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.
The Thing Most Needful
If you have a moment free, read Steve Hayward’s “Crisis of the Conservative House Divided.” If you have hardly a free moment, read it anyway. Then read it again. It is that important.
Steve has cut through the muck — the list of good things that conservatives favor — and he has focused in on the only thing that really counts: whether elections matter any more.
Back in 1733, Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu published an exquisite little book entitled Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline. In a sly passage directed against the French monarchy, he focused in on an advantage that Rome possessed, which everyone reading it in that year would have recognized that France did not possess: the capacity to correct course. Then, he alluded to England’s ability to do so.
What he had in mind when he mentioned England had two dimensions: freedom of the press, and free elections. They enabled the people of England to force their rulers to alter course.
We can no longer do that. We can elect conservatives. We can elect them in a landslide, giving them more governorships, state houses, and more seats in Congress than Republicans have had at any time since 1928 — and nothing happens. The administrative state continues to grow; the progressives in charge force the states to accept same-sex marriage and men in the ladies room; they persuade all the universities in the land to institute an inquisition to hound and ruin young men who have incurred the pique of a young woman or two by stealing a kiss or (more often) by ceasing to steal kisses; and they promise to censor political dissent by identifying as “hate speech” any statement that breaks from orthodoxy.
In response, what do the conservatives in office do? They cower; they run; when put under pressure, they fold (yes, Mike Pence, it is you I have in mind). And when the Presidential candidate foisted on their party by popular fury aimed, in fact, at them speaks an unpleasant truth, they wring their hands. Theirs is the party of the white flag. They show their talents best in retreat.
The history of modern liberty has always been bound up with one thing: the capacity of the legislative power to elicit from the executive a redress of grievances. That is the role played from the medieval period on by England’s House of Commons, and it used to be the role played by our House of Representatives. The chief thing was not their law-making capacity — though that was important. The chief thing that gave them the leverage they needed if they were to hold the executive accountable and stop it in its tracks if it went astray was, as I argued in a blogpost some months ago, the power of the purse.
I do not know what will happen in November. I fear both possibilities. Neither Clinton nor Trump is, in my opinion, palatable. What I do know, however, is that if Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and their associates do not recover for the legislative branch of our government the power of the purse we might as well not have elections anymore. For the progressives will use their leverage in the courts and in the executive agencies to shove whatever measure elite opinion comes to favor down the throats of everyone else. We are no longer a democracy. We have become a narrow, ideologically-driven, highly partisan oligarchy, and it would take something like a revolution to restore constitutional democracy and democratic control in these United States.
Let me be blunt. Under our Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to stop anything it really wants to stop. All that it has to do is to zero out the budget allocated for the activity it wants to stop. If it is unwilling or unable to exercise that power, it should close shop. The Republicans are the victims of their own cowardice.
This post was originally published on Oct. 23, 2016.
Published in Politics
I think it isn’t that some of the critics here are ignoring the power of the purse, I believe that they realize that our politicians and the electorate at large are at a period of almost political schizophrenia.
People see the nation not doing well, or themselves, at least outside of certain economic sectors and regions of the country.
People are frustrated that they vote for things and they don’t happen, time and time again.
However,
When politicians do try to follow through at the national level
The Media paints such a dire picture it sways both the populace and then as a result the politicians that it is so unpopular they can’t go through with it
Resistance is baked into the agencies and the process
Those same politicians are opposed by their own constituents because the majority of them do not want the most critical liabilities touched (Medicare/Soc. Security – see also 1/2 of the original Tea Party crowd)
Therefore
We must conclude that as long as Congress feels it has no political cover, it won’t use the power of the purse, and 70% of the nation doesn’t want it to, because while they understand there is a problem, they don’t know how they contribute to it
Hence the article
We need a leader that can allow Congress the cover it needs by leading the American people through argument, rhetoric, and the example of personal and political statesmanship to recognize the problem and follow through with it.
I see, and have (I think), how this explains Trump and his supporters (and Bernie’s as well). I’m not convinced he is that statesman, or can be even in part, enough to allow what needs to happen to happen.
