Double-Minded Republicans [or why Obama wins by a nose this November]
As he describes in greater detail in an excellent article over at NRO, “Obama is awful—no really, he is really really awful, read this here and see just how bad he is, he’s really bad” is not a good winning strategy—and unfortunately the Republicans don’t appear to offer much beyond that. Make certain you read the entire piece:
Certainly, the media, the academy, and most of our society’s major institutions are heavily influenced by progressives, if not outright controlled by them. It is therefore a given that elite opinion will portray Republicans as villains. Yet, that longstanding challenge for Republicans has never before been an insuperable one. In America, at least until now, the avant-garde has never been able to tame the public. It has always been possible to run against elite opinion and win — if you make a compelling counter-case.
Today’s Republicans do not. Indeed, they cannot, because they have accepted the progressive framework. Their argument is not that the welfare state, deficit spending, federalized education, sharia-democracy promotion, and the rest are bad policies. Their argument is not that Washington needs to be dramatically downsized. It is that progressive governance is fine but needs to be better executed.
Ain’t that something to rally around! The counter-case is supposed to demonstrate why the other guys are deeply wrong. You’re not going to get very far with “We’re not as bad as they say we are.”
It is hard to complain about Obama’s $5 trillion in new debt when you added $5 trillion just before he did. “Well, we took eight years and he took only four” is not exactly a response that stirs the soul — particularly when the country took two centuries to amass the first $5 trillion.
Then there’s Medicare, which the GOP has made a pivotal election issue. The problem with Medicare is not just that its current formula is unsustainable, or that Obama diverted a staggering amount of projected future spending on it into yet another bank-breaking entitlement. It is that the national government is innately incapable of running an entitlement program. Is the election about the side that grasps this versus the side for which enough is never enough? Surely you jest.
As constituted, our government offered two visions of “providing for the general welfare.” First is the Madisonian principle that Congress’s capacity to tax and spend is strictly limited to its enumerated powers — which do not include running social-welfare programs. The second is a Hamiltonian gloss, giving Congress additional latitude, provided that its schemes benefit all Americans equally — which would preclude welfare programs that take from A for the benefit of B.
Once you abandon these moorings, once you accept a wealth-redistribution system in which government becomes the arbiter of “social justice,” the ball game is over. If government is given license to even the scales between the have-nots and the haves, the political incentive to even them will be constant and overpowering: Enough will never be enough. If the rationale for giving government this power is that the asset in question is corporate property, not private, what is to be the limiting principle? Why health care but not housing or income? And when it comes to providing for the truly needy among 310 million people, central-government planners will simply never be as good at it as decent societies and their local governments. And so the allocation of burdens and benefits in federal entitlement programs is guaranteed to be warped, wasteful, and ultimately unsustainable.
Yet, no political party is making that case.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- More from the IX Commandment beat
- Gay Marriage is to Govt. as is Study Hall to Academics
- Hey Anglicans, hearing the Benghazi testimony, how ‘bout that IX Commandment?
- Better headgear or wii to prevent terrorism
- Gay marriage ‘key factor’ in Tory Eastleigh defeat
- An Interesting Theory on Political Engagement from an SF Commenter
- Gentry Liberals and Brass Knuckles: The Case of Maureen Dowd
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
14 comments
I think he hit the nail on the head identifying the underlying hypothesis that seems prevalent in most Republican politics these days:
[1] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 9-13-2012 at 10:36 AM · [top]
Of course he’s absolutely right. I will still be voting for the Republican ticket this November, flawed as it is. Except for Ronald Reagan, there’s not been a candidate President I was enthusiastic about in my lifetime. I still vote in every election in an effort to limit the damage.
[2] Posted by evan miller on 9-13-2012 at 11:06 AM · [top]
MUST. ELECT. CONSERVATIVES.
[3] Posted by B. Hunter on 9-13-2012 at 11:21 AM · [top]
MUST. CUT. SPENDING.
This means you, entitlement programs…
[4] Posted by B. Hunter on 9-13-2012 at 11:22 AM · [top]
Nail on head. It’s so frustrating. I read yesterday, from Walter Williams, that adjusted for inflation, federal spending has increased 300 percent since 1970. The key is CONGRESS. And of course, until Obama, GOP presidents have presided over more spending increases than the democrats, including through the use of executive orders. When I talk with die hard republicans, they insist that we must at all costs get rid of Obama. OK. I agree. But how, or will, we hold Congress, especially republicans who supposedly believe in limited government, accountable? The old timers freak out at Ron Paul and Tea Partiers, but their alternative is slow death under the likes of W. and Baenard, verses quick under Obama. I guess a slow death is better. I want a real alternative.
[5] Posted by Theron Walker✙ on 9-13-2012 at 12:18 PM · [top]
Isn’t it a little harsh to criticize Republicans (okay RINOs) for having the conviction of others’ opinions.
