August 05, 2003
Armchair Analyst: Republicans Could be Better Off Voting Democrat
DISCLAIMER: This is merely an exercise of thought, not necessarily a practical suggestion!!!
Bush is getting more and more flack from conservatives over his embrace of social welfare and excessive government spending. A Cato report last week commented:
The administration should be supporting conservatives in Congress who actually want to get federal spending under control. Yet Bush wants to show that he is “compassionate” with his conservatism. But big-time social spending sure isn’t compassionate to federal taxpayers.
With deficit spending on the rise, several conservative congressmen have noted, rightly, that if they were the minority, they would never let the Democrats get away with the kind of irresponsible spending that the GOP is now tolerating. Furthermore, if we look at Bush’s record of accomplishment, it appears instantly un-conservative: Farm subsidies, steel tariffs, record level pork, campaign finance reform, a voucher-less education bill….etc.
Angry partisans are wont to blame this on Bush’s “compassion”, his lack of fortitude in the face of political pressure. Yet, this appraisal assumes the President to have an unrealistic amount of power. The power of political gridlock is far greater than any president’s intestinal track when it comes to policy. The President’s compromises are in many ways merely survival tactics required by this political circumstance.
What do I mean by gridlock? Don’t the Republicans control both houses of congress? Well, sort of, in a formal but often superficial way. The GOP has power only in what agenda goes to the floor. The real power is in a little thing called thefilibuster. Effectively it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass any particular bill, which means Bush has to get nine democrats to defect each time his goes to the hill. This is a daunting task, especially on controversial issues.
Gridlock in the government can sometimes be overcome by extraordinary popularity. For instance, Reagan was able to control a democratic senate when he took office because of his convincing victory over Jimmy Carter. Bush has enjoyed this sort of popularity in the realm of foreign affairs, but it has never quite developed into support for his domestic agenda.
This gridlocked situation in congress and in the electorate is unlikely to changein 2004 even with a Bush victory. A nine seat pick up in the senate is an overly optimistic forecast. Bush’s coattails would have to be enormous. So even in the event of a Bush win in 2004, conservatives have little to look forward too but more compromised policy and less conservative reforms.
Yet, all is not lost. Ironically, if voting for Bush won’t translate into policy gains for conservatives, voting for a democrat just might do the trick. In a surreal facet of the American system in some circumstances it’s actually better to be the minority party. A Democrat president would have to bow to a Republican congress. Health care and education packages would have to contain key cost reduction and privatization measures. Tax hikes would be impossible, as would deficit spending and gun control. Consider that it took a democrat, Bill Clinton, to pass welfare reform and NAFTA and balance the budget.
While it offends our deepest sensibilities, rationally speaking, we might consider voting for a Democrat in 2004. Gridlock politics can reverse the power distribution in Washington giving a strong minority, or a party “out of power”, a leg up on the major national issues. Put simply, it's better to be the party compromised to, than the one doing the compromising. In this context, seeking the best power position for our party’s ideals might lead to an unorthodox commitment to losing.
There are all sorts of interesting caveats to this suggestion. For instance, foreign policy escapes this power dynamic because of its relative independence from the legislature. Thus, we would have ot be sure to vote for a good foreign policy Dem, like Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman, and not Howard Dean. Otherwise conservatives would risk safety for the sake of their domestic agenda.
Whether or not you follow my suggestion is irrelevant. It’s just an interesting exercise in political reasoning that leads us to question the fundamentals about our voting behavior. Do we always vote in our best interests? Do we vote the party, even when it isn’t in our interest? Why do vote for anyone anyway? Do we seriouslt expect to see policy in return? Or is it just the principle of the matter? These questions should run through our minds more than once as the elections approach. And if you do decide that it is in your interest to vote Democrat, then you might just have to start paying a little more attention to those pesky primaries … and all their left-wing glory.
(If you enjoyed this read the Armchair Analyst)
Posted by Mike Van Winkle at August 5, 2003 04:57 PMMike: This is fascinatingly good reading. I enjoyed it very much. Excellent hypothesis. I have often wondered if this position of power that we hold has been detrimental to core conservative values. Bush’s push toward the supposed center has pissed me off more than once. We are the ones in power after all. What I wonder (and only the future will tell) is if his strategy has actually worked despite all of the media’s assaults on him.
