Nov 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Always!
Cato’s Michael Tanner on “The Voters’ Message to the GOP”:
Given a choice between two “big-government parties,” voters will choose the Democrats every time.
Have we forgotten the 2004 election already? Most of George W. Bush’s most dramatic “big-government” actions — Medicare bill, farm bill, steel tarriffs, invasion of Iraq, USA PATRIOT Act, etc. — took place during his first term. And he got re-elected. And the evidence suggests that most of those initiatives helped him.
58 Responses to “Always!”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
DC
Denmark
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Gender
Germany
Health Care
History
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
Philosophy
planning
Political Reform
Proliferation
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Science
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 12th, 2008 at 8:55 am
You’re getting closer on “tariffs,” Matt. I have hope for you.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Question for those who might remember better than I do: were the steel tariffs essentially toothless when enacted or quickly rendered as such after they were slapped on by Bush himself? I seem to remember someone saying that they were not really as bad as they seemed, in the sense that they really weren’t effective as far as limiting trade and really just for show.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I think we have more than enough evidence to conclude that as a class the punditocracy / commentariat are dumber than a box of the absolutely dumbest hammers, and far less useful; hammers, on the other hand, tend to have a minimal functional honesty in their purposes, whereas the punditariat does not.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Capturing the center isn’t everything, but this is a bizarre theory of voting behavior. Who are these voters who will vote for a Democrat over a moderate Republican, but will support a conservative Republican over a Democrat? I saw this argument on the left, too, before our recent victories. Some people thought if we ran far to the left (in places like Tennessee, no less) we could capture people who were picking conservative Republicans over moderate Democrats.
I’m sick of this “Bush was a big-government liberal” thing. What does “big government” mean, anyway? If the government is spending more and more just to do the same thing (Medicare) is that an increase in the size of government? What if they were slash spending on everything but widen the scope of the Patriot Act, ban abortion, and torture people? Remember, fewer $’s spent means less government and more “liberty” whatever that is. And then they compare Bush’s spending increases to the Great Society, as if liberals just want to raise spending regardless of where its targeted. Never mind that all Bush’s new programs fell into the categories of defense and corporate giveaways.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Well, one person ready to weigh in on the upcoming Great Republican Debate is pedophile Congressman Mark Foley.
Yep, Foley is BACK –tanned, fit, rested and wearing a yellow tie with blue elephants on it. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_us/disgraced_ex_congressman
The Democrat who replaced Foley –after Foley left Congress in disgrace –LOST reelection recently after said Democrat’s mistress blew up publicly in a very messy adultry/sex harassment scandal.
Call it “The Curse of Mark Foley”.
Actually, a lot of Mark Foley’s REPUBLICAN critics haven’t done so well either. heh heh
November 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
After being cornholed with a $1.5 Trillion broken beer bottle — and another Great Depression — the voters might figure that Foley’s naughty emails and Larry Craig’s toe-tapping are the least of their problems.
Trust George W Bush to make Mark Foley and Larry Craig look good by comparison.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
It was Big Government against Big Brother government…
http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
November 12th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Wonder if any voters remember the bad old days of Monica Lewinski –when the economy was far stronger, the federal debt was $6.3 Trillion less, and 4500+ dead Americans were still alive.
This is what happens when you let yourself get DISTRACTED by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly’s bullshit.
Since then, Rush and Bill are Millions of dollars richer.
So how are you doing?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Bush Jr. was the finest reincarnation of Ronald Reagan and TruConservatism EVAR when his approval ratings were at 90%; when he plummeted to Mr. 28%, suddenly he’s an untouchable big government liberal, and if only Republicans were even more right wing ’small government’ for the people / giganto-defense-corporate conglomerate government for the richest, by golly they would have won.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Bush does not regret going to war that caused the deaths
of thousands, not to mention the loss of homes by the
millions of people, but standing in front of the
Mission Accomplished sign.
Words fail to describe this man and the people
who supported him.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Tanner’s maxim is probably true, but it only proves that hardly anyone is for limited government (though lots of people are for low taxes), and if you are going to have big government, Democrats are unquestionably better at administering it.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am
For the most part, that whole idea is just silly, but there are voters who fall into odd catagories.
There are socially conservative, economic populists who usually vote Republican. They generally want their government handouts via acceptable venues, like military bases, agricultural subsidies, grants to state governments with few strings attached, etc.
