N.B.: The authors are not talking about the Republican Party, but about the modern ideological conservative movement that secured the nomination for Goldwater in 1964 and finally took over the party took in the 1970s.
Note that “fiscal conservatism,” something self-ID’d Pubs keep citing in this thread as a value the party has abandoned, is nowhere on the above list, as a core value of conservatives Burkean or American.
Maybe the “movement conservatives” are what the Pubs need to purge from their ranks.
But I still think, as I argued above, that it’s more important for them to break free of the business interests. You can be a fiscally conservative small-government economic libertarian, without doing everything the CEOs want done.
Bush and Cheney make me sick, but what made me sicker was, with the exception of immigration, a republican lead congress that rubber stamped everything he did, and defended all of his policies so vigorously.
I’ve been wishing for a while now that we weren’t stuck with a two party system.
Well, there’s the wire tapping and spying activities that are at best, questionable, but unfortunately they can’t be disputed in court, because they’d “compromise state secrets”:rolleyes:
And actually, a lot of other things I can think of, might not technically be unconstitutional, but a lot of the time Bush and Cheney don’t follow the rule of law.
So I’ll amend #4 to STOP WALKING ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION AND IGNORING THE RULE OF LAW!!!
Generally speaking I require a high degree of persuasion before granting intelligence services (who have a mixed to awful record of accomplishing actual intelligence functionality) sweeping powers. I am reminded of what they called in GB/N.I. the “securocrats” – the army of police and spies whose existence was justified on the rationale of stopping IRA threats. It never really did that, and despite the presence of umpteen jillion intrusive CCTV cameras on every high street, it didn’t stop the July 7 bombers, nor keep GB from having very bad street crime.
You’ve got to be clearer on the rule of law and what you mean by that before I know if I agree with your last kind of broad point. I suspect criticism of Bush and Cheney’s high-handedness and misguidedness will stand a moderate to high if not certain chance of gaining my agreement.
I’m saying that peer review constitutes a certain level of professionalism. Your link did not appear to be a peer-reviewed article. Nor did it have any discussion of the empirical relevance of the Laffer curve for the US economy of the late 1970s. The curve itself is an economic truism (sort of, actually we’d expect positive revenue at a 100% tax as the Soviet experiment showed). But if it peaks north of 95%, it’s empirically irrelevant for the US.
Also, check out the references. All of the ones that are about Laffer are from 1982 or later – well after Kemp-Roth was first proposed in 1977. (In fact, this 25th anniversary article conveniently leaves out a mention of Arthur Laffer.)
The Laffer curve was a product of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page: it did not come out of academia. In other words, the empirical Laffer curve is and always was pure crankery.
I agree. In fact, I left the Republican party quite a long time ago. They do need to toss the extremists and nut jobs out. They do need a return to the old “it’s a big tent and we welcome all views” as they once claimed (long long LONG ago). But even then, some of us won’t be back.
The repubs need the evangelical fringe in order to compete. Without them they get creamed, which explains Palin. They need the gun nuts and pro lifers too. The base party really does not care about those issues. But, they do not have enough votes to win.
It is the party of big business and the wealthy. They will adopt any laws and regulations that entrench their power.
The key distinction between the parties is the distribution of wealth. The repubs say they want to put the money at the top and it will trickle down. Sounds not so bad but it is not true. These last few years have resulted in the largest wealth gap in our history. The rich have made out like bandits. The middle class have had their wealth confiscated and given to the top.
The dems have sought a flatter distribution. Their vision of America is for more people to share the bounty.
When Bush was elected we had a surplus. Bush gave it to his rich friends, via a tax break which heavily favored them. It was just the beginning.
Sure, I don’t dispute that Burke having a Whig, not Tory, intellectual heritage makes him equally at home in the conventional liberal pantheon of limited government. But, I do want to nominate him nonetheless as an authentic conservative intellectual figurehead whose work should continue to inform the conservative movement’s identity.
That’s partly because I simply think he’s both a good conservative and good for conservatives; someone whose work, if revisited and revived to the status of core animating principles, could offer some measure of hope for a more rational political discourse. But I also singled him out because I see him as having resolved the tension between conservative cognition and conservative ideology in a more satisfactory manner than the triumphalist garbage that passes for conservative politics these days.
The tension I refer to above is this idea that conservatism in practice is split in two directions. That is, on one hand you have conservative cognition which tends to demand a fuzzy kind of uncertainty avoidance and naturalised submission to legitimate authority, and on the other hand you also have the political and philosophical need to provide a fully articulated theoretical project which is capable of rejecting its competitors.
Burke is a good example because unlike, say, a continental conservative, like de Maistre, I believe he managed to balance a desire to preserve a mystique over legitimate heritable authority, with the need to be intellectually honest in expressing a credible theoretical project which was capable of doing a proper critique of liberalism, located in history and philosophical paradigms.
To me, this is the fundamental problem with current movement conservatism – its superficial gloss of triumphalism and its ahistorical myth making which has simply led to kind of blind parallel universe on the right, often expressed as a base cultural resentment. You only have to go to sites like freepers and LGF to see that kind of a collective delusion in operation.
Well, I don’t want to debate Reagan, but I’m anything but over-sympathetic or credulous about Reagan - political economy included. I think the Reagan revolution and his formation of a Coalition was essentially a faustian bargain.
But I do think conservatives can rescue some of that libertarian rhetoric and treat it with a dose of reality and come back with a policy agenda which deals with those insights at the margins. Ultimately, I don’t agree that everything Reagan did to cut taxes was wrong though. I think looking back, the then tax brackets for individuals and companies were probably the last time that a Laffer form of argument over contrary incentives was actually based in some reality.
Ok, I think I may have been really unhelpful to myself in mentioning the Federalist Society in this context.
