Jul 2nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Harry Reid’s Not Into Twisting Arms
Via Brad Plumer, Harry Reid lays out his approach to leadership:
Reid says he expects the tactic of gentle persuasion to work best, given the size of his Senate Democratic flock and the political divergences within it. “I don’t dictate how people vote,” he said in an interview this month. “If it’s an important vote, I try to tell them how important it is to the Senate, the country, the president … But I’m not very good at twisting arms. I try to be more verbal and non-threatening. So there are going to be—I’m sure—a number of opportunities for people who have different opinions not to vote the way that I think they should. But that’s the way it is. I hold no grudges.”
I’m not sure I would say this philosophy has been bearing a ton of fruit.
96 Responses to “Harry Reid’s Not Into Twisting Arms”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
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
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
But I’m not very good at twisting arms. I try to be more verbal and non-threatening.
He knows that “twisting arms” is a metaphor, right?
It’s important to remember that Reid is the leader that the Senate Democrats chose. If they wanted a leader that demanded things from them, they would picked someone else. Don’t put all the blame on the substitute teacher.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
He’s fine at stepping on toes, though. He didn’t seem to mind disregarding Senator Dodd’s hold on the FISA immunity bill….
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
If we had Senator Lyndon Johnson running the Senate, and President Lyndon Johnson as President, we wouldn’t have to worry about whether anything would pass. As for twisting arms being a metaphor, I’m not sure that was always true with Johnson. It probably became literal sometimes. And I don’t think the Dems really should go to Johnson’s extremes, but not being pussies would be a start.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
If we had Senator Lyndon Johnson running the Senate, and President Lyndon Johnson as President
There is a the small matter (to liberals), of course, that Lyndon Johnson was almost Nixonian when it came to proper constitutional constraints. My history history, an Oxford man, was viscerally, literally disgusted when it came to talk about Johnson, mentioning that he dragged staffers to bathroom within him just to put them at psychological unease.
I am somewhat surprised that you don’t mention Roosevelt’s court-packing attempt as the sort of thing that would serve as exemplars of liberal governance.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
History teacher, not history history*
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
As for twisting arms being a metaphor, I’m not sure that was always true with Johnson. It probably became literal sometimes.
A dark moment for constitutional governance, for sure.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
In sum, Harry Reid’s philosophy is:
Please, please vote for this, or Daddy will be very sad and may even not speak to you for at least three seconds.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
A dark moment for constitutional governance, for sure.
Thinly veiled racism here?
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Re: LBJ. Yes, he was good at twisting arms, there was nothing extra-constitutional about it. (There was something extra-constitutional about lying to Congress and creating fradulent budgets), and we need to remember that LBJ learned to twist arms as Majority Leader of the Senate, which is the more relevant issue here.
However, FDR’s court-packing scheme, while politically ill-advised, was perfectly constitutional. He pushed for a vote, he lost, he accepted it. Personally, I think he should have pulled a Jackson and pushed instead for a Congressional censure of the Supreme Court’s (actually extra-constitutional) decision to invalidate public policies ratified and re-ratified by the electorate because they ideologically didn’t like it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
But I’m not very good at twisting arms. I try to be more verbal and non-threatening.
Fine then use fellatio. Whatever floats your boat, but god almighty, start to get something done. How much of an advantage do you need to gain some confidence?
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Here’s the thing he doesn’t have to produce 60 votes for every bill. He just has to produce 60 votes to overturn every filibuster. His idea that we need 60 votes on all legislation is total and complete BS and he need to quit if that’s his opinion.
Someone needs to hire a high end prostitute to seduce Harry Reid, he really needs to go.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
MY is just yanking our chains, you know. He’s floating this laconic post just to encourage us to vent our pent-up rage.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
How COULD he twist arms? What kind of leverage does he have? This isn’t the 60s, with all kinds of pork to hold over their heads. He can’t unilaterally dump people off of committee assignments, right?
Someone needs to explain how Reid can actually BE tougher. There is too much Monday morn QB’ing here, and glib comments from the blogosphere.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
It got him his current gig.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Someone needs to hire a high end prostitute to seduce Harry Reid, he really needs to go.
It’s Nevada. His GOP opponent is probably going to end up being a high-end prostitute.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Myles – go read “Master Of the Senate” and get back to us. Also, Frank C.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
At this point I think the corpse of LBJ would be more effective at getting things through the Senate than Reid has been.
And I don’t think that the senate chose LBJ to run the senate because they wanted someone to make them his bitch. Getting a leader who is warm and fuzzy, doesn’t force them to make tough votes, and still lets them dole out what pork they can is probably a popular choice for a lot of senators.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Oh, la de da, zippity-doo-da. It’s all okay by me, the Majority Leader. Because what do I care what happens to the country – bygones!!
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
The poster who said Reid is the leader the Democrats in the Senate wants had bingo. They want to free to do what they want without payback, as they are irresponsible as well as egomaniacal. It ought to be, but never will be, the President’s perogative to name the leaders of his party in Congress.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I’m guessing that Miley’s history history got a Desmond.
Frank C’s on point: what Reid has to offer Blanche Lincoln ain’t worth shit compared to what she gets in yummy campaign cash.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Obama might not be able to tell the Senate what to do directly (especially at the moment), but he does have one card he can play – he can force out Reid and get his boy, Dick Durbin, installed as majority leader. At that point, the games will stop and things will move forward as normal. Obama is doing his usual long-play and giving Reid a chance to get things done his way, but mark my words, the day it becomes clear that Reid isn’t going to be able to cut it, he’s done, and Durbin will be waiting to pick up the pieces.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Harry Reid:
- is unpopular in his own state (less popular than his cheating GOP colleague)
- is up for re-election
- is from a red/purple state
Clearly the perfect Senate Majority leader for Democrats; it worked so well with Daschle! Don’t they ever learn, or are they actually trying to get the weakest Senate leader possible?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
It ought to be, but never will be, the President’s perogative to name the leaders of his party in Congress.
