principled reasons, not to improve electoral prospects.
2. Said as much in #254. Those issues don’t have to be unpopular. A great conservative politician would change public opinion rather than be changed by it. If cutting regulations, spending, and taxes are abandoned or diminished, there is little left to attract me to conservatism. None of which is to say that protectionism shouldn’t be explored and debated.
1. I wouldn’t expect any Republican officeholders to change their minds on this issue if they actually believe in it. If there is to be a change it will come from those whose current pro-free trade stance is only one of expediency, and it could come from newly elected officeholders who hold a different view.
2. I agree entirely. Unfortunately, greatness is in short supply among conservative politicians at the moment.