Conservative Cabbie

Did we ever doubt it? Whenever post-1960′s America dabbles with liberalism/progressivism/socialism or whatever you want to call it, it rejects it almost immediately. Carter – one term President. Within two years of Clinton’s election, America was embracing Republicans in a massive wave election and forcing Clinton rightwards, governing for the next six years from the middle. And now of course we have the rejection of the Obama experiment with liberalism. So guess who’s reaching for the middle:

With the recovery faltering less than two months before the November congressional elections, President Obama’s economic team is considering another big dose of stimulus in the form of tax breaks for businesses – potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars, according to two people familiar with the talks.
Among the options are a temporary payroll tax holiday and a permanent extension of the research and development tax credit, say people familiar with the talks who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to describe private deliberations.
Permanently extending the research credit would cost roughly $100 billion over the next decade, tax experts said. And depending on its form and duration, a payroll tax holiday could let businesses keep more than $300 billion they would otherwise owe the Treasury.

A payroll holiday was what Republicans were proposing as Democrats planned the first stimulus. It’s nice to see Obama come round to the idea.

Rhoda made the following point in the previous comment thread (I hope she doesn’t mind me referencing it):

A failure which I might remind you that I and Cabbie predicted on Massie’s blog over a year ago, to the derision of the owner (as I recall it, and I can’t find the records).

She is right, both Rhoda and I try to provide a counter-punch to Alex’s criticism of the Republican right. For fun, I decided to have a look back through some of his archives to see what he wrote in the past and how that stacks up with the reality today. Before I do so, I just want to say a few things. Firstly, I really like Alex’s blog and whilst I do disagree with him on a number of things, I appreciate his take on American politics. Secondly, it’s a little unfair to criticise him for his past statements, today’s political reality is a lot different to what it was a year or more ago. Finally, it may be a little harsh calling Alex a “concern troll” (or “conservative” for that matter) but like Andrew Sullivan and David Frum, Alex chooses to snipe and snark about American conservatism rather than trying to challenge it intellectually. There’s a very real opportunity to make conservatism saleable and constructive. Unfortunately, bloggers like Alex and Sullivan aren’t really interested in a revived conservatism but in fostering a political reality in which elitists like Obama can prosper. Anyway, onwards.

Remember the name Arlen Specter, the RINO Republican that switched sides to the Democrats? This apparently was evidence of self-defeating ideological purity from the conservative base. Here’s how Alex addressed it:

Well, you gotta hand it to them. The Republican party’s base finally got rid of Republican-In-Name-Only Arlen Specter. The Pennsylvania Senator has had enough and isn’t going to take it anymore. He’s now a Democrat. And so, a heretic was cast into the wilderness and the conservative movement offered great hosannas of joy. Better to be small but pure than large and corrupted by moderation and squishy centrism. That this defection may ensure the Democrats have a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate matters less than enforcing ideological conformity. That’s how you win these days, right

Well, yes. It’s also true that if Specter believes he would lose the GOP primary, his best hope of remaining in the Senate might be to switch parties now, at a moment when it can more easily be swaddled in principle. But, again, still. Heckuva job, Club for Growth.

To be fair to Alex, many commentators took a similar view and Specter’s defection probably helped Obama pass legislation (although Specter voted for stimulus whilst a Republican). But the reality is very different now. Even Pennsylvania Democrats were unhappy with Specter and booted him out in the primary. At the same time, the Club For Growth backed Republican candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate Seat is leading handily in the polls. Rather than evidence of the base’s short-sightedness, the Toomey/Specter affair is arguably their biggest success to date.

In his post “The GOP Declines To Rump Status”, Alex had the following to say:

The distance between the GOP base and the rest of the American electorate is a considerable

The last Gallup generic poll had Republicans at their greatest advantage in the seventy year history of the poll. In state after state, the more conservative candidate has won (Rubio in Florida, Angle in Nevada, Miller in Alaska) and in most cases, they still poll ahead of the Democratic candidate. Time will tell, their is a reasonable argument to make that in some of those cases, Republicans have made their electoral odds tougher by nominating more right wing candidates, but even so, that these so-called extreme candidates can still be favourites to win doesn’t suggest that there is a gulf between the Republican base and the rest of the electorate.

Finally, on the future of the Republican Party, Alex has this to say:

Republicans will win elections again, but the question for the party, I think, is not so much how long it will remain in the wilderness but the extent to which it can help shape the political landscape

Nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus is more liberal than their state warrants (in the context of Presidential voting records). The effectiveness of the Tea-Partiers in this cycle could mean that Tea-Party backed candidates could make up nearly 10% of the Senate population. No-one can deny, that if this comes to pass, the conservative base would have had a significant say in the political landscape for at least the next six years.

The point of this post was not to attack Alex*, or to hold him responsible for his past posts, I use Alex because he is a source some of us are familiar with. The point of the post was to highlight the fact that conservatism is far from dead, is far from toxic politically and that rumours of the death of conservatism politically have been greatly exaggerated.