Why not let the president choose the leaders of the other party too? And make his dog a senator?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Reid has been completely ineffectual, and often times undermines what other progressive democrats wish to accomplish. He sucks. But who should replace him? Who would be the Democratic arm twister? I don’t know enough to say. Anyone?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I have to agree with #22. Both Daschle & Reid have been incredibly lackluster Majority Leaders, and it’s appalling to see Reid basically lay out the case that he’s a weak Majority Leader. Ugh. Who was the last strong Democratic Majority Leader?
At least Gephardt got swapped out for Nancy Pelosi in the House. SHE gets things done. Reid…notsomuch. I’m not clear who would be better though, as I’m not familiar with the alternatives.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Just wondering where the whole “gain ten seats and the White House” part fits into all the negativity…. is he objectively better or worse than Frist? I think the negative reviews of Reid are a little extreme.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
The Democratic senators chose him for a reason, ya know. In other words, what Craig said.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
“How COULD he twist arms?”
There’s no reason to go into what rules he might use. There’s always enough arcane rule for anyone to be effective. Johnson used every rule there was and some he invented. If you’re a badass, you don’t need no stinkin’ rules. It’s just a matter of personality. Understand that Johnson faced a tougher filibuster rule than Obama is facing. And as I said before, I don’t think anyone needs to go Johnson on anyone’s asses. But maybe some people need some stiffer spines if they want to work in the Senate. Get a little Johnson in your Johnson. Learn how to fuck people. Johnson did, and he won. And we have some long lasting and popular legislation because of it. Like the Civil Right Act? Like the Voting Rights Act? Those didn’t happen by accident. They happened because Johnson was ruthless and made them happen. And arms were twisted, and probably literally.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
This is beyond absurd. If Reid wants to let senators vote the way they want, that’s one thing, but why in the world should he be OK with Democratic senators colluding with Republicans to REFUSE TO ALLOW THE MATTER TO BE BROUGHT TO A VOTE?!
Reid should be out there saying, “I have no problem with _____________ voting his conscience; my problem is with his refusing to let the rest of do the same.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Get a little Johnson in your Johnson. Learn how to fuck people. Johnson did, and he won.
Gr8, line! Sounds like an ad for Viagra.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I don’t think you could find a better man to take an odd and problematic legislative institution that had been on a downward spiral for three or four decades and run it completely into the ground. At least the Republican brain dead are aggressive zombies, fighting tooth and nail for whatever it is their dead brains think is worth fighting for while trying to devour brains. The Democratic dead are polite. Laying quietly as history buries them, and us.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Miles and Harry “Thin” Reid make a nice cozy couple of wimps.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Understand that Johnson faced a tougher filibuster rule than Obama is facing.
This is really not accurate. Although it is true that cloture required a 2/3 vote back then instead of the present 3/5, both rule and convention made the filibuster a rare bird in the ’50s (really throughout US history until the couple of decades). There were filibusters attempted by Dixiecrats against civil rights bills under LBJ’s tenure, but I am not sure if it happened with any other bills. Certainly, no one ever spoke of the required 2/3 votes to pass almost every bill (a staple of the MSM today that enrages me).
Moreove, any filibuster back then was a real Jimmy Stewart affair with cots in the cloakrooms. In previous statements, Harry “Mr. Lupner” Reid has insisted that modern Senate rule changes now make it impossible to actually force the minority to physically filibuster. Although I readily admit to no special expertise on Senate procedure, given the incredibly mealy mouthed record compiled by Reid, I take these statements with a large amount of salt. Although forcing a real filibuster is undoubtedly more difficult than in the ’50s, I’d bet that it could be done if the majority was willing to put up with a good deal of personal inconvenience and physical discomfort. In other word, don’t hold your breath.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
This is why I thought it was a terrible mistake for Obama to make Clinton Secretary of State. The deal should have been that she stays in the Senate and Obama would back her to knock off Reid. There’s no chance in hell Clinton wouldn’t have gotten the position. Indeed, there might not have even been a contest — Reid probably would have seen the writing on the wall and stepped down.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
And arms were twisted, and probably literally.
That’s called assault, and it’s a felony.
It might not be unconstitutional, but sure is illegal. And no one doing anything illegal can possible be justified as the model of emulation in his illegality.
So, let’s take this thought all the way through; that is, if Johnson did what liberals actually believe he did, it meant that he was a law-breaking motherfucking bastard (my history teacher’s literal words).
Guess I already knew that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
In other circles, it might also be known as extortion, also a crime.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Moreove, any filibuster back then was a real Jimmy Stewart affair with cots in the cloakrooms. In previous statements, Harry “Mr. Lupner” Reid has insisted that modern Senate rule changes now make it impossible to actually force the minority to physically filibuster. Although I readily admit to no special expertise on Senate procedure, given the incredibly mealy mouthed record compiled by Reid, I take these statements with a large amount of salt.
However much salt you wish to take it with, Reid is, in this instance, correct.
In the old days, it required two thirds of members present and voting to obtain cloture. That meant that if you were filibustering, you had to keep all your dudes there. Otherwise, the majority could propose cloture, and so long as the majority had two thirds of the people there to vote for it, it would go through.
No, it requires three fifths of all members to obtain cloture. That means that the majority can’t get cloture without 60 votes, so as long as somebody is there talking, you can keep the filibuster going as long as you have 41 senators on your side.
Thus, it’s basically completely pointless to make them talk – it puts all the onus on the majority, and none on the filibusterers. It’s pointless.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“it meant that he was a law-breaking motherfucking bastard”
Yeah, but so was Nixon. The difference is that when Johnson rammed legislation down your throat, it was actually good legislation. Fortunately for us, Nixon wasn’t quite as good at it. But even he had some good legislation, like the Clean Water Act. But as I’ve said, I don’t think these methods should be used. I just think the democrats should stop being pussies. They should play rough like the Republicans. If the Republicans don’t want to play ball, fuck ‘em. And fuck ‘em hard.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
John raises the real point about the filibuster. Make people actually have to show up and talk, not just one guy. Turn it back to the game where people actually had to sleep in the Capitol Building to keep a filibuster going. And shut off the plumbing so nobody can bathe. When it gets rank enough, they’ll vote.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Why can’t Myles put all his thoughts in one comment, rather than making me scroll past two or three every time?