If the “moderate Republican” in question is one who favors abortion rights and some expansion of government healthcare, they will hate him. If he is a moderate who toes the line on abortion and gay marriage, but doesn’t care about tax increases, they’ll vote for him.
There are a lot of Republicans who would be glad if the neocons and supply siders disappeared. I wouldn’t refer to them as moderates though. They want a more isolationist foreign policy, regressive social policies, fewer entitlements, more pork for themselves and less for others. They want taxes cut on the middle class, but raised on the poor and rich.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Libertarians consistently overestimate the degree to which their ideas are appealing. People might want the rhetoric of government “getting off their backs,” and in some cases might even support the reality of it, when it comes to their own personal property. However, no one has any problem with government programs that they like and that helps them. Farmers loved the farm bill, Medicare Part D accomplished something people liked, steel tariffs didn’t cause any appreciable affect on the consumer end, the invasion of Iraq provided lots of entertainment for supporters, and the USA PATRIOT Act might be morally offensive, but odds are that not many people felt the pinch. And besides, it has “PATRIOT” in the name, so supporting it must be patriotic.
When are libertarians going to realize that people are most interested in politicians who have policies that explain how they will make voters’ lives better, rather than how they fit into a moral worldview that will make voters feel more virtuous?
November 12th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Bush was also a war time President and he was campaigning against one of the worst candidates since Bob Dole in ‘96. And with all that working in his favor, he only won the election by approximately 70,000 votes (Ohio). It still amazes me that Democrats think that John Kerry was a serious candidate given what Obama did on election day this year.
I agree with CATO on this one. The Republicans can’t out-democrat the Democrats. And that goes for media as well. The Republicans need to stick to empiricism and making the argument that government intrusion beyond what is outlined in the Constitution, does not benefit the people of the United States.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am
What should the next opposition party do? You know, the one that springs into existance after the Republican party disappears because it followed the CATO advice.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Njorl,
Utopian thinking is what dooms Democrats. Do you really think that the Republicans are going to disappear by arguing that government needs less of a role in people’s lives? Judging by the last 100 years, that’s been a pretty effective argument when it comes to the Presidency.
The problem for the dems is that their crazy constituencies drive them over the edge. Bill Clinton found success because he told those constituencies to shut the f up. Provided that the dems don’t get greedy, they’ll have success over the next 4 years and beyond. As for Republicans, they need to become a genuine policy choice in the eyes of voters. The key for Dems is to win when times are good.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
The problem for the dems is that their crazy constituencies drive them over the edge.
I don’t get this. Which constituencies are you referring to here? Please advise.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I actually think ordinary people are sick and tired of the idiot right wing schtick, one of the stupidest dogmas of history, of how in a $10 trillion economy and interlinked world and corporate conglomerates much, much larger than many nations, we need ’smaller government’.
It’s a bunch of crap, but then, Republicans have worked long and hard to make sure that what government people encounter does nothing but cause them trouble.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:14 am
James,
The ones that believe in a single payer health care system. The ones that believe that welfare reform was a bad idea. The ones that believe in taxing carbon. Shall we go on?
I’m not going to get into attacking these issues on their merits, reasonable people can disagree. What I can tell you however is that they are all political losers.
El Sid,
I agree with you, people are tired of the schtick. What they’re not tired of is being left alone to pay their mortgages, work their jobs, make decisions for their children, and live their lives in a fashion that ultimately benefits them. Provided that Republicans don’t spend more money than LBJ and begin useless and destructive wars around the globe…I think we’re a fairly competitive party.
As for government causing one trouble. I’d argue that government can’t cause one trouble when it isn’t there to cause one trouble. No one is saying that government should be abolished, I’m just saying that we have a wonderfully well thought out document called the Constitution which give us a pretty good idea of where to scale back.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:18 am
What should the next opposition party do? You know, the one that springs into existance after the Republican party disappears because it followed the CATO advice.
CATO shouldn’t be allowed to talk until the current crisis is over.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am
What I can tell you however is that they are all political losers.
“Less government” is a political loser in practice, though, granted, not a loser rhetorically.
I’m just saying that we have a wonderfully well thought out document called the Constitution which give us a pretty good idea of where to scale back.
Which will pretty quickly cause a certain amount of outrage among voters who will vote the Republicans out of office for doing that. There is a constituency for “responsible government”– this was what Bill Clinton sold. Do not confuse this with “small government.” The libertarian wing of the Republican party will always be a very junior partner, subordinate to people who can deliver votes: namely corporate interests and social conservatives. The best they can hope for is a “better deal” than they would get under the Democrats, though honestly the Democrats are probably the ones who can give them more of what they want under the present circumstances.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Tyro,
Well, institute all three and we’ll see now won’t we?