Posted by: pete at August 5, 2003 07:14 PMHoward Dean’s foreign policy doesn’t seem as though it should upset Republicans that much. Bush Sr. didn’t follow the doctrine of pre-emption. Reagan didn’t follow the doctrine of pre-emption. Ford didn’t follow the doctrine of pre-emption. Nixon didn’t follow the doctrine of pre-emption. And so on all the way back to Abraham Lincoln. It’s mainly the doctrine of pre-emption that Dean has objected to (along with the use of questionable intelligence, and even Republicans can’t be in favor of making decisions on wrong information, can you?). He can’t go back in time and un-invade Iraq. He’s not going to give up on winning the peace, now that we’re there. He’s strongly pro-Israel, to the dismay of many on the far left. So what’s the problem?
This sounds like a cover for picking one of the losing candidates, rather than the centrist who’s energizing the base, and can win.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 5, 2003 08:12 PMI posted a comment on other aspects of this article at http://iris.hmdnsgroup.com/~winkmv/scgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=430
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 5, 2003 08:23 PMPete,
You wrote “What I wonder (and only the future will tell) is if his strategy has actually worked despite all of the media’s assaults on him.”
Could you give us any specifics that support your statement of fact that the media has assaulted Bush. It files in the face of the study (actual, examined, quantitative study) that shows Bush has had a relative free-ride.
I can’t seem to find any mainstream media taking him on.
Proof, please?
Rob
Posted by: Robbie D at August 6, 2003 10:23 AMThe media, including the conservative media, has had several stories about conservative discontent…now I wouldn’t refer to these as assualts but I think this might be what Pete is referring to.
Posted by: Mike Van Winkle at August 6, 2003 11:26 AMIf you are looking for gridlock politics, I would suggest an ammendment that barred presidents from choosing running-mates and electing them to the position of president and vice president.
The first person to try this was Jefferson/Burr (which was almost wrecked by Burr’s ambition). Before that, Adams (a Federalist democrat), was president with the majority of votes and Jefferson (a republican) was vice president. The two obviously did not cancel each other out, but it allowed republicans (the “out” party at the time) to have say in important matters and to have a roll in the presidency.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at August 6, 2003 11:30 AMBush’s record should be called Cut and Spend, or as my father would say after reviewing my credit card statements after two years at college, completly irresponsible. I’m all for limiting the Government’s role in our society, if done through legislation. The path that Bush seems hell bent on following is to limit the Gov’ts ability to take on any role in our society by making it weak and in terriffic debt. This is not governing of, by and for the people but instead governing for those who benefit from the fisical rape of our nation’s government.
Having said that, why are there no fisically conservative and socially liberal Republicans running against Bush? You’d think with all the spending cuts that Bush has been making that he’d target obviously failed programs like the war on drugs.
Posted by: Chris 'van' MacGregor at August 6, 2003 02:06 PMI know you don’t want to hear it, but part of the hate that I beleive drives Bush is an all-out assault on the middle class. The goal? Eliminate it.
Here is my belief.
The easiset way to do it is to take away all the progressive socal reforms he can and then so thoroughly bankrupt the governement that the remaining programs cannot be paid for.
By eliminating the middle class, the GOP also eliminates the Democratic Party’s funding base, labor unions and slews of other opposition to the neocon dream of a serfdom where all is done to keep the rich richer.
This is why I get so mad when I see friends and family who are middle class continue to support Bush.
This is class warfare being brought by Bush upon us.
Rob
Posted by: Robbie D at August 6, 2003 03:37 PMRobbie, welcome to the plutocracy. Oligarchy. It’s obvious to me everyday that there is a growing rift between the haves and the have nots in US society. US social structure is rapidly dividing those who work and serve the ruling class and those who profit from their labor. Those people who live far above the economics of the working class.
Indeed, we are watching the erosion of the middle class. The middle class is being supplanted by a growing working and working poor class. The silent working class is slowly becoming the middle. How many people find it necessary to work two or more jobs to support a a family? How many more people, particularly minorities, do you see performing menial and labor intensive work while the economic elite ride go from air conditioned car to office building and then to a gated community without coming into contact with the peole who silently and in the shadows make their lives pleasant?