And how can he type so goddamn much drivel with his Headmaster’s cock shoved down his throat? That boy must have one hell of a gag reflex.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
who could replace reid? maybe durbin!
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
President Johnson was also dealing with a relatively sane Republican Party. 10 Republicans in the Senate voted for the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (his anti-poverty bill), 13 voted for the Social Security Act of 1965 (creating Medicare), 27 voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a whopping 30 voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and so on. Of course Johnson also had his own problems within the Democratic caucus, but my point is that you have a lot more ways to getting enough votes in the Senate when the entire other party isn’t committed to obstructing everything you try to do.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“who could replace reid? maybe durbin!”
Give Sanders the job. That would surely piss off at least 98 Senators. Franken might like it, but he’d be the only one. Too bad Hillary’s not there anymore, she’d knock some heads for sure. But as a serious consideration, Pat Leahy. He’s a sharp guy that makes Republicans’ heads explode. And Cheney thinks he can fuck himself. What more could you ask for?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
The difference is that when Johnson rammed legislation down your throat, it was actually good legislation.
That’s rather smug, but I suppose that typifies militant left-wingers. What conservatives view as good, can be deemed by liberals as bad, and vice versa.
That statement is pure claptrap. What is surprising is that you mention Johnson as being worthy of emulation. Suppose I say that Nixon’s Southern Strategy is worthy of emulation? You can’t just say shady liberal tactics are worthy while shady conservative tactics are not. Either all or none.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
And inasmuch as the intent of the Civil Rights Act was correct, noble, and appropriate, one cannot but raise the same objection as Barry Goldwater did, that is, it is constitutionally unconscienble.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Of course Johnson also had his own problems within the Democratic caucus, but my point is that you have a lot more ways to getting enough votes in the Senate when the entire other party isn’t committed to obstructing everything you try to do.
The alternative interpretation, as understood by Douthat at least, is that Johnson-era Northeastern Republicans weren’t so much conservatives as very cautious liberals, practising a conservative of “hold on there a second, fellows, don’t run so fast, I need to catch my breath to catch up.”
Tory “wets”, I believe that’s what it’s called.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
What I understand as conservatism, or classical liberalism, is a principled opposition to statism in all its manifestations. Moderate Republicanism doesn’t seem to fit the bill.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
That boy must have one hell of a gag reflex.
This is rather amusing coming from someone who probably did not have the slightest inkling of what a headmaster actually is or did.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
That boy must have one hell of a gag reflex.
This is rather amusing coming from someone who probably did not have the slightest inkling of what a headmaster actually is or did.
I guess that’s one consequence of growing up knowing only the word “principal”.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I hold no grudges.
See, this is the problem, and this is why the filibuster used to be an “extreme” measure rather than a routine one. When one points out that the Senate runs on “comity,” it’s to point out that there are lots of things that Senators could do to each other but don’t, because then nothing gets done. If you really feel strongly about something, then you would filibuster, put a hold on a bill, or engage in some parliamentary maneuvering… but you had to realize that the Senators you were doing that against we going to hold a grudge and get back at you sooner or later. “Comity” means that the other Senators say, “we’ll let you use your parliamentary maneuver if you want,” but then when you want to get a piece of the next defense project for your state, you’re going to get snubbed.
You hope that Reid is just putting on a “nice guy” face, but the truth is that the results of his work pretty much shows that he’s saying what he really thinks.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
“Suppose I say that Nixon’s Southern Strategy is worthy of emulation?”
I’d say do it. I’m not one of those liberals who complains about Republican tactics, I envy them. Politics is a rough game and we should play rough too. Republicans are more than willing to break some laws in their practices, so we should do it too. Let’s make it a level playing field. If we can open some doors to make the winds swirl when the other team is kicking, then open those doors. And go ahead and accuse me of advocating illegal actions. I do advocate them. But only because the Republicans are already doing it. We shouldn’t try to fight fair when the other side won’t.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I guess that’s one consequence of growing up knowing only the word “principal”.
Such pretentiousness coming out of a Wesleyan student is always hilarious to me.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:41 pm
“The alternative interpretation, as understood by Douthat at least”
Douthat as actually right about that. Johnson’s problems came from his own party. You know, the guys that were still pissed off at Lincoln. Johnson had to convince some genuinely racist Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act (he already had the Northeast Republicans). That’s not an easy sell. It takes some arm twisting to pull that off. For the most part, it was more figurative, but also more real. Johnson would eliminate your military base and then say that he might change his mind if you could just go along with this vote. Johnson didn’t offer prizes, he made you bargain with what he already stole from you. Want it back, motherfucker?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
And inasmuch as the intent of the Civil Rights Act was correct, noble, and appropriate, one cannot but raise the same objection as Barry Goldwater did, that is, it is constitutionally unconscienble.
People really need to read all the way to the end of the 14th Amendment:
Now you can argue over what you think is appropriate, but that is an argument you largely have to make to Congress.
The alternative interpretation, as understood by Douthat at least, is that Johnson-era Northeastern Republicans weren’t so much conservatives as very cautious liberals, practising a conservative of “hold on there a second, fellows, don’t run so fast, I need to catch my breath to catch up.”
That’s not really an “alternative” interpretation: it is just another way of saying what I said, namely that “President Johnson was also dealing with a relatively sane Republican Party.” Of course calling these people “very cautious liberals” because they were traditional conservatives and not religious zealots, xenophobes, or libertarians is just a little attempt at revisionism by young Douthat, and best ignored.