While the power is indeed there, the power to ensure compliance is not. For reference, I point you to the House GOP victory against Obamacare just this past May.
P. Obama instructed his administration to pay insurance subsidies, despite the House of Representatives zeroing out the funding for those subsidies. The Judge ruled in the House’s favor, yet where are we now?
There are no enforcement mechanisms that can succeed because our elected officials have abandoned their fidelity to the Constitution in favor of political positions.
No, that won’t do it. The only way such spending can be reformed is if we first cut corporate welfare and other abuses. There is no chance of getting people to accept reforms of entitlements without doing that first. Trump is right not to go after Social Security under current conditions.
Your both right.
People won’t stand to see their entitlements cut while corporations get theirs, and without a President and Congress to do that first, and then the second; it won’t happen.
The people want peace, prosperity, and good government; but they don’t want to make it happen on their dime, at least not if they perceive that others are getting theirs.
I have always been impressed and intrigued by Jonathan Haidt’s work demonstrating that conservatives understand leftist arguments very well, but leftists don’t understand conservative arguments and beliefs at all. In reading the thousands of pro-Trump posts here in recent months, it has struck me that this same analysis applies. The pro-Trump side seems to have no recognition of the arguments that are persuasive to the NT side. Just like leftists, the pro-Trumps make the same limited arguments over and over, without ever really addressing, or even recognizing, the issues that are persuasive to the NT side.
Therefore, I was very impressed that Mr Hayward was able to sum up the arguments of both sides, fairly and clearly, in a single paragraph. Wow. His paragraph deserves to be read, studied, and contemplated. It certainly deserves to be reproduced here:
The article is outstanding. Those who have problems with it need to read it again and continue doing so until they understand it.
Your words are disrespectful and unenlightened about an OP that, with references, explains well why Trump has taken the Republican Party banner. You are wrong in stating that the OP author is not part of a majority and you are wrong that this government is operating under the will of the people.
I conclude that your thinking is right out of the Wilsonian mold that Washington’s experts know what is right for the people (this your will of the people?).
Andrew427
“We need to create narratives that explain why small government, constitutional law, personal freedom, and responsibility are valuable and applicable to everyone.”
No, we don’t.
First, because life does that.
Second, because the publishing houses, media platforms and dominant megaphones are in the hands of our adversaries, as Hayward notes.
We need to fight.
“One may remark in this connection also the notoriously baseless assumption that party designations connote principles, and that party pledges imply performance. Moreover, underlying these assumptions and all others that faith in “political action” contemplates, is the assumption that the interests of the State and the interests of society are, at least theoretically, identical; whereas in theory they are directly opposed, and this opposition invariably declares itself in practice to the precise extent that circumstances permit.
However, without pursuing these matters further at the moment, it is probably enough to observe here that in the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer-Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself.
This was demonstrated in the local campaigns of 1934 by the practical attitude of politicians who represented nominal opposition parties. It is now being further demonstrated by the derisible haste that the leaders of the official opposition are making towards what they call “reorganization” of their party. One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State power are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management.”
Albert Jay Knock in 1935. True for the following 81 years; certainly true for the GOP after the Trump debacle.
Trump is not the full-spectrum conservative YOU’RE looking for. He’s the Hammer I’M looking for. I want him to do two things: build a wall and break the status quo. Anything above that is a cherry on top as far as I’m concerned.
Medicare was part of the Great Society (Johnson’s “War on Poverty”), not the New Deal. But the problem is that these things came to be with popular support and they remain popular and have widespread support from our fellow voters. Eliminating these expansions of federal power just isn’t a viable platform for a political party. Reforming them, sending more power to the states could be, if undertaken the right way. Pretty much all the western democracies became some variety of a welfare state after World War Two (if not during the Depression), and that’s likely what they will remain. Lamenting that these programs, departments, and offices exist is a non-starter in my book. Changing what they do – hopefully to reduce their reach over time – is where I see conservative gains as possible.
The acceptance of the first assertion is precisely what broke the system. The ready acceptance of this by supposedly conservative constitutionalists is the surrender.