Responsible government based on what? On the whims of a presidential candidate. Well, you guys got that under Bush and didn’t really like it too much did you? As much as the left (and members of the right like myself) moaned about the new antiterrorism measures…that in the minds of the voters was responsible under the circumstances. Even your guy Obama likes this idea of giving the telecoms immunity and spying on American citizens.
Chalk one up for “responsible government” over the Constitution!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Utopian thinking is what dooms Democrats
“Small government” is precisely the sort of Cato-sponsored utopian thinking that dooms the libertarians to irrelevance. You can win elections on moral poses. At some point, you have to deliver the goods to voters. “Small government” is a perfectly wonderful moral pose, but it doesn’t make the lives of individual voters any better, so those voters are going to gravitate towards politicians who can deliver the goods.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
You can win elections on moral poses.
Rather, you can’t win elections on moral poses alone.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I disagree. Look at Reagan in 1981…he won on a platform of reducing the size of the federal government. What wins you elections isn’t Utopian.
Now, I’m not saying that this is the 1980s, and that Republicans will win the next election with that. But it would behoove them to start walking the walk and give everyone a genuine choice. Most importantly, had they paid attention to their principles, we probably wouldn’t be in the mess that we’re in at the moment.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:40 am
As much as the left (and members of the right like myself) moaned about the new antiterrorism measures…that in the minds of the voters was responsible under the circumstances. Even your guy Obama likes this idea of giving the telecoms immunity and spying on American citizens.
The Republican party would absolutely not exist were it not for the large constituency of authoritarians who support Republican candidates and whose politicians are willing to attack Democrats who do not support sufficiently authoritarian measures in order to “seem tough.” Once again, you really overestimate the degree to which politicians — particularly Republican ones — absolutely depend on anti-libertarian factions to provide economic development (ie, pork), support socially conservative policies, and support wars and idiotic anti-terror laws in order to “look tough.” If we lived in a country which offered proportional representation, then there’d be room for a party with genuine libertarian ideas, but as it is, when Republicans begin to act on their “small government” rhetoric, they get smacked down by voters who realize that small government doesn’t pay the bills or put food on the table or pick up the tab for the medical bills of their elderly parents. The sooner the “small government” types accept this reality and abandon their “utopian thinking,” the better… if not for the sake of their chosen political party, then for the sake of the moral necessity to remain grounded in reality.
The constitution is a very short document precisely so that it can provide flexibility over a long period of time. You can support a Republican “responsible government” model in the Eisenhower model as a counterweight to what you perceive to be excessive liberalism, but try to disband PBS and the Department of Education, and suddenly voters are going to think you’re a bit to freaky for them. What Cato is selling, the voters don’t want.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Ed, Reagan won because of the Iranian Revolution, and the contemporaneous oil shock. And he didn’t appreciably reduce the size of government, whatever his rhetoric, and called for the repeal of exactly zero programs of the federal government.
The political lesson of the Reagan years was concisely expressed by Dick Cheney’s observation that “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter”. That’s Reagan’s legacy in a nutshell.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
No, I don’t think that, Ed, because I don’t think the Republicans will be doing that. The only ones who did were Reagan, Hoover, Coolidge and Harding. The Bush’s, Nixon, Eisenhower, Taft, and T. Roosevelt did not run on that agenda. That’s 20 years out of 100 that the CATO phiosophy managed to control the White House. For congress, their record is worse.
It is a proven political loser.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Tyro,
You didn’t respond to my point. You believe in “responsible government.” So-called responsible government gave you warantless wiretapping. Is that just the price of doing business?
As for the Constitution’s flexibility…Again, flexibility according to whom? I read the constitution and I don’t see anything about a single-payer health system. Apparently you read it and can find it in there. The problem with your flexibility is that it gives the nuts (including the nuts in my party) the ability to FIND things in there that wouldn’t normally be in there. Now I suppose as democrats you guys are all for that, since that makes the whole process more democratic. But I on the other hand think that this makes the process more dangerous since it opens up the governance of the country to the whims of an increasingly petty electorate. Based on history, these types of governments are the ones that disappear in short periods of time. Our founders spent a great deal of time thinking about that, why doesn’t anyone else these days…Oh right, because we’re different…How very Utopian.