What I understand as conservatism, or classical liberalism, is a principled opposition to statism in all its manifestations.
Classical liberalism and conservatism are not the same thing. Read Hayek’s “Why I Am Not A Conservative”.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Johnson had to convince some genuinely racist Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act (he already had the Northeast Republicans). That’s not an easy sell.
So hard he never really made the sell, in fact. Democrats from the Confederate States in the House voted against it 10-0, and in the Senate 20-1. Johnson only got Senator Yarborough, his fellow Texan, who was also one of the last real New Deal liberals in Texas statewide politics.
Of course undoubtedly some non-Southern Democrats Johnson got were “genuinely racist” in their personal views, but just as undoubtedly that was true of some non-Southern Republicans he got. That just underscores the fact that the Civil Rights Act was much more about an unusual alignment of individual political calculations, rather than any heroic persuasive efforts by Johnson.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Shorter Harry Reid: I suck.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:24 pm
“That just underscores the fact that the Civil Rights Act was much more about an unusual alignment of individual political calculations, rather than any heroic persuasive efforts by Johnson.”
Great post. But there is one point you missed. Winning a bill comes down to one or two votes. Johnson couldn’t swing The South, and I’m sure he knew that. But change two votes in the Midwest and you have your bill. Most of all powerful people actually have no power. You are just a guaranteed vote, so nobody cares. It’s the swing voters that have the only power. But if you can swing them, you have the power. Johnson swung some votes, even if they weren’t in The South.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
There is a thing called persuasion, and it can be used to good effect in getting the stuff you want done done.
You don’t score points for being a wuss.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
But there is one point you missed. Winning a bill comes down to one or two votes.
Except the vote on the Civil Rights Act was 73-27 in the Senate (290-130 in the House).
It’s the swing voters that have the only power. But if you can swing them, you have the power.
But if the vote isn’t close such that there aren’t any swing voters in that sense, then you don’t really need that sort of power.
More generally, if you have a lot of different possible ways of getting the votes you need, then there are a lot of different possible swing voters. In that case the power of each potential swing voter is highly diluted, and the political cost (in terms of compromises, buyouts, promises of future favors, and so on) of getting to one of the many possible combinations is going to be much lower. So low, in fact, that you may end up frequently getting a lot more votes than you need, as Johnson did in this case.
Unfortunately, unlike the situation Johnson faced, Obama basically has only one way of getting the votes he needs in the Senate (maybe a few more if you want to count the ladies from Maine). And all the relevant Senators know it, and there is no magic wand sitting in the breast pocket of one of Johnson’s old suits that will somehow grant Obama the power to make them do his bidding. He just has to work through this constraint.
That said, the game does change if he can establish a standard party-line vote to close debates and move the Senate situation back to just needing to get to 50. That explodes the possible combinations for Obama, and would finally put him and his congressional allies in a position similar to Johnson’s.
Or he could get another 5-10 Democrats elected in the Senate–that would work to dilute the power of potential swing voters too. But I honestly feel this idea that Obama just needs to be more persuasive, or other versions of what I consider to be “magic wand” theories, are fundamentally misguided.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Classical liberalism and conservatism are not the same thing. Read Hayek’s “Why I Am Not A Conservative”.
Quite right. However, the closest classical liberalism comes on the political scene today is among the conservative parties (irritating as some of their hang-up politics might be). The Germans have the Free Democrats, but they aren’t very popular either.
Of course calling these people “very cautious liberals” because they were traditional conservatives and not religious zealots, xenophobes, or libertarians is just a little attempt at revisionism by young Douthat, and best ignored.
Not really, no. There is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, and Douthat rather correctly characterized Northeastern Republicans as being on the liberal, rather than on the conservative, side of divide. It doesn’t mean they were bad Republicans; only that they weren’t conservatives. Republican, and conservative, are not synonyms.
You can be as conservative as the senator Taft (the greatest senator of the century as viewed by Kennedy), and still be sound, or you can be as soft as Rockefeller and still be sound. In fact, if you want a traditional conservative, Taft and Cabot Lodge are your men.
There never really was a genuinely Tory stream of thought in America, which is fundamentally liberal, and the Northeastern Republicans were not Tories. We actually do have some genuine Tories today in Washington.
I should point out that prior to Goldwater and Reagan, American liberalism had it fairly easy for two centuries, being against, really, no genuine ideological opponent. That’s actually the real legacy of the conservative resurgence; not so much policies as the emergence of a completely unknown Tory stream of thought.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
There is a thing called persuasion, and it can be used to good effect in getting the stuff you want done done.
Persuasion is very important–when it comes to the public. Which matters, because eventually members of Congress do have to answer to the public. But I honestly don’t think persuasion per se has much to do with getting things done in the Senate, except perhaps in the same broad sense that both a $100 bill and a handgun can be considered “persuasive”.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
That’s not really an “alternative” interpretation: it is just another way of saying what I said, namely that “President Johnson was also dealing with a relatively sane Republican Party.” Of course calling these people “very cautious liberals” because they were traditional conservatives and not religious zealots, xenophobes, or libertarians is just a little attempt at revisionism by young Douthat, and best ignored.
I should add that genuine Toryism, conservatism being too often mistaken for Republicanism, involves standing athwart history yelling Stop, not jogging vigorously trying to catch up with liberalism. Of course, I don’t expect you to comprehend, given that you likely have no clue what Toryism even means, much less its American application. It’s understandable; there never was, until the last few decades, an American Toryism save for isolated instances and extreme Anglophiles. I wish you all the best in navigating a politics where there is finally a strain of Toryism. Lionel Trilling was quite right.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
here never was, until the last few decades, an American Toryism save for isolated instances and extreme Anglophiles.
The southern plantation system and the political structure that went along with it is pretty close to what you’re referring to, actually.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
However, the closest classical liberalism comes on the political scene today is among the conservative parties.