To be fair to Alex, I should point out that in some of his posts he does make the point that conservatism may still win in the short term, and that his concerns are more long term. My response to that would be that Republicans need its base to win at any point in the future. A moderate Republican Party is doomed to defeat every time. Just look at John McCain.

Outside The Beltway are suggesting that Republicans need to as the voter for a mandate for this coming election:

Assuming (as I do) that the GOP will take at least the House, and possibly the Senate, the party must run on specific proposals in order to garner the leverage necessary to roll back the last few years of Democratic excesses. If they stick to their current (apparent) game plan and just run on not being Democrats, they will have neither a mandate to repeal Obamacare, et al, nor the will.

Unfortunately, despite a series of “Establishment” Republicans being sent packing by the base, all the signs so far indicate that McConnell and Co. just want to get their power back, not to actually do anything with it. Boehner’s been better, but the resistance to campaigning on a theme of, say, Paul Ryan’s Roadmap is unmistakable. The party need not endorse the specifics of Ryan’s plan in every particular to set forth a plan of action along those lines.

Right now, this would be the worst thing possible for Republicans. I would love to see a coherent small government manifesto from Republicans. a program that will, over the next few years reform the way government works, that rolls back the entitlement economy, that gets the deficit under control and that promotes growth in the private sector.

However, why should Republicans give Democrats a target to vector in on? The Democratic vote has imploded this cycle, Republican voters are energised like never before and the this media narrative is becoming a self-fulfilling narrative that benefits the GOP. But, if Republicans were to offer a set of definite policies that they will try to enact over the coming years, that will provide Democrats with something to aim their guns at. Not only that, but it will encourage a Democratic base to become more enthusiastic when they are presented with unpalatable policies that they need to run against.

Two other points worth mentioning. Firstly, for all the rhetoric about the lack of a Republican proposal, where is the Democratic one? There has been no manifesto promise from Congressional Democrats. Secondly, the Outside The Beltway article is being a little unfair, The Republican party has promised a set of policies that will be announced in late september.

The current political zeitgeist helps Republicans. It would be tactical suicide to hand over any sort of initiative to the Democratic Party.

I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

As government gets America into more and more debt, conversely, Americans are starting to rein in their personal debt:

Debt, both personal and public, may not have caused the current economic problems, but they certainly exacerbated them and turned an economic downturn into a catastrophe. Americans are learning that lesson, it’s just a shame that America’s ruling party aren’t learning the same one.

This is an interesting NYT on Obama as Commander-In-Chief, well worth a read. I’m not going to comment on it, except to say two things:

1. The role of President as CinC is the one I’m most prepared to give a President a pass on, no matter how much I disagree with him politically. Unless, like Eisenhower, the President has experience of command, I cannot see how anything can prepare someone to take on this most responsible of roles. And whilst many of our commentators are vehemently opposed to Obama, myself included, on this issue, it is important to be supportive of a President as Commander because for the safety of America, we don’t need a President having to look over his shoulders at polling and contemplating how his decisions play politically.

2. Having said that, it’s not difficult to see why the military are cautious of Obama as their Commander. As the American military surged in Iraq, as the military put their lives on the line, Obama and other Democratic leaders were back in Washington telling anyone who would listen that the war was lost:

This tickled me. It has to be worth a caption competition.

Do you want to talk about the Glenn Beck event in Washington? From what I saw of it, it was an impressive and positive event. I’ve not been a fan of his, but kudos to him on organising it…and Sarah Palin’s speech was excellent.

The facts will help you decide:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

When 88% of the MSM have a vested interest in Obama succeeding, there’s little surprise that there’s a rather lengthy time lag in picking up stories or in ensuring that Obama isn’t seen in a negative light. Thank God for Fox.

Thank you Liberty. Whilst in no way did I seek this nomination, I would be honoured to serve if asked.

But with due deference to the tea party conservatism that blesses this blog, it is only right and democratic that we the people will decide the plank on which I or Shockwaver will run. So it is over to you:

• The Economy
• Foreign Policy
• Social Issues
• The Constitution
• Size of Government
• Federalism
• Healthcare
• National Security
• The Environment (particularly bears)

All or some of the above and those with the best answers get to serve in my cabinet (as long as all your taxes are paid up).

A blast from the past reared his head in a recent PPP poll:

If there is a political ‘winner’ in the aftermath of the oil spill it’s Bobby Jindal. 70% of Louisiana voters are happy with how he handled the spill to only 20% giving him bad marks and his overall approval rating of 58% puts him at the top of the heap for Governors and Senators PPP’s polled on this year. Specifically on the issue of the spill 89% of Republicans, 76% of independents, and even a 47% plurality of Democrats think he did a good job.

With Chris Christie knocking New Jersey into shape, a popular Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Rick Perry in Texas, Republican governors have performed reasonably well during what has been very rough times for the individual states. It’s an argument many on the right made during the Presidential elections, but there is no substitute for the experience of actually running something. An increasingly painful lesson for America.