Unless I am mistaken and SCOTUS created POTUS and the Congress, rather than POTUS and Congress having nearly complete control over the Judiciary Act. And is it SCOTUS that has nearly complete control over the jurisdiction of the Senate or the reverse?
Co-equality is a fundamental liberal dogma; it’s fifth-grade thought.
Your argument is sound except for four words: “until the next crisis.”
Traditional conservatives and nationalists must have an answer and an agenda ready to implement before the next crisis, whatever the crisis is.
The Left does, doesn’t it?
Trump is certainly a symptom but he seems to me to be a quick learner. That doesn’t mean he knows all the detail someone like Richard Nixon knew from decades of political office. Trump seems to have a few good ideas and can find the people to help him implement them. Will he ? I don’t know.
Will he get the chance? I have no idea but I don’t think this is over by any means.
Excellent post! I tried reading the article referenced on the Weekly Standard website, but found it yet another white-hot mess of pop-up ads and a load speed that made it unreadable. Admittedly I was at work (don’t tell!) and not at home, so my web speed was 5mb, not 60mb. Still are this sites not in danger of cluttering themselves up to the point of being un-usable?
As usual, dripping with scorn for Trump voters. Remedial reading would be good.
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=9522
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/10/20/the-roof-blows-off-the-echo-chamber/
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/the-genius-of-trump
You’re welcome.
I agree with you here. One of the biggest flaws in the opposition to Obamacare was the lack of clear policy proposals that addressed the arguments for Obamacare but did so in a small government way. There were a bunch of ad hoc ideas floating around, but nothing clearly packaged and understandable to the electorate as a viable alternative. Even if you repeal it now, you have to replace it with something.
We’ve got to be more ready for the next crisis, whether its internally or externally imposed.
What an excellent article. I’m glad to see the mention of Burnham, as I have recently re-read The Suicide of the West and find his observations about liberal logic highly cogent, and his predictions eerily prescient.
Clear policy proposals are half the answer, but if at the next crisis we don’t have large bullseyes ready to hang around the necks of the malefactors of state power, pitchforks sharpened and oil drums of tar heated to a boil, the Left will happily volunteer our leaders for the role of scapegoat to preserve the status quo – which they control.
We’ll need politicians who will not be afraid to name names and finger the perpetrators.
We don’t need the left for that. Clearly, we’re quite ready and willing to make our own leaders the scapegoats.
Let’s anticipate an obvious crisis or two and brainstorm how a re-invigorated, principled, in-touch-with-the-people Republican Party and conservatism should handle it.
OBAMACARE GOES INTO FINANCIAL DEATH SPIRAL
The ACA was a totally Democratic initiative. They’ve demanded full credit for its successes; they should be fully responsible for solving its problems.
If the GOP maintains control of the House, leadership should politely decline to meet with a Democratic administration and a (possibly) Democratic Senate to devise a fix. Instead they should demand, along with all the Republican senators, that the Democrats on their own offer an actual bill to address the death spiral, complete with the tax increases necessary to pay for it, which will then be voted on with no amendments.
(If the Democrats want single payer, let them submit it and then have Congress vote on it.)
In other words, make it clear to the Democrats that the GOP will give them no cover in order to “get things done.” Force them to compromise with themselves before conservatives do anything and then only after they’ve given us a big, fat target to beat like a piñata for a few months in media and on the stump.
After all, Republicans should be in no hurry to bail out a sinking Democratic ship; conservatives and small government types instead should relish castigating a massive progressive failure and picking, freezing, personalizing and polarizing the big government authors of that failure.
Make the bastards squeal.
Second predictable crisis:
ILLINOIS DEFAULTS ON BONDS; STATE BANKRUPTCY LOOMS
A perfect opportunity for congressional show trials, criminal referrals, cover stories on waste, fraud and abuse (perhaps written by principled conservatives David French, Steve Hayes and Noah Rothman), denunciations of malfeasance and union corruption, speeches making plain the rigged game that is Democratic politics in Illinois, and smearing as much political dirt on as many Democrats as possible.