The only rational option for a classical liberal in the United States today is to favor neither party exclusively, and hope for split governments. If what happened when the GOP took complete control didn’t convince you of that, you can’t be taken seriously as a classical liberal.
There is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, and Douthat rather correctly characterized Northeastern Republicans as being on the liberal, rather than on the conservative, side of divide.
There is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, but Douthat defines it incorrectly: it fundamentally has to do with attitudes toward change, social institutions, and so on, and therefore has to be determined in reference to historical context. In the relevant context, the Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans were in fact “conservatives” (not the only conservatives, but properly considered in that genus).
By the way, many people Douthat considers conservatives today are actually radicals. Speaking of which . . .
That’s actually the real legacy of the conservative resurgence; not so much policies as the emergence of a completely unknown Tory stream of thought.
First, if you look at what the Conservative Movement has done and conclude they are the American version of Tories, I think you are deluding yourself. They are radicals, not Tories.
Moreover, you again have to choose: do you want to be a Tory, or a classical liberal? Hayek goes into this issue in some length, and as he explains, the original “classical” liberals (just liberals back then) were the original Whigs, what he calls “Old Whigs”, and not Tories. So even if it were true the Convervative Movementarians were Tories (which they really are not), you still wouldn’t belong in that crowd–assuming you are serious about being a classical liberal.
To bring this full circle, there just isn’t a serious Old Whig/classical liberal party in the United States. Maybe this will change–and I would love to see the GOP replaced by an Old Whig party–but for now that is the political reality you must accept. Therefore, your only real option is to remain independent for the time being and try to play both sides against each other. Or you can drop the pretense to classical liberalism, and sign on to be a conservative of the sort Hayek was not.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Of course, I don’t expect you to comprehend, given that you likely have no clue what Toryism even means, much less its American application.
I’m well aware of what Toryism means, which is why I also understand that you are delusional if you think the Conservative Movementarians are Tories.
The fact is that it is actually simply impossible for the United States to have a real Tory movement. That possibility ended with the Revolution and formation of a government based on Whiggish principles, one which has lasted over 200 years. A modern American Tory would thus have to seek the radical transformation of a well-established and functioning political order, which is impossible to reconcile with Toryism. In that sense, the Conservative Movementarians are as Tory as the Iranian Revolutionaries.
Of course if you were a real classical liberal, you would embrace that essential Whiggishness of the United States. It is becoming quite clear that you are not, in fact, a classical liberal at all.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 am
The southern plantation system and the political structure that went along with it is pretty close to what you’re referring to, actually.
Yes, quite so, but the South is (unfairly) slighted in the United States.
Of course if you were a real classical liberal, you would embrace that essential Whiggishness of the United States. It is becoming quite clear that you are not, in fact, a classical liberal at all.
I think you can fairly say that there is a very significant distinction between Old Whig and Tory, but the fact of the matter is that the difference is smaller in comparison to the difference between that and both modern liberalism and modern conservatism.
I am a classical liberal of a fairly trenchant persuasion, although there are economic libertarians and then there are civil libertarians. My view is that it’s impossible to have civil liberty cannot exist without economic liberty, and so in my view economic liberty is the chicken and civil liberty is the egg.
Thus, the logical solution to support the party more amenable to economic freedom, and that is undoubtedly the Republicans. Democrats of the new-ish, Clinton/Blair persuasion are not terrible in that respect, but there are a lot of left-wing skeletons in that closet still. I in fact would have liked Clinton rather than Dole, and Gore to Bush, but that is another matter.
And I think you are making a mistake in thinking that movement conservatism equals Toryism. Gingrich is no Tory. Nor is DeLay, more crook than Tory. But some of the High Catholics we have seen recently are indeed Tories. John Roberts, for example.
I in fact do not vote, because I think democracy is oversold and excessive, and mass voting is vulgar. This is a fairly common libertarian position. In any case, my concern is that both parties revert to a more conventional position of economic liberalism, rather than any specific hang-ups about conservatism or modern liberalism.
But I think as much as you would like to have Eisenhower serve as the liberals’ favourite (model) conservative, I should point out that he was no Tory. And that was what I tried to get at; that there is no American Toryism, and that Republican politics is awful precisely because of it. So are some of the left-wing Democrats, but that’s more excessive Enlightenment rationalism, explosively mixed with populism and vulgar mob democracy, more than anything.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 am
Of course if you were a real classical liberal, you would embrace that essential Whiggishness of the United States. It is becoming quite clear that you are not, in fact, a classical liberal at all.
And it should not fall on me to point out that it’s one thing to embrace Old Whig persuasions, and quite another to develop a liking for social democracy, which is what exactly what some of the more awful Congressional Democrats are trying to impose with potentially-single-payer-down-the-road health-care and the indescribably unconscionable EFCA.
I should enjoy your mental gymnastics as you try to justify EFCA within Whiggishness. It ought be impressive, even more so than the Soviets who performed astounding mental gymnastics when it came to justifying the USSR.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 am
The only rational option for a classical liberal in the United States today is to favor neither party exclusively, and hope for split governments.
That seems manifestly unworkable; the whole post-war era of liberalism was heavily with split governments.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 am
And silliness about conservatives politics aside, Western politics has been pretty awfully base since the time of the Prince Regent.
That Victorians rather took to painting over and covering up Regency-era interiors and paintings is all you need to know about the sort of rot that set in.
The subsequent time there was a glimmer of what I view as progress was in the 20’s, when the dejection of Somme forced the West to re-orient itself, and you had, of course, the great wave of Art Deco, and you had voices of rationality in parliaments.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 am
Incidentally, it’s the reason I think the War on Terror was a good thing overall. I suspect that had there not been a protracted confrontation, by the dominant power, against a threat not coming from another major power but rather a non-governmental source, there would unavoidably have been confrontation vis-a-vis China, or Russia, or both. That is, had there not been an threat against authority, there would have been conflicts between authorities.
