Palin and the Size of Government
This is speculative.
Through gritted teeth, a lot of unsympathetic observers noted that Palin was “effective” not not “substantive.” But what does that mean, exactly? “Substantive” evidently refers to a Clintonian laundry list — I will extirpate moral turpitude through the power of the V-chip; I will personally scrub every lump of coal of all carbon, leaving a non-existent “clean coal” orb (a favorite of both political parties, I should stress); I will lower taxes for all Americans except for a small number of Americans who will be attached to a revenue-generating hamster-wheel floating hundreds of miles above the Arctic Circle, where they will be fed nutrients through an IV drip and otherwise ignored (and don’t worry about that carried interest business, my bundlers, as Schumer’s got your back); etc.
But my sense is that Palin was making a case for self-reliance and for smaller government. Now, this is a bit rich coming from the governor of Alaska, with its generous transfers — but wait. Note that Alaska-style transfers take the form of negative income taxes and other fairly nonpaternalist measures. The idea is that the people spend their money best. To the extent publicly-owned resources generate revenue, the funds should go to people, not politicians. This is a notion that’s been championed by a number of development economists who fret over the dangers of “the resource curse” — the danger that a large pot of resource revenue become an attractive target for kleptocrats, hence Alaska’s notoriously corrupt political culture.
So unfortunately I don’t think the socialist Alaska attack has a lot of legs. But it was certainly worth a shot.
So yes, if “substance” means, “I promise — vaguely — to wean you off of the hydrocarbon economy because America used to launch ICBMs at the Moon with dudes strapped to them,” then Palin’s speech wasn’t very substantive.
Sorry guys, I’m having a bit of fun here.
I was kind of hoping for substance like:
- Obama says he wants equal wages, but his plan is a terrible idea.. John McCain wants equal opportunity, and he will support it by lowering taxes and increasing trade! I.e., not a laundry list, but some details, even if they are details about why Obama sucks.
— J Mann · Sep 4, 08:02 PM · #
Carried interest – I love it when the knives come out!
Alaska style transfers also come from the $1.87 they get for every $1 they pay in federal funding, from a fourth of the workforce being in a labor union (second highest percent as a state) with a perpetual labor shortage making the unions even stronger. Also that oil money that is taxed by Alaska gets deducted by the oil companies from federal taxation – so a transfer away from paying for Iraq. I’m not sure how transient the labor population effects state benefits.
Maybe not socialism (the Palin family gets 22K for doing nothing?!?), but not exactly a tractable model for other states. I have no beef with labor unions heavily involved with such obviously dangerous work, but is that the self-reliance you mean?
— Mike · Sep 4, 09:49 PM · #
From my perspective, I’m seeing nothing but rationalizations from you and others here. Maybe I’m as intellectually dishonest as I am saying you are. It takes an iron will to challenge your instincts and predelictions. But we should all try, right?
— cw · Sep 5, 02:04 AM · #
It seemed unsubstantive because the purpose of choosing her seems so clear: she is being dangled before the Dobsonites as a lure, shiny and attractive. She is Christian-right Powerbait. Seeing her, and the dastardly actions toward her of the MSM (which they already resented from long habit), the Dobsonites’ victim complex kicked into hyperactivity the way it hasn’t done since the first big War Against Christmas. She is one of them and she is under attack. Rally! Rally! Drill, Baby, Drill!
Does anyone on the right really believe she was chosen to help McCain articulate and achieve his policy vision? (For that matter, but for a different thread: does anyone believe McCain really has a policy vision?) Even in my most generous mood, I cannot find this idea credible. And if she spoke of self-reliance and reducing the size of government, it was because these mantras activated the “sounds like Reagan” synapses among the Dobsonites who also want to be “people who know about worldly politics” — and in the conservative commentariat. Never mind that it is not 1979 any more. She sounded the part. But does anyone on the right really believe that McCain’s choice of Palin means he’s going to defund Medicare (including the prescriptions part Bush just added)? That he will make any serious attempt to balance the budget through spending cuts? Again, I cannot find this credible.
Pavlovian signals are not proposals of substance. They depend on learned response, and McCain is using Palin to try and ride the base’s old habits to victory once more. This is Rove 3.0.
— Donald · Sep 5, 03:03 PM · #
I agree with comletely agree with Donald. And this is a capitulation for McCain to the part of the prepublican party he had the most animosity towards (and visa versa). (It’s got ot be really painful for him. THis is not who hewanted for VP). But this capitualtion, which is now complete, completely reveals this culture war resentment strategy for every non-true believer to see. The contrasts between old McCain and New McCain, between pre Palin McCain and post Palin McCain, are too grating not to notice. You use a strategy enough times and people will eventually begin to recognize it. It may still work but, for sure, McCain has lost the press’s respect. And I think that undecideds—people who are theoretically paying attention—will now see the strategy for what it is and reject it. Because it is not a pretty thing.
So on the whole, I think that it loses this time, as it should. Promoting resentment between americans is harmful to our country. It’s not country first, in anyway.
— cw · Sep 5, 03:26 PM · #
“I agree with comletely agree with Donald.”
New mantra: Blog BEFORE drink. Blog BEFORE drink. Blog BEFORE drink.
— cw · Sep 5, 04:15 PM · #
_But my sense is that Palin was making a case for self-reliance and for smaller government. _
Which is itself a substanceless thing to say. Nobody serious looks at our crumbling infrastructure and escalating fuel and health care costs and concludes the problem here is too much government. It makes good rhetoric, but no logical sense. As opposed to, say, raising taxes on the rich to the levels we had during the Clinton boom.
At the very least, you’d better be prepared to explain exactly what you’re going to cut. And you’d better explain how you want to reconcile “less government” with “all of the above”, when most of the options regarding energy involve bigger government (yes, even nuclear).
— Consumatopia · Sep 6, 03:46 AM · #
In the hills and hollows, up crick and down dale
Throwback revenants gnash teeth and send up a hail
The hicks from the sticks each one and each pair of
with a frenzied howl cry out for darlin’ Ms. Sarah
With a beating of drums and a blare of brass horns
The hillbillies and trailer trash are wailin’ for Palin!
— Steelsil · Sep 6, 08:45 PM · #
I should add that in my view Palin is also a deliberate provocation to Democrats, an attempt to elicit stupid and graceless and unjustified statements like Steelsil’s (bad) poetry. And if it works, in that manner, then they will win.
— Donald · Sep 7, 12:46 AM · #