Click here for participant bios.
Doug and I appear to have read Christine's first post somewhat differently.
Doug begins his reaction by saying:
Christine's thoughtful post with the reference to the "common good" is right on target, and I believe it answers her initial question about redistribution. No, phrased that way, America will see it as "theft"; indeed, it is commonplace for some Republicans to view all taxation as theft.
I'm sure the last phrase is technically correct, in that at least two Republicans in this vast country "view all taxation as theft." But I don't think that this opinion characterizes more than a tiny minority of Republicans (or conservatives).
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponEconomic conservatives believe in limited government and low taxes, accepting that "limited" and "low" vary by circumstance and are subject to lots of prudential debate. Further, economic conservatives (and presumably most rational people) believe that whatever tasks we properly delegate to the government should be executed efficiently and effectively. This view—a government with limited tasks that it performs very well—seems to be Christine's vision. It's certainly mine.
Any real-world government requires taxes. The people who have a lot of money will end up paying a share of these taxes disproportionate to their numbers under any nontyrannical regime. Further, any just real-world government will have at least some poor relief, by whatever name, for those unable to care for themselves. Therefore, at least some mild redistribution will be an incidental byproduct of a just and well-functioning government. Accepting these practical realities is very different from actual advocacy of redistribution as good in and of itself.
I think that one of Christine's points is that this week's election does not provide good evidence that the American electorate supports redistribution of wealth as a government policy. I think she's right about that.
Doug goes on to say:
But America is genuinely tired of the notion that "government is the problem." That was Reagan's line, and it worked because the need for collective action during most of the '80s was small, except for the military buildup (or, if you will, redistribution to military contractors).
Well, I remember the 1980s, and I don't seem to recall many on the left arguing that the "need for collective action was small" in domestic policy at the time. It seems like a pretty breathtaking thing to assert flatly and in passing; perhaps Doug can provide some evidence for what made the 1980s different from prior and subsequent decades in this respect.
Describing the Reagan military buildup as "redistribution for military contractors" strikes me as snide and uniformed, unless one believes that the actual intention and result of spending on the military buildup was not to contribute to the defeat of global totalitarianism, which is a point of view that Doug seems to directly contradict when he goes on to call this "money well spent."
Doug then says:
To what extent are Republicans prepared to collaborate with their Democratic counterparts to refine, as opposed to obstruct, reform and regulation of the financial markets, for example? … [T]he GOP can earn back some good will simply by improving Democratic health care and other initiatives with our cost-benefit know-how. … In short, without a big show of claiming credit, it should be our aim to improve needed regulatory initiatives undertaken by the Obama administration, rather than just obstructing them.
There is no better way to express this spirit of cooperation than by giving great deference to the new president's nominees for the executive. … [T]he GOP should guarantee a hearing, committee vote, and floor action in no more than a two-week process.
Without going into the details here, proper regulation of financial markets is not necessarily the same thing as "pretty much whatever Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank want, with some tinkering around the edges."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but Doug's overall post reads to me as saying more or less this: "Look, conservatives just need to accept that the American people have rendered the judgment that conservatives are wrong on the important issues of the day, and surrender to the popular will embodied by President-elect Obama and the Democratic Congress." If so, I respectfully disagree.
News of the World Hush-Money Scandal: How Much Did Rupert Murdoch Know?
Obama's Nominee for NIH Chief Is an Evangelical Christian. And That's OK.
It's Way Too Soon To Call the Stimulus a Failure
I'm Having a Dinner To Celebrate My Divorce
Can the Kid Who Settled Child-Abuse Claims With Michael Jackson Finally Speak Out?
Fake News You Can Dance To
I was floored by Douthat's response to Kmiec, especially by the arrogance it took to call him an idiot with such a convoluted, faux-academic tone.
Knowing nothing about Douthat's views, I can only say that he sounds like the sort of pro-life hardliner that sees no other issue as important. The reason that Roe has not been struck down is simple; someone who wants to criminalize an activity that half the population does not see as criminal has a tough row to hoe. I don't know anyone who loves abortions, or who wants there to be more of them. But hawks like Douthat think nothing is acceptable short of an outright ban, which means that when his allies are in the White House, noting gets done to reduce the need for abortions.
Just because Obama is staunchly pro-choice does not mean that he has nothing to offer Catholics on the issue. On a personal note, I live in a strongly Catholic European country, where abortion on-demand is legal. Catholic groups do not wring their hands trying to get clinics shut down, or to demonize abortion practitioners. They merely offer help and alternatives to those finding themselves in unwanted pregnancies, as well as education on how to avoid them. It's a pragmatic approach that I believe most pro-lifers in America are starting to see as preferable to another 30 yars of deadlock because of their hardline position.
--Junggai
(To reply, click here.)
Tucker, I realize you have to think in terms of political philosophies, but most Americans are not ideologues. The only reason for most people to vote is to improve their own individual lives. They vote with their wallets and their hearts. They balance personal pragmatism with their personal feelings about the likeability and trustworthiness of candidates. […]
The GOP's next presidential horse could win by speaking in tongues, if individual Americans could only believe they would make their lives better. If you want the GOP to survive, try dropping the unproductive ideology, regulation of social issues, and the promotion of enemies. […]
Show average Americans, the great middle of the voting bell curve, a plan for making their personal lives better. From their viewpoint, the great Left/Right political divide that defines your professional career doesn't actually matter.
--whitehat
(To reply, click here.)
Is this The Onion? Is Slate staging some sort of high-minded comedic prank by letting their guest conservative writers become caricatures of exactly what they are trying to address?
Hilarious Irony aside, you blogging heads are inadvertently pinpointing the exact problem with Republicanism right now - the party has focused way too much on how to market their policies, and has ignored the actual substance and content thereof.
Instead of thinking about "how do we sell this hooey to voters?" maybe you should think about upgrading your product. Message management is all well and good, but when the message and the product become one-and-the-same, that's when you know you have a problem. […]
The republicans didn't offer any solutions this election. They tried to run on a platform of change, which meant running on a platform that was nearly identical to Bush's, but under the title of "maverick." Americans do love some good advertising, but c'mon, we've got to get something similar to what is advertised.
Only when you folks figure out the disconnect between creating policy and selling policy, will the republicans win again.
Until then, be my guest to keep fighting amongst yourselves like infants.
--jwschmidt
(To reply, click here.)
I think some of us are really tired of arguing with people about abortion and are ready to move on. IMO, we lost this argument long ago. For whatever reason, the majority of people in America want to keep abortion legal, so we need to work within that framework. Who knows? If enough of us organize, maybe we can hold Obama's feet to the fire on his statement to reduce abortions and respect the sanctity of life.
--Ripley
(To reply, click here.)
"Once the party figures out what it's for—or more precisely, against—it ought to stick to its story. People respect principle, even if they disagree with it."
I don't know about that. When you define your big tent as being united in opposition to something, don't you just come off as being a bunch of haters? The problem with making "out of the frying pan" into the basis of one's political ideology is that a thoughtful person could realize that "into the fire" fulfills the letter of your platform. But I guess the main problem that I have with a party defining what it's against as a means of tying itself together is that I've never been sure that I wouldn't find myself as being one of the Despised Other when it became politically expedient.
--Lyger
(To reply, click here.)
(11/08)