Posted by: Rick at August 6, 2003 09:08 PMI’d like to encourage everyone to please keep comments on topic.
Posted by: Mike Van Winkle at August 6, 2003 10:17 PMMike,
What in this thread do you view as off-topic?
Robbie
Posted by: Robbie D at August 7, 2003 09:59 AMQuote:
“why are there no fisically conservative and socially liberal Republicans running against Bush?”
Because if they were fiscally conservative and socially liberal, they would be Democrats?
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 7, 2003 10:11 AMRobbie, you wrote “I know you don’t want to hear it, but part of the hate that I beleive drives Bush is an all-out assault on the middle class. The goal? Eliminate it.”
What on earth does the elimination of the middle class have to do with gridlock politics and strategic voting?
Posted by: Mike Van Winkle at August 7, 2003 10:38 AMOh, it’s about gridlock? Considering that isn’t intorduced until the fourth paragraph, I didn’t realize that was your point.
I was discussing your opening thought “Bush is getting more and more flack from conservatives over his embrace of social welfare and excessive government spending.”
Now, exactly on that topic, my comments about why Bush is driven towards what you call “social welfare and excessive government spending” are quite on the money. The emilination of the middle class is what I beleive is behind these policies.
Re-read your post and I think you will see you that while Gridlock dominates the middle of the piece, it is no where in the beginning or conclusion of the piece… nor is it what the title is about.
I think you missed your mark making Gridlock the clear topic, and my comments were about the other well-presented parts of your post.
Robbie
Posted by: Robbie D at August 7, 2003 11:54 AMSorry About that.
So Robbie, you merely claimed that you thought Bush was seeking the destruction of the middle class, and then you described the erosion, you never explained Why Bush wants the erosion of the middle class…so it sounded a little more like a rant.
So why does Bush want to liquidate the middle class? How is it in his interests?
Posted by: Mike Van Winkle at August 7, 2003 03:32 PMI think it is an outragious statement to say that someone is trying to make people more poor and less successful.
To say that it is Bush’s fault that the middle class is shrinking is to forget about the macro-economic spectrum that has driven inflation. I don’t see how you can say this because right now the middle class is in a very large boom. All you have to do is look at the housing starts and new car sales to see that. Did you know that there has never been a time in history with more homeowners per capita than now? The middle class isn’t shrinking, It’s growing. Especially amoung minorities. Right now, more African Americans own homes, per capita than Caucasians. Startling but true.
Quote:
“I think it is an outragious statement to say that someone is trying to make people more poor and less successful.”
I think the record of this administration is pretty outrageous too.
Quote:
“…macro-economic spectrum that has driven inflation.”
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Greenspan’s area, not Bush’s.
Quote:
“Right now, more African Americans own homes, per capita than Caucasians.”
Do you have a source for this alleged fact?
A quick search doesn’t get any numbers for the past couple years, but it would have to have been an amazing boom in black home ownership over a relatively short period.
“…the National Association of Home Builders reported that, from first-quarter 1995 to first-quarter 1999, the numbers of blacks who own the homes they live in rose from 41.2 to 46.3 percent, and Hispanics’ numbers climbed from 41.8 to 46.2 percent. Whites, who have a much higher home-ownership rate, experienced a far smaller gain during the same period, from 68.2 to 70.3 percent.”
http://www.masslive.com/news/stories/081599minority.html
“By 1990, the black home ownership rate had increased to 52 percent and the racial gap had fallen to 19.5 percentage points.”
http://www.eh.net/abstracts/archive/0273.php
Must-read article on the Republican Hoax:
Posted by: Robbie D at August 12, 2003 12:43 PMPete wrote, “I think it is an outragious statement to say that someone is trying to make people more poor and less successful.”
It is outrageous and it is the truth, Mr. Editor. I get the feeling you are a young man who hasn’t been out in the world long enough to understand the economic disaster we are being flung into.
Is it all Bush’s fault? No. But the rot starts at the top. Time to impeach and move on.
Robbie
Posted by: Robbie D at August 12, 2003 12:45 PM