Anyone remember the awful neo-con silliness about China before the whole War on Terrorism business? It almost seemed like they were on the course to confrontation. The only reason it didn’t happen, and we likely didn’t get another Cold War, was because the War on Terrorism took up their energies. I suspect there would have certainly been a Taiwan conflict, militarily, during Bush’s term, until the War on Terror changed his focus.
I suspect had the Boer War continued for another decade or so, the Great War would never had happened. The British just wouldn’t have had the energy and attention to focus on Germany, and both, especially the British, would have done better for themselves.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 am
Get some BRASS Harry we the people elected Dems to get things done for the 98 percent of us who aren`t the Shrubs base.If you can`t do it give it someone else so we cab have health care,jobs,and end to Iraq and Afghanistan wars and an a cleaner environment for our families to live in.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 am
“Except the vote on the Civil Rights Act was 73-27 in the Senate”
That doesn’t matter at all, what was the cloture vote? And why was Byrd talking forever if the cloture vote wasn’t close? It obviously took a close cloture vote to shut him up. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be camping out listening to him. So don’t even talk about what a vote on a bill is, the only real vote is for cloture. Let’s face it, six votes had to change between the cloture vote and the vote on the bill for it to happen. Cloture happened when they had 67 votes, and then there were suddenly 73 votes. How’s that happen? Turns out, some racists didn’t want to be known as such. But Johnson got cloture. And that’s what matters in the Senate. Anyone can get 51 votes for something, so the bill in question doesn’t really matter. What you have to get then was 67 votes, and now 60 votes. Actual votes on bills are completely irrelevant. Cloture is all that matters. Once you achieve cloture, everyone jumps on the bandwagon.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 am
And here’s my prediction: on the current health care bill, it will break cloture with 60 votes. When it passes, it will have 70+ votes. So where does that extra ten come from? Politicians want to vote for things that are popular. But they want to vote against things their contributors don’t like. So they get to do both.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 am
The Senate in one couplet: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity”.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 am
And why the fuck do we care about the Tories? I can talk until the cows come home about Thai politics, but who cares? We live in America, and we operate under the American system. And it ain’t gonna change. So let’s talk about the American political system. You know, the one that’s relevant?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:47 am
Re: What COULD Harry do? I think nothing. I think everyone here is fantasizing.
LBJ got it done with money. With threats to cut spending; there was so much more pork going on then, plus military expansion. Harry does not have that option. I thought everyone knew this.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 am
are they actually trying to get the weakest Senate leader possible?
Obviously.
You don’t score points for being a wuss.
Reid has scored enough points to be elected Majority Leader. QED, he must be pleasing most Senate Democrats.
Yes, Reid sucks. But, should he retire to a monastery tomorrow, his replacement would be as bad. Because that’s what the Senate Democrats want.
Really, this is so childishly obvious.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 am
“Harry does not have that option. I thought everyone knew this.”
But everything works on the margins. It’s all about cutting up the pie you have. Whether the pie is six feet in diameter or fourteen inches makes no difference. Everyone wants a bigger slice. We can fight over everything or nothing, it doesn’t matter. Human nature is such that we just want our slice of whatever it is. If it’s nothing, we’ll still fight over it. It’s our nature.
As for Harry, he does have that option. The Senate operates on unanimous consent. Any Senator can stop anything with the Majority Leader’s approval. But guess what? the Majority Leader happens to be one of those Senators. He can stop anything he wants. He can’t make anything happen, but he can stop anything from happening. That’s real power. He should exercise it. Add to that the concept that he can call the Senate into session and call it out of session. These may be silly procedural issues, but they can be made real. And they can be used as a hammer, not a feather.
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 am
Seriously, have you ever thought about how powerful a Senate Majority Leader really is? How about the Senate just not meeting. He can do that easily. How about just not calling the Senate into session? As for bills, he can simply not call them up for a hearing. Yeah, you got a bill, but if nobody ever gets to vote on it, it doesn’t mean much. Reid has a lot of power and doesn’t use it well. But that’s what the democrats want. The Dems are afraid of their own policies. If they enact them, they have to face the consequences. And some of the policies might not work. The Republicans never have this problem because they never accept responsibility for anything. Try to get a Republican to acknowledge that the deficit increased under Reagan. It’s impossible despite the obvious data. They are completely removed from reality, so you can’t use reality against them.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:24 am
Thus, the logical solution to support the party more amenable to economic freedom, and that is undoubtedly the Republicans.
No, again, the logical solution is to support split governments. If the last period of GOP dominance didn’t teach you that, you are simply a fool.
And I think you are making a mistake in thinking that movement conservatism equals Toryism. Gingrich is no Tory. Nor is DeLay, more crook than Tory. But some of the High Catholics we have seen recently are indeed Tories. John Roberts, for example.
Your reading comprehension is abysmal. You were the one implicitly claiming the Conservative Movementarians were Tories, and I was explaining how that was nonsensical, and that indeed the very idea of an American Tory was an impossibility. And that applies to John Roberts as well, but even if for some reason you concluded he was a Tory, he isn’t a political officer and doesn’t make up a political party or movement. And finally, one more time, you can be an Old Whig/classical liberal, or a Tory. You can’t be both.
I in fact do not vote, because I think democracy is oversold and excessive, and mass voting is vulgar. This is a fairly common libertarian position.
Indeed. So why are you talking about supporting the Republicans, whose purpose is to organizing voting in their favor? Why would you support any political party? It makes no sense.
But I think as much as you would like to have Eisenhower serve as the liberals’ favourite (model) conservative, I should point out that he was no Tory.
First, there is no such thing as an American Tory. So that includes Eisenhower. Second, Eisenhower wasn’t an Old Whig either. Eisenhower was, however, a conservative in the proper sense of the term.
And that was what I tried to get at; that there is no American Toryism, and that Republican politics is awful precisely because of it.
Wait, that was the point you were making when you said this?
Please. You were trying to claim the Conservative Movement was an American Tory movement, I pointed out that was absurd, and now you are trying to backpedal.