kth,
how old are you? i’m going to guess that you weren’t alive when Reagan came to power because of your 8th grade theory on why he won. as someone who could observe the world around him at the time, people we’re sick and tired of government by the time he ran for office. taxes were high, the stock market was low and our economy sucked. the Iranian revolution and the oil shock may have been variables, but his small government platform was the nail in the coffin. anyone who lived during the time will tell you that…besides folks that just can’t seem to get over the fact that he beat their guy.
as for his legacy, i’ll be the first to admit that the guy probably spent to much. having said that, he sealed the deal with the soviet union and started us on the boom that would usher in one of the largest periods of growth in the history of this nation. and for that, many people look back at the Reagan years (like the Clinton years) with admiration.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Njorl,
The statistic that you ought to look at is how many times they lost on that platform. I can tell you that it was far less than the dems on an ‘increase government’ platform.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Ed Smithe, the notion that Reagan was anything but a dimwitted salesman is nonsense. He claimed “small government” and gave us the largest tax increase on the working people in our history. He also gave us the largest debt in history – at least until the epitome of Reaganism, George W. Bush took the helm.
There is a market for libertarian ideas like small government – but it is made up solely of deluded lunatics who imagine themselves to be self-sufficient. The clowns who ignore all the ways in which they were helped by a progressive taxation system. The clods who ignore all the ways that government rules and regulations improve and lengthen their lives.
Small government can only be sold. It cannot be implemented – any party stupid enough to do so would find itself so far in the wilderness the current Republican Party would seem centered in Times Square.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
CATO shouldn’t be allowed to talk until the current crisis is over.
I agree, so long as by “crisis” you mean the poisoning of the atmosphere with that corrosive gas oxygen. Once there is no more of it, I will be fine with hearing from Cato.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Evil Twin,
“gave us the largest tax increase on the working people in our history.”
Really, was that the tax increase where the money that you were receiving from the federal government got cut? Indeed, up is down, black is white, war is peace.
You’re last point however has been true in most circumstances. Unfortunately, when you guys get into power, you make it nearly impossible to turn the clock back on federal spending and program/agency creation. The same could be said for the current buffoon in office.
No doubt, this country is on a path to oblivion…and the question is, do you want to reach it at 100mph or 50mph?
November 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
That’s inane. It lost every year it didn’t win. It lost when Reagan lost the primary to Ford. It lost when Taft was defeated in the primary by Dewey.
Democrats have never lost on an “increase government” platform because, other than the possible exception of FDR, they don’t run on it. Democrats run on issues. Sometimes an issue is addressed through increased government intervention, but Democrats never run on the idea of mindlessly increasing government the way Republicans run on the idea of shrinking it.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
No Ed, I believe he is referring to the effects of the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Even combined with the net decrease in income taxes from Reagan’s 1981 tax cut and 1982 increase, most people paid a higher percentage of their income as federal tax than before, due to the increase in payroll taxes. While a smaller percentage of total income was paid as tax, the benefits went to a minority of the tax paying public.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Democrats run on issues. Sometimes an issue is addressed through increased government intervention, but Democrats never run on the idea of mindlessly increasing government the way Republicans run on the idea of shrinking it.
Right-wingers consistently fail to understand this point: while Republicans believe in “cut government for its own sake,” Democrats do not run on “expand government for its own sake.” They run on, “solve this problem, and if it requires the government to solve it, do what’s appropriate.” The right simply projects their own idiosyncratic worldview onto the Democrats and assume the Dems simply believe the precise opposite. The only viable “conservative” stance on government involves explaining why specific government programs overreach and advocate cutting them to everyone’s benefit. A simple “drown government in a bathtub” platform simply doesn’t work because people vote for politicians that are going to solve problems that need to be addressed.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Ed, your problem is that your opposition to wiretapping as part of your “small government” routine is merely a moral pose to absolve you of the obligation of explaining what the best policy is and what the moral and material tradeoffs are. That’s why “small government all the time” has so little appeal when it comes to practical policies– it’s an act of intellectual and political laziness that doesn’t help anyone.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I think that the problem comes down to this:
It’s not that the GOP can’t win while endorsing big government. It’s that they cannot win by endorsing “small government” while actually living big government. Hannity’s complaints about the grwoth of government seem hypocritical and ridiculous when he supports programs such as the endless war in Iraq.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:23 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:04 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:20 am
buy viagra online
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:03 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Valuable content, thanks
April 9th, 2009 at 5:06 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra