Please name these real peer reviewed journals that supported supply side theory and the Laffer Curve. [1]
There are plenty of conservative economics departments. Some of them were monetarist during the 1970s and 1980s, some became real business cycle and Lucas’ rational expectations theory was highly influential. But supply side economics, whereby tax cuts lead to higher revenue under contemporary US income tax regimes, was always the province of crackpots. And Lucas never appeared on any Sunday chat show.
Martin Feldstein argued for lower top tax rates during the 1970s, noting that during periods of high inflation after tax bond yields become very low or even negative for many potential savers. But that’s different than what Laffer was selling.
[1] The “Debt Laffer Curve” doesn’t count.
There are still three weeks to go, and as a nervous Democrat, I’m not counting McCain down for the count yet. The voting public is very fickle, and who knows what can happen before then…I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a sudden turn of sympathy votes for him simply because he is fading in the polls. Wouldn’t that be a kicker - him winning because of a sympathy “surge”.
But back to the OP…as I have mentioned before, I actually kind of liked, or at least respected, McCain about four years ago. He seemed to be brave enough to stand up to the wacko fringe element and some of his polices (immigration for instance) were pretty much in line with many of the Democrats. Since then, he has sold his soul to get the nomination, and his choice of Palin (over his real preference of Lieberman) was final proof that he lost his spine and his “maverick” reputation.
True or not, the Republicans have a reputation of doing everything for the rich, and nothing for the middle-class. They also seem to pander to every fundamentalist whim and seem to think all older voters are securely tucked in their pocket - in case they haven’t noticed, baby-boomers (like myself) might be getting up in age, but I don’t see myself (or any of my friends) suddenly standing on the lawn chasing kids away.
Where exactly do the Republicans think they are going to get any new voters if they keep this up? Young voters? Nope. Aging baby boomers? Not in my lifetime. So how do they intend to get new voters if they refuse to adapt to the present? If they continue to go queer bashing and harping on non-issues like flag burning (when was the last time you even saw someone do that?!) they might as well suggest we ban computers as conduits to Satan’s porno and give tax credits to buy typewriters instead - they are headed towards becoming obsolete.
This thread is about what needs to change in the GOP and IMHO that is something which needs to change. So I agree with Nobody when he mentions them.
And that is exactly my point. That many Americans would not care much about the constitution or about torture if the war was being won and if the economy was going well. I find that sad.
I see you've listed metropolitan centers in the location box, which I assume has prompted your viewpoint.
Out here in the rural red, they simply grow like any other crop, and of course, one plant produces multiple seeds.
You have good reason to continue being a “nervous Democrat”. Social conservatives are perennial as the grass.
What I love about Federalist Society-types who support a “strict” interpretation of the Constitution is that they go through obscene contortions to argue that the 9th Amendment DOESN’T mean what a plain reading of it and the “originalist” interpretation of the people who wrote it plainly indicate it means.
Thanks for this thread. It has been very enlightening. Some of the things you all say you want the Republicans to be, I would vote for in a second. Good luck.
I think this gets it exactly. The “move to the center, jettison religious conservatives, etc.” isn’t that big of a deal to me. The fundamental problem is that the Republican party is just no longer dealing with reality. They have to come to grips with the fact that not all unpleasant news can be attributed to liberal bias.
Interesting that not much comment has been made on the shifting of American demographics which the Republicans will surely have to address soon. Their core supporters are aging and becoming less and less of a majority demographic every year. The Democrats have been much better at reaching out to both Hispanics and more recent generations than the Republicans have, as far as I’ve seen. By and large, the Republican cart is still hitched to the aging white Protestant boomer horse… and every election that horse is showing its age more and more.
Thing is, the Republicans can appeal to these increasingly important demographics, without changing their stance overmuch. Hispanics favor many values that the religious wing of the Republican party hold dear – but are turned off by the shrill jingoism on immigration issues. Fiscal conservatism looks attractive to the after-boomer generations – but not when linked with rabid religious fanaticism.
If the Republicans are to re-focus, they need to focus on who is going to be voting Republican in the future… because I don’t think that will be who they think it will be.
