Click here for participant bios.
Tucker, Ross, Jim, Kathleen, and Christine
Missing: A GOP Philosophy of Governance
Thanks, Jim, for your response. To clarify, I don't actually believe that thoughtful Republicans, as opposed to the Ron Paul acolytes who wandered in and out of the party from the libertarian guesthouse, understand taxation to be theft. But you have to admit that all the hyperbolic caricature of Obama's middle-class tax reform as socialism during the last weeks of the McCain campaign could be misleading. That said, I'm a bit mystified to know what the difference is between modest relief to the poor and outright wealth redistribution, unless the last reference is to Bush's high-end tax cuts and the first is to the way the middle class was treated during the last eight years.
I take it, Jim, you do not dissent from my suggestion that the Republicans exhibit good sense and good will by facilitating the prompt confirmation of the new president's executive appointees. In terms of cooperating with the substantive program put forth by the Democrats: I think that should be determined on the merits rather than partisan label. It's one thing to improve the delivery of health services to the uninsured; it is quite another just to ignore the needs of the uninsured. If Republicans have a better idea for meeting these needs, it should be brought forward. But since John McCain was purveying an idea that would only aggravate the number of uninsured, I didn't think there was anything in the Republican idea cabinet at the moment.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponAs for the 1980s, my reference to the need for collective action in the domestic sphere being modest was from my vantage point within the Reagan administration as President Reagan's constitutional lawyer. Clearly, the Gipper didn't think the Department of Education or the Department of Energy ought to have been created in the first place, and there was a good deal of talk then of scaling back the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Health and Human Services. (Though little was downsized.) I do give the Reagan administration credit for moderating somewhat the rate of domestic spending—which of course was part of the genius of the deficits necessitated by the military buildup. I do think military contracting, then and now, to be wholly inflated and often done on a no-bid basis, and that's not snide; it's just an unfortunate fact. For an example of how unfortunate, see a good many of the public-works projects that the American people have paid for and that remain horribly incomplete or shoddily finished in Iraq. That said, even though we paid dearly, the purchase of military armament did facilitate the freedom of others around the world.
As I remember, one of the linchpins of Reaganomics was taking control of the rather dramatic early 1980s inflation. (At one point I had a mortgage with a 14 percent rate.) Those rates were wrestled to a more accommodating number by a very tight-fisted money supply. Some government efficiencies were achieved by the repackaging of government block grants.
In any event, all this reminiscing about the Reagan administration does not speak to our main charge: putting the Republican Party back together. One needs a philosophy of governance in addition to honoring the constitutional structure. Barack Obama's philosophy of government provides service for needs unmet by the market. And the Republicans' philosophy?
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)