Showing posts with label Classical liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Classical liberal. Show all posts

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Not your father's GOP

An abbreviated version of this piece appeared in the December 10, 2017 edition of the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle.


Many Republicans, including this writer, are appalled by the behavior, direction, and seeming incompetence of Donald Trump.  Perhaps you find that surprising.  However, in a world where Democrats are screaming at the top of their lungs, it’s difficult to notice us hanging our heads in… what?  Disillusionment?  Disbelief?

Since WWII, the party in the White House has shifted from one party to the other every 8 years with few exceptions.  So, it seemed logical to expect 2016 to be a Republican year.  But, what we got doesn’t quite seem Republican to me. 

I am old enough to remember when the internal struggles of the party were between followers of Goldwater and Rockefeller.  But, my perspective is much longer range.  About every 50 years, our nation elects a transformative president who follows a failed one.  The last time was the transition from Carter to Reagan.  Before that, it was Hoover to FDR.

The transition to the Reagan presidency was marked by a clearly stated philosophy:  government is the problem, not the solution.  During his term, we saw dramatic changes to the social contract and to how the government allocated capital.  Like any set of principles, this one attracted its own special interests.  And, like any special interests, they became entrenched – reliant on a government scheme that served their purposes.  And, so, lobbyists abound.  If the lobbies get what they want, the people feel they should get what they want too.  Republicans have, thusly, lost track of their stated philosophy.  In practice, they do what they need to do to be reelected. 

This paradigm has yielded multiple attempts to overturn Obamacare by doing exactly what Republicans correctly criticized Democrats for doing 8 years ago: tinkering with a complex system that represents 17% of our economy without a clear understanding of what might result.  Moreover, the tax reform being bandied about in Congress reflects a vague memory of Reagan’s approach without the pragmatism that Reagan exhibited.  In 1980, the country had relatively low debt and much higher taxes.  Today, the opposite is true.  Has it occurred to anyone inside the Beltway bubble that different circumstances might require new solutions?

(Perhaps they should listen to their own congressional delegation.  Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has introduced the “Tax Code Termination Act” six times in the last 10 years.  It’s four pages long and has fewer words than the new Republican bill has pages.)

Reagan was able to pursue his agenda successfully because he understood that big changes require big majorities.  In practice, that meant he had to persuade a significant number of Democrats (who controlled Congress at the time) to vote for his budget, his tax cuts (and subsequent increases), and his deregulation schemes. 

The current crop of Republicans has forgotten that, as the majority party, they serve all Americans and seem hell bent on undermining the future of their own party.  Doubling down on retrograde ideas on immigration, economics, and social policy coupled with the outrageous behavior of our Republican President has made the party toxic for a generation of young voters.  In turn, they are being driven into the hands of the increasingly liberal Democratic Party.
Given young people’s generally reserved attitudes towards conservatism, radicalism is bound to make the conservative label and ideas of conservatism and classical liberalism toxic for at least a generation. 

The Trump presidency has moved too far down the path of impossible promises.  And so, like all tyrants, the president has begun the process of blaming others for his failings.  That is not the path to success.  It is not the path to restoring the nation’s faith in conservative principles.  And, it will not make America great again.

Saturday, June 1, 2013

An Oxymoron: Future Conservatives


A few weeks ago, I wrote a post titled "I think I'm Turning Liberal...  I Really Think So".  The piece was a critique of the current liberal paradigm in this country and I got lots of responses.

Conservatives could benefit from some self-reflection as well.  To recapture a majority, they must evolve their approach to governing.  Is it an oxymoron to think of conservatism evolving to some future state? Conservatives focus on traditional values not evolution of their values.

Today’s American conservatives often quote the founders, using the U.S. Constitution as a construct for pursuing a 21st Century policy agenda.  The Constitution reflects the philosophies of Spinoza, Locke and Voltaire.  A philosophy that promoted civil liberty, political freedom, limited government, the rule of law and free markets -- tenets that today’s conservatives continue to espouse.  The irony is that, during the Age of Enlightenment, the term that defined these tenets was “Classical Liberalism”. 

That what was liberal at our founding is conservative by 21st Century standards is perhaps a measure of how societies evolve.  Can conservatives achieve any political gains with a public that seems to be moving in the opposite direction?  Do conservatives have to embrace some of the philosophical and political prescriptions of liberals to regain their electoral mojo?  I don’t think so.

People don’t vote on the basis of philosophical prescriptions; they vote for what resonates with them emotionally.  That’s why the President could be elected on the flimsy promise of “Hope and Change”. 

But Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” theme during the 80’s was no more substantive; and, no Republican has been able to connect with the emotional core of the public the way that Reagan did in the years since. 

The nation needs real reform.  Conservatives understand that our debt and deficits are not sustainable.  They understand that our entitlement programs need restructuring to survive.  There are big changes required to get the country on track. 

Reagan understood that big change requires big majorities.  You can’t persuade the majority by standing at one end of the political spectrum, hurling epithets at the other.  Reagan’s “Morning in America” pitch was optimistic about our future at a time when we were also in crisis.  It was the faith he expressed in America that sold the voting public on his vision. 

The public and the media have focused on the excesses of Wall Street and the failures of a capitalist economy to support its middle class.  While some of the criticism is deserved, what is undermining the middle class is not capitalism but a government that is undermining the value of the assets we have worked so hard to accumulate. 

At their core, Americans – no matter their race, gender, ethnicity or sexual preference – are aspirational.  That is, our culture fosters ambition and self-sufficiency.  Aspirational Americans may wish for their government to provide assistance to the most needy; however, they do not wish for a segment of the population to be motivated not to work. 




If you eyeball this chart, you can see that an individual making an annual salary of $25,000 receives the equivalent of $20,000 per year in government assistance.  It’s pretty hard to improve your annual income by 80% and it’s unlikely that many will try if they will lose the equivalent in government support.

Aspirational Americans don’t wish for their hard earned wealth to be shared in this way.  All they want is an opportunity to succeed on their own merits.  They want access to a great education, equal opportunity for employment and civil liberties -- values that are consistent with classical liberals, our founders.  Conservatives preach these values but often don’t live up to them.

Instead, Republican politicians support corporate America.  Support that manifests itself in subsidies for ethanol, tax breaks for big oil and tax exempt bonds for corporate projects.  The founders never intended the government to be at the behest of corporations. It is supposed to serve the people.  Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

Conservatives like to quote Adam Smith’s work “The Wealth of Nations” and speak of the “invisible hand” of the market as a the cure for what ails us.  But, they should also remember Smith’s words about government. "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”

They can regain their electoral mojo without sacrificing their values.  They just need to start practicing what they preach.   

WHO WILL LEAD?