And it should not fall on me to point out that it’s one thing to embrace Old Whig persuasions, and quite another to develop a liking for social democracy . . .
And again with the reading comprehension problem. I never claimed a classical liberal/Old Whig should be a Democrat. I quite clearly claimed instead that they have a home in neither major party, and that their only rational hope is split governments, which necessarily implies supporting neither party exclusively. I really don’t think this should be so hard to understand.
That seems manifestly unworkable; the whole post-war era of liberalism was heavily with split governments.
I’m not saying split governments will be ideal for a classical liberal/Old Whig–the basic problem is that such people make up just a small minority in the United States, so entirely getting their way is unlikely. I am saying you should compare the performance of recent split governments to the performance of recent single-party governments and draw the obvious conclusion that split governments are at least going to be closer to what you claim to want.
Here is the bottomline, Myles. Your head tells you to be a classical liberal, but your gut tells you to be a conservative (in the Hayekian sense). And your gut is winning. Which is fine, but you should stop pretending you are actually a classical liberal–that’s just a fig leaf for your conservatism, and you won’t need it once you are away from people who think seriously about political philosophy.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:40 am
That doesn’t matter at all, what was the cloture vote?
71-29, so four over the necessary number. As I understand the story, there were six Senators that were initially reluctant to vote for cloture, hence the delay. And again, if Obama had something like 64 possible votes for cloture instead of 60, that would make a significant difference. In that sense, the 2010 Senate elections could be awfully important.
All that said, as others point out, in Johnson’s day the filibuster was a rare device. So I would dispute a bit the idea that Johnson in general needed 67 votes.
And here’s my prediction: on the current health care bill, it will break cloture with 60 votes. When it passes, it will have 70+ votes.
I’ll take some of that action, because I don’t see the Republican caucus supplying ten or more votes for the bill (maybe a couple, but not ten). I know it would make sense for them to do that, but they aren’t in the habit of doing things that make sense these days.
And why the fuck do we care about the Tories?
Myles is just a deeply confused person. Or persona–I find it hard to believe he is a real person.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 am
Long story short, I agree that this statement is Reid acknowledging that he sucks at his job. People voting against you is exactly what you should hold a grudge for. That’s how you exercise power in a body like the Senate. As voters, we should be pissed at the Dems in the Senate for making this prick majority leader. Personally, I am in favor of primary opponents for everyone of those asshats if it won’t compromise the Dems chances in the general.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Reid has scored enough points to be elected Majority Leader. QED, he must be pleasing most Senate Democrats.
The Daschle example showed me that the Democrats were concerned about two things: first, the ability to raise money, and Daschle (and presumably Reid) could do that. Second, they thought it was a good idea to have their leadership from a marginal Democratic (or even Republican) state because this allowed them to leverage that position as a campaign point in order to keep that seat Democratic (eg, “Even though you all lean Republican, keeping the Democratic Senate leader in office will mean more goodies for your state, so vote for him.”). The second point strikes me as a bit of a false economy. The energy you expend at trying to keep that marginal seat comes at the sacrifice of other Democratic interests.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 am
Your head tells you to be a classical liberal, but your gut tells you to be a conservative (in the Hayekian sense). And your gut is winning. Which is fine, but you should stop pretending you are actually a classical liberal–that’s just a fig leaf for your conservatism, and you won’t need it once you are away from people who think seriously about political philosophy.
Perhaps, but I find it unlikely. I think my inclinations certainly are not (modern) liberal, but that is more a reaction to reality than anything else. If I lived in Hong Kong I would be a Liberal (they managed to have won no constituency seats the last election, which, well, reflects the classical liberal norm). And if I were German I would be a Free Democrat rather than CDU.
But I digress. I don’t much care for political traditions if they do not promote liberty. I support fixed parliamentary terms, for example, and would much prefer a binomial (a la Chile) system of election as opposed to the current one.
Conservatives oppose things like legalized prostitution or same-sex unions or other personal preferences; I don’t mind it at all.
In any case, classical liberal politics is pretty hopeless in most countries. Which is unfortunate, because if any sort of polity will lead to a better future, it would be a one of classical liberalism, not modern liberalism nor traditional conservatism. I always found modern liberalism rather amusing, in the sort of way you find the Social Gospel amusing, as in utterly bonkers and profoundly weird.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
If we had Senator Lyndon Johnson running the Senate, and President Lyndon Johnson as President, we wouldn’t have to worry about whether anything would pass. As for twisting arms being a metaphor, I’m not sure that was always true with Johnson. It probably became literal sometimes.
This may have happened during LBJ’s time as ML in the 50s, but mostly it led to a lot of watered down legislation.
It sure didn’t happen with the historic 64 CR bill. To the contrary, he dialed back his usual heavy-handed strong arm approach. Perhaps his embarrassing defeat in early 61 — trying to remain as head of the Dem senate caucus while at the same time occupying the vice presidency — led Lyndon to realize he no longer could bully his former colleagues.
What happened in 64 that resulted in that historic bill’s passage had nothing to do with the so-called Johnson Treatment, contrary to the uninformed CW that gets repeated on many a liberal board.
Far more credit should go to an electorate that had changed substantially on the CR issue since mid-63, including a more anti-far right/racist overall mood since Dallas, plus the key strategy of ML Mike Mansfield, who, going against the firm advice of Pres Johnson, decided to keep the bill out of the Judiciary comm’ee (away from racist chair Eastland) and “on the floor” where it would become the only business of the senate until dealt with definitively.
Oh, and it didn’t hurt at all that Mansfield (like JFK before him) had cultivated a respectful working relationship with a non-reactionary and ready-to-do-business minority leader, Ev Dirksen.
Today however, Reid won’t be able to rely on 27 (or even 7) Repubs to jump ship and work with the Dems on a solid and meaningful bill, as happened in 64.
Not an easy task ahead if the Dems plan on passing a substantive bill through the regular channels.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
In any case, classical liberal politics is pretty hopeless in most countries.
