Jonah Goldberg on the New Reformers
From The Corner:
One reason why the Limbaugh faction is so strident on much of this stuff is that they/we gave the reformers a shot under Bush. And look at what it got us. And on an emotional level, I find it understandable.
When did Limbaugh and co. turn against Bush? Was it in 2004, when it was clear that the domestic policy agenda had lost its legs? My understanding is that movement conservatives, Limbaugh included, were still pretty enthusiastic at that point. I was not, and a large number of anti-war libertarians had also soured on Bush. But I wonder if it was Bush’s “reformism” that turned them off, or if it was in fact Bush’s political failure. Had immigration reform proved a huge political winner, would Limbaugh and co. have been as hostile to Bush? Maybe. These are principled guys.
But what if Bush put immigration reform to the side and pursued a reformist health care deal (which he did, kind of) before taking onSocial Security and thus achieved a big political win? Would Limbaugh and co. have turned against Bush under this scenario, or would they claim credit for a conservative success?
Brooks, Frum and others were very enthusiastic about the Bush administration at one time. Now, the argument sometimes seems like the Reaganites are to blame for innovations they never championed, while the would-be innovators are abandoning ship at precisely the moment the GOP needs all hands on deck.
Wait a second … it seems to that the small government conservatives are the ones who were still wildly enthusiastic about Bush in 2004 — even after Medicare Part D. I worked for David Brooks in 2004, and I can’t say he was “very enthusiastic” about the Bush administration at that point. He wanted a big Republican push on reauthorizing welfare reform. It never happened. He wanted lots of movement on “reformist” agenda items that never happened. And lest we forget all of Bush’s cynical maneuvers on trade, which reformists and purists both opposed. It’s also worth noting that Brooks and Frum are both idiosyncratic figures who hardly agree with each other about everything, but that goes without saying. Jonah is clearly making a point about atmospherics, and I get it.
All the while, John McCain is even more of a New Reformer type than Bush.
McCain may be “a New Reformer type” — but where are the New Reforms? Domestic policy has hardly And of course there is the difference between upper-middle-reformism and lower-middle-reformism, a distinction that I know Jonah finds silly, but that makes sense. McCain wanted to “reform” (i.e., overregulate) campaign finance. The New Disraelites want to reform health care. There’s a big difference. McCain wants cap and trade and Frum wants a carbon tax. Yuval and Ross and I want an environmental and energy policy that works for working families. Being a New Reformer type doesn’t really mean much. Again, the New Reformers aren’t about sticking it to the “agents of intolerance” — that’s the agenda of the Republicans for Obama. Nor are New Reformers about good government causes that move people inside the Beltway — New Reformers are, as Yuval has explained, interested in reforms that will help middle class parents move ahead.
But because some of these folks think Sarah Palin is George W. Bush in a dress, they can’t even back the guy at the top of the ticket in a race against the most leftwing president in — at least — a generation.
Well, this really does vary across different thinkers. We are, as Jonah understands very well, talking about a slew of different, sometimes squabbling personalities.
I am very sympathetic to what Ross, Ramesh, Yuval & Co. want to do, at least when it comes to the policy details. But if they or others in their camp are going to make an argument for a new “vision thing” (as poppa Bush liked to say), I think it is incumbent upon the New Reformers (or the New Disraelites as I sometime like to say) to explain how what they want to do is different from what Bush tried, and why it will get better results. I think there’s a good explanation to be made, but it needs to be made.
I think Ross and I do a solid job of that in Grand New Party, but there’s more to come, of course. I also want to emphasize — I don’t think there’s anything that odd or interesting about what the New Reformers want to do, which is why I think capes aren’t called for. We’re just saying that: Americans care about health care, education, jobs, and the cost of living. So we should talk about these things, not just taxes and national security. And when we talk about these things that people care about, we should offer conservative policies that are relevant and realistic. I would prefer a world in which a universal voucher system replaces public schools. That world will not come to pass in my lifetime, so let’s talk about the weighted student formula and Swedish-style charter laws, etc. Fortunately, core conservative policies — like free trade and free labor markets — help deliver a lower cost of living and value for money. Republicans have a weak brand at the moment, but reform conservatives are working with a solid intellectual foundation.
Do you know what I absolutely love about my country?
That we are electing a mixed race president that comes from a sometime single parent family where his mom got up every morning at 4:30 am to review his classwork.
And that Reihan Salam is currently the brightest star in the sparse firmament of the republican braintrust.
;)
— matoko_chan · Nov 5, 12:03 AM · #
Bush executed his reform plan perfectly: to increase consumption and home-ownership among Sam’s Club Voters through easier credit. From 2002-2004, he waged war on down payments on home purchases, since he saw them as the chief barrier against his goal of increasing minority home ownership by 5.5 million households. He made sure federal regulators knew he hated down payments. Thus, the percent of first time home buyers in California, the black hole at the heart of the mortgage meltdown, who put no money down increased from 7% in 2000 to 41% in 2006. The mortgage dollars flowing to Hispanic home purchasers increased from 1999 to 2006 by an incredible 691%.
