Campaign season is not a time for truth. It’s a time for candidates, the press, and the voters to tell themselves fables.
The Democrats’ fable this year is straightforward: President Obama has been a failure at reviving the economy because the hole dug by George W. Bush and the Republicans was so deep that it will require a second Obama term to fully reverse the damage. Further, the obstructionist Republicans in Congress are blocking the kind of “progressive” reforms, like new taxes on the rich, that would solve our budget and deficit emergencies and boost economic growth.
Advertisement
Democrats fondly imagine that merely taxing the rich will balance the federal budget. A few facts: The president got everything he asked for from the Democratic House and Senate in 2009 and 2010. This included a massive stimulus that was supposed to “create or save” 3.5 million jobs, an elephantine new health-care entitlement, and financial regulation. Since the midterm elections, it is not the Republicans alone who have blocked Mr. Obama. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget resolution since April 29, 2009. In May of 2011, the Senate voted 97 –0 to defeat the president’s budget proposal.
As for taxing “millionaires and billionaires” to solve our budget problems, this is fantasy. As the Wall Street Journal reminds us, even if we confiscated all of the wealth of the richest Americans, we’d net only about $938 billion, “which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy . . . ” Even if we confiscated the wealth of everyone earning more than $200,000, “it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly.”
Republicans are telling themselves fables too. One suggests that the “Republican Establishment” is attempting to foist Mitt Romney on an unwilling electorate, just as it “always” forces Republicans to accept moderate, squishy nominees.
The Republican Establishment, like the “international community,” is more of a figment than a reality. Whom did the so-called establishment support in 2008? Do conservative voters believe that Republican elites somehow engineered the selection of the least loyal and reliable Republican in the U.S. Senate? And how did that work exactly? John McCain was considered the frontrunner in early 2007. Yet by the summer he was languishing in the polls and so broke that he was forced to take out loans. Was it the establishment that earned McCain the nomination or was it the fact that Rudolph Giuliani ran a terrible campaign, Fred Thompson never got airborne, and Mike Huckabee undermined Mitt Romney’s Iowa sling-shot strategy?
What about 2000? Did the establishment pick George W. Bush? It might seem so, based on primogeniture. But the comfort with Bush came from the grassroots up, not from the top down. Bush himself acknowledged that he was enticed to run not by fat cats at a private club but by the polls. Yes, he was certainly aided in the money chase by his pedigree. But if money determined the outcome of primaries, we’d have been treated to the nomination of Phil Gramm in 1996.
Well stated. Romney is ahead in the polls of GOP voters because a plurality of these voters - not some mythical 'Establishment' - believe he has the best chance of beating Obama. We'll know more in 24 hours once these voters have their say. But as always seems to be the case in Iowa, there are other storylines developing that may prove to be more important for the GOP ... External Link
Charen's argument seems to be that, because the Republican establishment isn't omnipotent in bending the party to its will, the establishment isn't real -- it is "more of a figment than a reality."
Isn't this like saying that Fox News is proof that the mainstream media isn't biased toward the left?
This is a strawman.
It's certainly true that individual candidates either help or hurt their campaign, but it's also quite clear to anyone with eyes to see that the Republican elites -- both in office and on the editorial page -- have their distinct preferences, those preferences can differ quite dramatically from the rank and file, and they hold the rank and file in contempt for it. It's clear that they have more of an affinity for the statist, Jacobin elites on the left than they do they do their ostensible allies in flyover country.
More importantly, these elites have not been leading the way in trying to pull this country from the brink. They blame the Tea Party for the supposed recklessness that cost the Republicans from regaining the Senate in 2010, but they fail to credit the Tea Party for putting the Senate in play in the first place. Even now, after the Republicans have almost completely destroyed their credibility as the party of limited government, they largely support the candidate who is in the worst position to argue against the incumbent's most egregious expansion of state power, and they do so for the flimsiest of reasons.
--
An example, concerning the increasingly statist David Frum; he's recently threatened to leave the party if it nominated anyone but Romney or Huntsman, he has argued that it is the Republican Party that is "the party most in need of a course correction," and he believes Tea Partiers are wrong, to a potentially fatal degree, in emphasizing the debt crisis.