Wow, great post. This is exactly what I was coming in to say (you know, that is, if I could write that well, had that much time, could phrase my thoughts like that, etc.) Just the other night my wife asked who I was voting for and I said Obama becuase the Republicans need to lose this election to get back to being a real political party and not just a parody of themselves. They’ve become the party of winning elections by exploiting hot-button issues and then not governing afterwards.
Well, that door to the Republican big tent has been sewn shut pretty firmly, hasn’t it? It’s going to take a modern Republican Party a long, long while to get past the anti-Muslim convictions of many of its current members.
As most Indian-Americans are Hindus, and many are deeply concerned about Muslim extremist terrorism in South Asia, anti-Muslim sentiments in the Republican Party aren’t such a deal-breaker for them.
However, they are bound to come into conflict with the “Christians-first-and-only” theocrat wing of the Republican base. It doesn’t matter how deeply religious and family-values-oriented the average Indian-American may be: to the Christian right, they’re still idolaters and they’re going to hell. The GOP at some point is going to have to choose whether staying tight with the Christian Right is still worth alienating non-Christian conservatives.
I have read some excellent ideas in this thread, and there’s not much I can add. I agree that the GOP needs to start moving away from the hardcore reactionary politics that have tainted the party–not necessarily “jettison” the fundies and radical rightists, but at least marginalize them and lessen their influence on the Republican platform as a whole. Bring this party back to being the party of Goldwater and Buckley instead of Brownback and Tancredo–that would be a good start in the GOP’s “rehab”.
One other idea: get new “water-carriers”. Specifically, stop referring to Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Malkin etc. as “conservatives”. It is said that “the media is the message”–well, the message must change. I can’t help thinking that the aforementioned Goldwater and Buckley must be spinning in their graves every time one of these clowns spews their bile upon the political landscape, preaching their “us vs. them” doctrine ad nauseum. (Yes, I know the left utilizes this practice as well, and I’m not fond of that either, but we’re talking about the Republicans in this thread.) A previous Democratic candidate–I don’t remember who–once said, “In this country, there is no them; there is only us.” Obama is paraphrasing that in his “red states/blue states/United States” talking point, and I believe that’s the direction both parties must move in.
In short, quit telling us that imminent destruction awaits by following their path–tell us why your way is better and let us decide.
I really think that this is the same problem hampering them from reaching out to Hispanics. That weird idea that Catholics aren’t “real” Christians gets in the way. (not meaning to imply that all Hispanics are Catholic, but demographically they seem that way)
Yet, they’ve managed to connect with Mormons – also often portrayed as not “real” Christians – so it should be doable. I guess that the Mormon demographic has fewer crossover issues with Democrats than the Hispanic demographic. Those crossover issues are going to be the key with Indian-Americans, too.
Oh, I agree. There is a big difference between supporting something untried and possible, and continuing to support it once it has been tried and failed. My use of this was in reference to the ideas that the conservatives had before coming to power. And as I said, the reason that they are in trouble now is that these ideas all crashed and burned when put into practice.
My pet issue is the 9th Amendment. And while an originalist interpretation would certainly give it meaning, the Courts have already ignored the 9th out of existence. So while it is inconsistent for FS members to contort it out of existence due to their orginalist stance, it is perfectly acceptable under modern jurisprudence to do so. I don’t like that because I think that it was the most important amendment, essentially limiting the federal government enormously (and the states through the 13th and 14th).
This looks like one.. I’d be surprised that no one has ever published one - but I have been involved with enough journals and conferences to be well aware that peer review does not equal correctness.
To repeat: they had tons of ideas, they implemented those ideas, and chaos ensued. Their problem now is that they need to find some new ideas, since blaming the crisis on Barney Frank doesn’t seem to be cutting it. Will the ideas involve the proper role of regulation, or is the acceptance of regulation today just a temporary thing, caused by the crisis?
I’d settle for a party whose elected officials
(a) Support and defend the United States Constitution,
(b) Well and faithfully execute the responsibilities of the office to which they are elected.
That first one covers a bunch of things already mentioned – no establishment of religion, no cruel and unusual punishment, no unitary executive, etc. The second clause, especially that “faithfully” (in the sense of “in good faith”) means I’d rather not have a President who lies to Congress or the people in order to build support for his policies. “Well” implies applying himself intellectually and searching for novel solutions when the Presidency demands a problem-solver. I’d look for the same thing in my Congress-critters, really.