The problem was that Bush and Rove had no effective ideas about how to raise the earning capacity of Sam’s Club voters. The only plan was for them to buy lots of McMansions, big TVs, and rims using IOUs to rich financial institutions.
How’d that work out for everybody concerned?
— Steve Sailer · Nov 5, 01:51 AM · #
Worked out pretty good for the Halfblood Prince, huh, Steve?
— matoko_chan · Nov 5, 02:04 AM · #
Pudding isn’t the solution to my problems, pudding is the problem.
— The Pilsbury Dough Boy · Nov 5, 03:13 AM · #
“I would prefer a world in which a universal voucher system replaces public schools”
When I read that sentence I realized that I had never seen any actual details about how vouchers would be enacted nation-wide. Is there somewhere where someone you approve of (or you yourself) explains exactly how this would work? The details of the transition from public school to vouchers, how students are transported to the schools of their choice so they really have a choice, where the funding originates (local, state, feds?), what happens to unpopular schools, etc…
— cw · Nov 5, 04:55 AM · #
I have been against vouchers, in part becasue I have not seen where they solved any of the important education problems that we face in the places where they experimented with them. But mostly—and I admit I’m predjudiced—because hard core conservatives have such a jones for them. I have a very low degree of trust that hardcore conservatives have the good of all our disparate collections of citizens in mind when they propose their sweeping policy changes. Like the Bush taxcuts. They were very good for a certain segment (guess who), but but harmed the vast majority, at least in term of the increased national debt.
But again, I realize that I have never seen the detailed plan, so I may be off on vouchers.
— cw · Nov 5, 05:10 AM · #
Who are the New Disraelites? A google search gives this page as the top hit.
— Justin · Nov 5, 05:36 AM · #
Actually, Rush gave a fairly impassioned monologue on his show the day the Medicare prescription rug bill passed (03?). He ripped Bush for trying to be Clinton, co-opting the other party’s agenda in an effort to destroy it. He warned that selling out conservatism’s soul would work not work out well for the party.
— Chris · Nov 5, 06:44 AM · #
Goldberg is a propagandist pure and simple. He spins whatever the line is at the time, no relation to principle. All through 2001-04, he was calling Bush Reagan’s true heir and praising him to the skies. By 2007, when it was obvious that Bush’s approval rating was permanently in the dumps, he was frantically spinning to try to keep him and his friends from being blamed for the disastrous Bush presidency. It’s that simple.
— mq · Nov 5, 08:52 AM · #
“Fortunately, core conservative policies — like free trade and free labor markets — help deliver a lower cost of living and value for money. “
Unfortunately they also tend to deliver lower wages for lower skilled Americans. Since the non-college educated now seem to be the core of the Republican party, there is some tension here that your solid intellectual foundation is coming to have to deal with.
— Steven Donegal · Nov 5, 05:27 PM · #
Read this election as a repudiation of the failure of Republican policy to maintain an America where the middle class could do better each generation. Really, the right says one thing then does the opposite, it is never anything that gives good results to the middle class.. If you can give rich guys and corporations big breaks why can’t you give regular people some breaks. The math doesn’t work out, let alone all that pesky talk about democracy and equality and government for and by the people. Instead we’ve seen the right use their mandate to only help the wealthy and misuse their power to help themselves. Then there is the hideous political dialogue ushered in by the religious intolerant and the Roves & Lamebaughs. Stoke your hate and bile, make it ugly! Don’t deny it, we’ve all heard the mob’s racist and hateful rants and death threats during the McCain rallies (which he didn’t have the respect , integrity or dignity to stop!). Katrina was the wake up call to this nation that Republicans don’t give a damn about anyone outside their base. It was a real demonstration of the so called compassionate conservatism you touted so long. That was when you started losing ground. Be more extreme and be more religious. See how much the country has a taste for that. Poor McCain gave up all his integrity to pander to your mean nasty intolerant base. And for what? Where are you hiding that big tent? Conservatism used to mean fiscal responsibility and GOOD government or don’t they teach that in Sunday school or home school? Maybe you should pray in the wilderness awhile. Learn the concept of atonement. Then apologize to the country for the shit you’ve done (stock crash, Osama still free, 2 mismanaged wars, Katrina, TORTURE IN AMERICA BY AMERICANS, constitutional violations, obscene DEFICITS!, job losses, housing crisis, credit crisis, actually way too much to list here). And Sarah… we the other REAL AMERICANS have spoken! We love our country just as much as you conservatives(if you really do – because republicans have been very bad to the USA lately) and we don’t like what you lot have done to our beloved USA.
— CAH · Nov 5, 07:39 PM · #
A voucher system???Thats what you bring up??Not how do we attract better teachers?You dont care that MOST of our kids are taught MATH and SCIENCe by teachers who dont even have degrees in the subject?That many schools no longer have art or music and sports are now pay as you go?No wonder we have such a dismal graduation rate,your tax policies have sucked all the joy of learning and left nothing but drudgery for kids.At a time when we need to be producing the best and brightest with the most competative skills.I now meet single men who resent having to pay taxes to public schools because its not THEIR KIDS!They call themselves “independents“because the republicans havent gone far enough to get rid of taxes!Your party has created the most selfish, shortsighted,ignorant hordes imaginable.You have been left with delusional skinheads like “joe the not a plumber but a handy man’who although he only makes $40,000 a year care more about the fantasy life where he makes $250,000.He also has been on welfare{see interview on fox}but hates paying taxes for that same safty net when working.Not to mention S.S.Your poisonous philosophy of selfishness and greed have collapsed like the hope for good jobs and college educations for OUR kids.Good riddens!You can keep the south{we should have let it go}and alaska{ #1 in rape and insest}you should feel very comfy in their company!
— truthynesslover · Nov 5, 07:41 PM · #
Unfortunately the far right of the conservative movement in the broadest sense, that it to say social values and economic conservatives, are effectively in control of the GOP at just about every level both in terms of political representation and the organizational apparatus. And it goes beyone that into the myriad think tanks like Heritage, AEI etc and the pundit classes who articulate the message in the media. The problem with all this is that the process of polarisation and demonisation has left them in thrall to a set of beliefs which are either flawed to a greater or lesser extent or in some cases total myths. This does not provide a very secure framework for moving the party forward and they are going to find this out when the come up against the resurgent liberals.
— John · Nov 5, 10:58 PM · #
Paul krugman sums it up best;
November 5, 2008, 8:25 am
The monster years
Last night wasn’t just a victory for tolerance; it wasn’t just a mandate for progressive change; it was also, I hope, the end of the monster years.
What I mean by that is that for the past 14 years America’s political life has been largely dominated by, well, monsters. Monsters like Tom DeLay, who suggested that the shootings at Columbine happened because schools teach students the theory of evolution. Monsters like Karl Rove, who declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to terrorists. Monsters like Dick Cheney, who saw 9/11 as an opportunity to start torturing people.
And in our national discourse, we pretended that these monsters were reasonable, respectable people. To point out that the monsters were, in fact, monsters, was “shrill.”
Four years ago it seemed as if the monsters would dominate American politics for a long time to come. But for now, at least, they’ve been banished to the wilderness.
The monsters lost to hope!Even the bigots couldnt afford to vote for MCCain!And since the young people dont care about race your appeal to racism wont work anymore.And good for you creating the uproar over illegal immigration. The hispanic vote?Gee I wonder where they will go?Its too bad you had to destroy the world economy before you went off to your gated villas in dubia,thanks for that!
— ian · Nov 5, 11:50 PM · #
Ian,
During the campaign, Karl Rove criticized John McCain’s use of negative ads and focus on issues like William Ayers. He warned McCain that it would divide and alienate the public while it would look as if he was avoiding the issues. Today, Rove said that when Obama gets into office the Republican minority shouldn’t pick a fight with him or block everything he tries to get through. Instead he wants them to be a loyal opposition, working with the Democrats but only opposing them when there’s a principle at stake. Rove said he might have voted for Obama himself if he thought he was ready for office.
When Rove is on television he looks like a soft-spoken, mild mannered person with an analytical mind.
Maybe these people aren’t the monsters progressives make them out to be. Maybe they’re human just like everyone else and sometimes say things that are wrong just like everyone else.
Paul Krugman might see Obama’s victory as a victory for his beliefs and his agenda, but I doubt Obama thinks Karl Rove is a monster.
— redfish · Nov 6, 02:23 AM · #
Speaking of monsters;
NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin’s shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus.
According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent “tens of thousands” more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.
You people almost put THIS GRIFTER A HEARTBEAT AWAY
— truthynesslover · Nov 6, 02:57 AM · #
Mr.redfish,When the vice president has a gay daughter,whos married with a child and carl rove has a stepdad hes close to,to then use hatred and fear of gay people as a rouse to get out the bigots to vote…what then does it take to concider one a monster in your party?
— ian · Nov 6, 08:12 AM · #
Ian,
Dick Cheney, amid his myriad sins, is not an anti-gay bigot and he has never ran for office or presented himself in public in that manner. That may well be his only virtue, but he can claim it.
Also, even if it were otherwise, the term you want is “hypocrite” not “monster”.
— JonF · Nov 11, 03:13 AM · #
so I guess hes both!
monster;
any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.
a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.
any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people.
hypocrite;
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
I cant wait for the crimes against humanity trials.
— truthynesslover · Nov 13, 08:28 AM · #