Frum's been heading left at least since his departure from NRO in early 2009, and it can be seen in his announcement of what would become Frum Form: he began backpedaling on conservatism's core principles while emphasizing the need for "environmental protection as a core value."
In March 2010, David Frum viciously attacked the motives of Rush Limbaugh, one of the voices that flyover country generally respects, by making the dispicable accusation of deliberately encouraging flawed political tactics for his own personal financial gain.
"When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds."
Conservative bloggers responded by questioning Frum's motives, and a few NRO-niks chimed in, NOT to defend Limbaugh and note that Frum started the personal attacks, but to defend David Frum.
"David may be wrong about the Republicans’ 'Waterloo' but it is simply unfair to impugn his motives..."
"As I said, I disagree with him strongly about the health care bill and the Republican role. I think Republicans did exactly the right thing. But I continue to respect David very deeply and know that he has only the best motives."
I agree that the Republican "establishment" exists...but I don't believe that it plays a significant role in selecting presidential candidates. It plays a role in determining how to allocate RNC campaign funds to various candidates, committee selection and party platform, but when it comes to choosing a candidate, I believe that the conservative media is the "establishment". And I have seen no evidence of a clear bias toward Romney. Yes, several NRO authors have endorsed him...but Rush is clearly opposed to him, as are a number of other syndicated talk show hosts. These pundits reach a far broader audience of Republican voters than does NRO.
Standing ovation, Lawrence. Those who make their money in the beltway (Charen, Krauthammer, etc.) tend to pooh-pooh the idea that there even is a beltway mindset — or simply don’t notice that mindset in themselves. I mean, defend that point of view if you will, but to try to deny it away is to basically prove the point that it exists.
One way to understand the divide between what is often called “the political class” vs. everyone else is that the political class (whether talking Democrats, Republicans, or some columnists) thinks they know best.
On the other hand, Tea Party people tend to talk about von Mises and Hayek and Reagan. They understand the idea that freedom, not collectivism (even a collective of the elite), is the engine and goodness of our country.
The mindset of better-than-thou can run deep. I profess no particular wisdom myself other than that we know that any kind of intelligentsia is particularly poor at running people’s lives. Again, I’ll recommend one of the best books written of late, Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Society.” A few columnists would do well to read it.
I am constantly amazed at how little credit the GOP gives to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party - the very ones who rescued them from impending irrelevance.
"Brilliantly put"? "Standing ovation"? "Bravo"? Sounds like you dummies have found your candidate...Lawrence, the darkest horse in history. President Lawrence! Because he agrees with us. You dodos need a reality check. Lawrence is a dope and so are you. Oh? I'm sorry, someone may be counting insults again. Let's see, I count ten. Pretty good, don't you think? And so richly deserved...whoops! There's another one.
Sounds like you are the only one who needs a "reality check..." Seems like the dodo here is YOU, since you see fit to insult and not provide a serious counter argument. I take it you are simply content to carry the water for the NRO and not call them out on a serious misreading of reality.... It's cool that you may believe "Romney is the only one who can win," or how about, "Romney cool and collected," or "Romney the presidential," or "Romney the serious candidate.... All of which I've heard the think tanks espouse. Crap!
Excuse me for not jumping on the jedi-mind trick, "There's no establishment here...," Charen bandwagon, when everything up to this point has been proof otherwise.
Brilliantly put Lawrence. There is a Republican establishment and right now they hold the power strings of the Party. There's a struggle going on between Liberal-lite and conservatives.
That's why the conservative/Tea Party victories were, and are, so important. Every election we win further erodes their power. Eventually, we will defeat them or make them so irrelevant they haven't the numbers to block real reforms in DC. The American people knew the 2010 mid-term elections were the beginning, not the end of this long fight. For this country to survive we must continue to forge ahead. I think it is hilarious to say Romney hasn't been pumped and promoted by the Beltwayers- even here on the NRO...
Ms. Charen drinks the establishment Kool-Aid. The CINOs at NRO are now shoving RINO Romney down the party's throat. Oh well four more years of Obama and a four year search for another bland establishment loser.
I agree with everything Lawrence wrote. Looks to me like Mona is a wee bit peeved because of all the negative comments she gets with her 'defend the establishment, even though it doesn't exist' articles.