These things can all be done while Republicans in Congress express sympathy for the poor pensioners and those dependent on state services as they try to come up with ways to rectify the Democratic Party’s disaster without going further into debt – a process that may take months, with many short-term fixes thrown in to string it out.
Figuratively tar and feather them, and then let the voters run them out of Springfield on electoral rails.
These are the things exercising the power of the purse can give to congressional Republicans – if they choose to use it.
Use the national stage which holding the pursestrings gives Congress for teachable moments, when principled, small government, subsidiarity-loving traditional American conservatives can make their case to the American public, while simultaneously exposing the corruption that is part-and-parcel of Democratic vote-buying schemes.
If on the other hand they prefer to reach across the aisle, prove that they can govern, or act in a responsible spirit of bi-partisan problem-solving, then the post-election GOP will prove that it is not serious about rolling back progressivism, and Robert Higgs‘ ratchet will continue to turn in one direction only – toward bigger and bigger government.
They will also prove that we live in a rigged, uni-party system.
Forgive my short reply. The second born is revealing some cracks in the fascia.
First: that Mr Hayes notes the meaningless nature of the election, is indirectly humorous in two ways. Way, the first: libertarians have been scolding us for a good long while about our blindness to the deep similarities of the policy product of Republican and Democrat party rule; more government. Way, the second: the observation is interesting in that, if elections are so inconsequential, then why the rending of garments? why the wringing of hands? especially when We all know what we’re in for: more government.
Second: I continue to find confirmation of my favorite pet biases, no matter where I look. So, I can not help but note, here, that I believe that this contributes to the case that a suggesting convention of states be held to exercise our right to alter our government.
Sorry about the hit and run nature of the second paragraph, but I gotta warm up his bottle, now. Or I will suffer the consequences.
The main problem that has always faced the conservative movement is that it requires voters to, in the words of Thomas Sowell, think past stage one. When Democrats dangle more goodies in front of voters, it takes an astute voter to appreciate that we are all likely worse off if everyone is given something “free.”
This problem is both constituency based and ideology based. Here’s what I mean. Farm subsidies and higher pay for unionized government employed school teachers attract votes from certain constituencies, farmers, agribusiness and school teachers. But on an issue such as the minimum wage, the problem is ideology based. A majority of voters do not earn the minimum wage and will not directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. Nor will most people be thrown out of work by an increase in the minimum wage. But it sounds generous to many people who make five to fifteen times the minimum wage.
As Charles Murray wrote, the issue isn’t generous people outnumbering ungenerous people. The issue is generous people fooling themselves.
As William Voegeli wrote in Trump and Prudence: A Reply to Decius, the conservative movement doesn’t lack will. It lacks skill.
When an army is outnumbered it must choose to fight during times and on terrain that provides it an advantage over its stronger opponent. When Republicans control both the US House and the US Senate with less than two-thirds veto proof majorities while serving with a Democrat president, their main goal should not be to force the Democrat president to accept conservative demands. Instead, the goal should be to elect a Republican president.
When conservative media accuse Republican congressional leadership of caving to the Democrat president instead of engaging in brinksmanship with a government shutdown, they are essentially demanding the equivalent of a quarterback who throws long passes on every offensive play. To throw a screen pass or to hand the ball to a running back is to be accused of not wanting to score a touchdown.
Unfortunately, many primary voters were seduced by this deluded thinking and this gave Hillary Clinton donor Donald Trump an opening, since he was not “part of the mess in Washington DC.” Republicans ended up nominating a man who donated to Harry Reid’s 2010 US Senate campaign, a man who praised President Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus plan in an interview with Fox Business Channel based on his “outsider” cred.
Unreasonable expectations among football quarterbacks result in intercepted passes. Unreasonable expectations among Republican primary voters result in more frequent losses, even in races that could be won if prudence were higher on our hierarchy of values.
^This. Absolutely.
Jeb! 2020
Given the clown show that we ended up with in 2016. I’d be just fine with Jeb! 2020 at this point.