[6] Posted by Don+ on 9-13-2012 at 01:17 PM · [top]
I think folks need to distinguish between true “entitlement programs” and “freebies.” Much of what government is doing today is “freebies.” But for Social Security and Medicare, I have been assessed for those for every paycheck since I started work at 18 until now. Especially with Social Security, they promised (a lie) that the money was going into “my account” and was being invested by the government for me for my retirement (a lie, they stole the money and used it themselves).
Now if they want to return that money to me, with a fair rate of return that I could have achieved if I had instead been allowed to keep and invest the money myself, they can go right ahead and end Social Security and Medicare. But when folks start talking like I’m getting “something for nothing,” that’s far from the truth. They have stolen out of my pocket for almost 40 years to finance their failed welfare state scheme and legally they need to pay me back.
[7] Posted by Jim the Puritan on 9-13-2012 at 01:19 PM · [top]
I disagree. I also usually recognize the MSM handwring for what it is. I would also point to the Carter/Regan polls for those who are up sick at night.
What I hate the most about Obama being such a bad president is that he had the opportunity to do something spectacular. He had the opportunity to bring the country together, put race problems behind us. Instead, he has failed at every level in every area.
I just wish the first black president had been someone who would have done us proud. I personally think Herman Cain was railroaded and that his smarts makes Obama’s look like leftover peas. I think Condi Rice can out think him in her sleep. Allan West - he’s the bomb. Thomas Sowell - spectacular. So many great men and women who are excellent representatives. A real shame that America instead fell for the one person who is devoid of most talents except playing golf and reading from a teleprompter.
[8] Posted by Jackie on 9-13-2012 at 01:49 PM · [top]
Steps:
1. Elect the Republicans this Fall
2. Next cycle (2014), chuck out the RINOs
3. 2016, get rid of more RINOs. If Romney is proving to be a RINO, box him in with tru conservatives.
4. 2018, More of the same.
5. 2020, CONSERVATIVES!
6. In all of this do not let Ron Paul get close to anything as he is truely a nut case on many subjects.
[9] Posted by BillB on 9-13-2012 at 04:49 PM · [top]
Bill,
I certainly hope so.
I’m sorry to see you repeating the Ron Paul is truly a nutcase myth. On what subjects? The Fed? That a national bank is itself unconstitutional? That social security, medicare, medicaid, and kremlin-care are all unconstitutional? If its not in the Constitution, Congress shouldn’t even consider it? The right to life is the first right? The U.S. shouldn’t fight wars without Congress declaring war? Defensive wars and keeping 29,000 troops in Korea, 89,000 troops in Europe, spending 4 Billion a year on Egypt, aren’t the same thing? The EPA, NEA, DOE, and countless other federal agencies are simply unconstitutional? The drug war is a dismal failure, and is exactly the same as prohibition—it creates far more social problems than it solves? Charity should be handled in the voluntary sector, not the coercive?
Truth is, Ron Paul’s ideas were espoused by Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Jackson, Cleveland, Taft. Government’s first job is to protect our liberties.
Ron Paul is done in presidential politics; he’s too old. But the ideas of freedom are very much alive with more and more converts every single day. Just nine months ago, I called Ron Paul “nutty.” Then, I started reading him, listening to his speeches, looking at his track record. The “nutty” slur is, imho, a slur thrown by liberals on slow—i.e., republicans who refuse to see how like the GOP is to the dems. The rhetoric is different, the pace is slower, but the outcome is the same. Give me liberty…
[10] Posted by Theron Walker✙ on 9-13-2012 at 05:10 PM · [top]
The country is broken and not much hope of fixing it—pretty much somes up the essay. Jesus said His Kingdom was not of this world, thankfully.
[11] Posted by Hadley Robinson on 9-13-2012 at 06:07 PM · [top]
Thank you for that, Bill [9]. I just made up my mind.
[12] Posted by J Eppinga on 9-13-2012 at 08:17 PM · [top]
I hope and pray that the prediction in Sarah’s title turns out to be wrong. If Obama wins a second term, the game will be over and we will have lost. America will begin a slow but irreversible decline.
Badly executed governance is precisely the issue. Obama is committed to policies that will prevent the U.S. economy from ever recovering. Even though Romney is not a real conservative, he is a proven crisis manager, and we are currently in a major crisis. Even Romney might not be able to keep us from going the way of Greece, but if he can’t do it no one can.
If Romney wins, I plan to buy a house. If Obama is re-elected, I plan to sell my stocks (I’ve actually already started) and explore the possibility of moving to another country.
[13] Posted by Roland on 9-17-2012 at 03:18 PM · [top]
[off topic comment deleted; feel free to share your concerns about subject matter of the posts with the bloggers using the Private Message function; this is a final warning]
[14] Posted by ejdtcg on 9-17-2012 at 05:18 PM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.