I wonder if the reason these people all fall all over themselves for people like romney and huntsman is that they have been in DC so long that they are out of touch with reality? I believe that Mark Steyn is correct when he encourages those who seek to become journalists to alsob e good at producing real things - to learn a trade and how to work with their hands. Otherwise it seems that they loose touch with the real world and become part of the government establishment. How else does one explain away the fact that they all support candidates (Romney or O) who are rushing us headlong into third world status or have no plans to do the cutting and chopping required to prevent said decline?
Curious.
Thank you, Lawrence. Yes, the punditocracy failed in their attempts to force GHWB on the party in 1980 and in their Romney boosting in 2008. But that doesn't mean those efforts didn't take place! As of course the establishment succeeded in giving us Bush in 2000, Dole in 1996, Bush in 1988, Ford above Reagan in 1976, etc.
The view from inside the establishment is like that, however. Looking out from the inside, you don't see anyone trying to dominate the discussion. You're too busy doing it yourself to detect it. And of course like most people who get their way almost all the time, they scream bloody murder the 20% of the time when they don't.
I have two words in response to this column - Karl Rove.
Watch and listen to Rove (if your stomach can bear it), and you see the personification of the Republican Establishment, in my opinion. He is given a ridiculous amount of airtime on Fox and by Hannity (who, despite his insistence at being a conservative, has never proven to be anything but a Republican shill), and never fails to take not-so-subtle shots at any candidate that might pose a threat to his, and the establishment Republican, power base.
Rove, to me, is represents everything that is wrong in politics today. He is far from alone in that distinction, but the mere sight or sound of him gives me the type of queasy feeling you get from the most slimy, creepy salesman. Why he is seen as a trusted source by *anyone* with regard to choosing the Republican nominee, is beyond me.
It has come to the point where, if Rove is against it, I'm for it with regard to the direction of the Republican party or any candidates. That's a pretty safe rule of thumb.
Karl Rove was effective in crafting Bush's two campaigns, but it was all tactics at the expense of strategy AND principle. It was get-out-the-vote and sell out fiscal conservatism to squeak by clodding leftists who shouldn't have come so close to winning.
The cost was the near ruination of the entire party AND -- much worse -- the nation and its fiscal integrity. Bush's feckless spending paved the way for Obama's election and his volcanic spending.
The Left hates Rove because he was effective, but the Left's hatred is no proof that Rove's a principled conservative.
On the contrary, if the Left is going to hate us no matter what we do, we might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. We might as well run on principles that are worth the fight.
I always laugh at the asinine "Architect" moniker, as Hannity continues to mindlessly refer to him. as if there is some sort of impressive achievement attached to it other than, as you say, squeaking out two elections against a pair of nitwits.
The only thing Rove is the "Architect" of is the beginning of the disaster we currently find ourselves in as a country, and practically rolling out the red carpet for the mess that currently occupies the White House.
It doesn't follow logically that because a tax increase on the upper brackets won't solve the entire budget problem that NO increase wouldn't help -- say from 35% to 39%, as it was when we had a reasonable deficit.
Mr. Spenser, you are ignoring the microeconomic effects of higher taxes.
Perhaps you "don't believe in microeconomics?"
Neither does the current President. Look where that's gotten us.
Since the drop in taxes on the rich had nothing to do with the creation of the deficit, why should raising it be a mandatory pre-condition for fixing the deficit?
The Fed Gov is currently borrowing ~40% of every dollar it spends. How much of a dent do you think changing the tax rate from 35% to 39% on one set of individuals will actually make? Is the difference between 35% and 39% anywhere close to the difference between the ~$.60 taken in and the $1.00 spent?
Yeah, sure, sure, the "GOP Establishment" doesn't exist. Mitt was their OBVIOUS crowned winner from day one. Every single Conservative that has risen to the top has been hacked down and chopped to pieces by the Establishment, including this publication, the NRO. Their whole goal: divide the party base, the Conservative votes, thereby boistering the GOP Establishment choice, Romney. This stupid prank though, has given rise to an even graver threat this country (particularily the national security of the US), by the name of Ron Paul. Thanks GOP Establishement. If he stays high, but doesn't win the early primaries.... my bet? He'll run as a third party candidate. And then you can say hello to another 4 more years of BO's disastrous policies.
Follow