One problem is that classical liberal politics actually has very little to offer most vested interests (it turns out even the business lobby actually prefers subsidies and regulatory capture over laissez-faire). So in a world where maintaining a political organization and running political campaigns costs a lot of money, classical liberal politics can’t hope to compete. And on top of that, most people just aren’t temperamentally inclined to classical liberalism: authoritarians on the “right” and interventionists on the “left” together pick off far too many people for the classical liberal position to be more than a small minority.
But under the right circumstances, it can be a crucial swing minority. However, for that to work in a way consistent with the ideology, it has to be done in a mirror image of conventional swing strategies: the classical liberal should always be seeking to be on the opposition side, never on the governing side. Which in turn takes both flexibility and discipline, and unfortunately far too many people who theoretically agree with classical liberalism find it impossible to resist the all-too-human urges to pick a tribe, jump on bandwagons, and so forth.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“It’s Nevada. His GOP opponent is probably going to end up being a high-end prostitute.”
Now that’s a romance novel premise.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
One problem is that classical liberal politics actually has very little to offer most vested interests (it turns out even the business lobby actually prefers subsidies and regulatory capture over laissez-faire).
Quite. The AT&T monopoly, prior to breakup, was not really inclined toward laissez-faire. One should make a very clear distinction between business interests and classical liberal interests; they aren’t the same. Classical liberalism deems human progress to be a result of maximal human freedom, while the same do not apply to businesses.
However, for that to work in a way consistent with the ideology, it has to be done in a mirror image of conventional swing strategies: the classical liberal should always be seeking to be on the opposition side, never on the governing side.
Right. Which means, in the present circumstance, stalling Obama and his priorities as much as possible. But I think if, say, George W. Bush had advocated abolishing the capital gains tax, then it makes full sense for classical liberals to rally behind that initiatives. Or his reform of social security.
And I think there is a structural difficulty with democracy, which is a system where the fifty-one percent can vote to gorge themselves on the other forty-nine. Classical liberalism appeals to rules and principles, not majorities. Again, pure democracy is a disaster, and no functioning country has a pure democracy; which is why it is irritating when both conservatives and liberals tie themselves to the fallacious banner of democracy. Republicanism, or constitutionalism, is quite a distinct principle from democracy.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
And I hope Yglesias would stop bloviating about how blue-state Republican senators are stalling Obama; senators are selected to represent what they personally view as the people’s best long-term interests, not what the electorate views as their best interests; that is a difference with a distinction.
There is no point in having a representative democracy if we do not recognise, respect, and uphold that indirect mechanism.
For the reason that boards of directors can vote in opposition to shareholder wishes, in accordance with long-term interests. In fact, I see it as a good sign when a senator is willing to vote against the wishes, on specific issues, of his constituents; it shows that he has an appreciation for institutions and a healthy skepticism for mob democracy. This applies to both Republicans and Democrats.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
In fact, that is the precise reason they have six-year terms; to be able to resist, and push back, democratic pressures.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
But I think if, say, George W. Bush had advocated abolishing the capital gains tax . . . .
There is no such thing as a real tax cut without corresponding spending cuts–instead, you are just moving taxes around. This is the sort of thing that requires mental discipline: a classical liberal can’t afford to fall for these sorts of symbolic gestures.
Or his reform of social security.
That was going to be a HUGE giveaway, and a highly regulated one at that. Again, you are falling for the rhetoric, and not paying attention to the reality.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
There is no such thing as a real tax cut without corresponding spending cuts–instead, you are just moving taxes around.
Oh you are quite mistaken. The point is to a) reduce capital gains tax and b) starve the government of revenue. It’s a lot hard to raise taxes than to cut expenditure.
This, in fact, is exactly what the new conservative wave did; starve revenue. It is always good to cut taxes, even when it produces deficits, because think about the ultimate results: a) the government raises taxes to previous levels to fund expenditures or b) the government reduces expenditures. It’s essentially a no-lose proposition. There is only downward, as opposed to upward, pressure on government expenditure when there is a tax cut.
That was going to be a HUGE giveaway, and a highly regulated one at that.
It is, but any huge, regulated giveaway is better than what could technically be described as a pay-and-you-go Ponzi sort of mechanism. At least from the classical liberal perspective.
I understand that you hold modern liberal views, but your mental gymnastics in trying to describe tax reductions as being illiberal were, well, unconvincing and awkward. In any case, as liberals seem to have no preference for a radically reduced purview of government, the only solution is to starve the beast.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Here is a hypothesis: had say, a Republican president proposed reducing taxes, fully paid for by cuts from entitlement spending, would you consider classical liberal support for such a scheme to be unjustified? I think not.
Or, if he proposed to fully, without restrictions, give the option to privatize 50% of the Social Security holdings per person, would you consider support for this unable to justify? I don’t actually support the second one, but it is an interesting hypothetical exercise.
The difficulty with liberal politics is that there is a fairly eclectic mix in the Democratic group. There are the Georgetown liberals, who are largely rational beings fully educated about a market economy, and then there are the nutcases who are holdovers from the Cold War era. EFCA is the sort of thing that comes from the nutcase wing. The Senate has very few of the nutcases, while the House has a great many. Sort of like the New Labour-Old Labour split, except that the Old Democrats are not as nearly obnoxious.
Of course, the Republicans are even fuller with nutcases, most of whom have not the slightest clue how a free-market economy actually functions. It’s a pity.
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I am 100% convinced that Harry Reid’s position as Senate Majority Leader is little more than a vast, right-wing conspiracy.
Someone please summon the ghost of LBJ to possess this man.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
[...] is problematic to begin with, and the spineless leadership of Harry Reid isn’t helping. His admission that he “isn’t very good at twisting arms” is telling. Isn’t that the whole point of being Majority [...]
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
They’d hate each other, and spend all their time in pissing contests. One or the other would be good though.