Please don’t get the impression I’m some kind of fan of the actual views of people like Ken Starr or Steve Calabresi, I was just trying to reach for some example of a partisan modern conservative organ (which was by definition not limp-wristed and non-viable) which could contrast with the horrible demagoguery of Justice Sunday. FS came to mind because they are at least prepared to debate matters on the substance with experts on the other side rather than paper strawman liberals.
The point was also more about tone and engagement than content though. I too have read all kinds of kooky executive power theories there, so I’m not insensitive to their role in Republican overreach. I should have thought of a better example.
I am reminded of the situation in 1964, where the Republican got his ass handed to him. Four years later, the Republicans regained the White House and retained it for sixteen of the next twenty years. (And Nixon balanced the budget in 1969, for the last time until the Republicans regained control of Congress).
The two issues that are preventing McCain from sweeping to the White House are [ol][li]the economy, and [*]the war in Iraq[/ol]Religious fundamentalists had nothing much to do with either. So, despite the hatred for religion in general as expressed by the hard Left in the US, jettisoning the fundamentalists isn’t going to do the GOP any good - quite the opposite, as pointed out. [/li]
Frankly, the war in Iraq is mostly a done deal. Bush isn’t running for re-election, so it is difficult to blame the invasion on McCain (not that it hasn’t been tried, and would be for any Republican candidate). But realistically, most people understand that while the invasion was a mistake, we are there now, and it is mostly a matter of handling the transition. If the economy hadn’t tanked, the sucess of the surge would be enough of a point in McCain’s favor to underscore the Repupblican advantage in national security issues.
Which leaves the idea of fiscal conservatism. This is the major failing of the Republicans since Bush took office. They should have passed a balanced budget amendment long since, but the long tenure in control of Congress tempted them into becoming “normal” politicians, who spend tax dollars to get re-elected.
I think the whole issue of immigration is more illustrative of the problems of the GOP than any other. What the rank and file wanted was a hard line, and the Republicans were squishy on the issue.
And most of the stuff about torture and Constitutional violations and so forth is just rhetoric. Bush didn’t do anything that other Presidents didn’t do, and when Obama pulls something similar, that will become apparent.
The big danger for Democrats is a filibuster-proof majority as well as the White House. Approval ratings for Congress are already in the toilet, and it is going to be much, much harder to blame Bush for everything when they have all the authority the Constitution allows to fix things, but can’t bring it off.
Your link is to a story about a warrantless wiretapping of suspected spies conducted by the Carter administration in 1977, before the FISA legislation regulating federal wiretapping activities was even passed.
Trying to use that as a tu quoque response to complaints about the Bush administration’s outright violations of FISA is silly. And trying to sweep the Bush administration’s torture of terror suspects into the same category, and make out like it’s an unremarkable detail involving “nothing that other Presidents didn’t do” is, frankly, disgusting.
But that’s my point - when Obama gets caught doing something similar, the Dems won’t care anymore than Republicans do now. Therefore it is more or less a wash.
Now this is where we have a fundamental issue (to me), and it’s one that gives an insight into the way another person thinks.
I don’t care who else did it or who did it first. I don’t care if it is “allowed” by some law or omission of some law or some semantic quibble.
Torture is wrong. It’s worthless, because anyone will say anything to make it stop. So any information you get is questionable. It’s unnecessary cruelty towards a prisoner or enemy who is not a threat - you already have him contained and controlled. It gives the lie to the whole “but we’re the good guys” argument. We are no better than the “bad guys” when we do such things.
Ah, but you’re only seeing the down side. Shodan does see it that way. Therefore, you can look forward him to SingTFU once a Dirty Dirty Democrat does it - since that’s the way his mind works.
You better believe I will. Because “torture is bad” is not nearly as fundamental a principle for some on the SDMB as IOKIADDI. And not all the true Scotsmen in the world can change that.
“Republicans don’t care”?!? You seriously meant to say that Republicans, on average and as a group, don’t care if their government illegally spies on its citizens, not to mention using torture on criminal suspects, as if we were Egypt or Uzbekistan or someplace? Republicans don’t mind that?!? Jiminy Crickets! Whatever happened to the alleged conservative respect for individual rights and commitment to standing up against government tyranny and encroachment?
:eek:
Man, that’s a far worse insult than anything I ever said about Republicans around here. (Hell, that’s nearly as bad as anything Der Trihs ever said about Republicans around here.) I sure hope you are wrong about this.
If they cared, they wouldn’t have voted for Bush a second time, now would they ? Most don’t care, or actively enjoy the thought of it. And that’s true of the general public, not just the Republicans.
And you think anyone during 9-11 wanted to hear anything different at that time? Almost the entire populace wanted the government to kick ass and ask questions later. Obama would have done the same and don’t deny it. He probably wouldn’t have gone with the Cuba option but the American people were demanding heads and they were going to get it.
:rolleyes: So, years after 9-11, this excuses the reelection of a warmonger and torturer ? Someone responsible for the devastation of a country that had zero to do with 9-11 ?
And I certainly didn’t want Bush to do the things he did.
Of course; that’s one reason I condemn the American public in general, and not just Bush, as indiscriminate killers. They were just looking for an excuse to kill and destroy, and didn’t care who.
Why ? He had no reason to attack Iraq, or engage in torture. He’d have simply gone after our actual enemies, being a Democrat. Just like Clinton, whose people succeeded in capturing the people who bombed the WTC while HE was in office, instead of letting them escape and attacking, say, Mexico or Uzbekistan or some other uninvolved country.
And we didn’t care who; we just wanted an excuse to slaughter foreigners, any foreigners. And THAT’S why Bush was re-elected; very few Americans cared about the innocents we slaughtered and tortured, we wanted slaughter and torture, and cared nothing about who our targets were. America is just that barbaric.