Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

Exchequer

NRO’s eye on debt and deficits . . . by Kevin D. Williamson.


Print   |  Text
 

A Few Words In Praise of Fear

Today is definitely a love day in my love-hate relationship with the Republicans. A 2,000-page pork-bomb replaced with a one-page continuing resolution? That is some nice work, Senator McConnell.

Other words that do not trip easily from my keyboard: John McCain really pulled it through.

Something has got into the Republican leadership, and that something is: fear. Wonderful, salubrious fear. For this we can thank the Tea Party movement, for several reasons. The first is that, while our European cousins are out rioting in the street for more and more government spending, the one significant, genuinely popular movement afoot in American politics is demanding the opposite. No Washington poobah wants to get yelled at by rowdy constituents at a town-hall meeting back in the district. They really hate that.

Funny what catches the notice of politicians. I was a newspaper editor for years, and I’ve had at least a dozen politicians tell me: “We don’t really give a damn what you write about us in the editorials. We don’t even really read them. But if we start seeing letters to the editor, we notice. Any time one constituent is ticked-off enough to take the time to write a letter, that’s significant. One guy writing a letter means that there are 500 more who agree but don’t take the time to write.” One guy writing a letter represents a few hundred people in the mind of Joe Congressman. Those Tea Party rallies, too, loom a lot larger than the raw numbers would suggest, impressive as those raw numbers have been. Joe Congressman does not want to see that crowd camped out on his doorstep.

The second reason used to dabble in witchcraft. Say what you like about Christine O’Donnell and her incompetent nut-cluster of a campaign, she showed the Republican establishment that the Tea Party, and the fiscally discontent at large, are willing to run a kamikaze candidate against any RINO target of opportunity. And not all of the challengers are going to be O’Donnell-type buffoons. Sharron Angle was a much more serious candidate and ran a much more serious campaign. Pat Toomey chased Arlen Specter out of the Republican party and then put the smackdown on his Democratic opponent — a retired admiral, let’s remember, not some wild-eyed hippie — in the general. Pat Toomey scares the old guard. They do not want to see a dozen Pat Toomeys showing up in Republican primaries next time around. Kay Bailey Hutchison does not want some Stetson-wearing Toomey showing up in her backyard.

The third fear factor is: reality. In Washington and in statehouses around the country, the reality of the pending Fiscal Armageddon is starting to seep into the thick skulls of the elected class. Jerry Brown pronounced himself “shocked” once he got a good peek at California’s balance sheet. Off the record, politicians of both parties are starting to concede that a lot of the old ideological disputes at now moot, because there simply isn’t any money. It’s not a question of whether there are going to be deep cuts and fundamental restructuring, but when and how much.

I do not agree with the David Frums of the world that religious and social conservatives are a net loss for the Right, and I honestly do not much care whether we have a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy or something else. (My own preference is for letting the brass of the various services decide for themselves; the military gets lots of consideration for logistical concerns, in my view.) But here’s what I did notice about that fight: The fact that the Republicans have made spending their line in the sand, and not some relatively inconsequential but symbolically important question about gay soldiers, seems like good news to me. And the Democrats folded, as did the Republican appropriators — they didn’t really try to defend the spending, because the spending is indefensible.

Stopping the omnibus was huge — and if you haven’t read our very fine you-are-there coverage from Costa and Stiles, do read it now. This is a good day for conservatives. We can move  back the hands on the Fiscal Doomsday Clock a full 60 seconds.

– Kevin D. Williamson is deputy managing editor of National Review and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, now available at Amazon.com. You can buy an autographed copy through National Review Online here.

Tags: Debt, Deficits, Despair, Fiscal Armageddon, Hope, Pork

New on Exchequer. . .


COMMENTS   17

EXPAND  

   12/17/10 12:04

"They do not want to see a dozen Pat Toomeys showing up in Republican primaries next time around. Kay Bailey Hutchison does not want some Stetson-wearing Toomey showing up in her backyard."

She does already, Michael Williams.
External Link 

She'll go down in 12!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/10 12:20

Michael Williams is great -- I disagree with him on a lot of things, but he's absolutely right on the flat tax, and he's super smart.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/10 12:23

Dang, Kevin... using words like "salubrious" and expressions like "incompetent nut-cluster."

I've just got to start reading you more often. <hehe>
--
xoP

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/10 13:08

Kevin,

Brilliant post. The part about the kamikaze primary challenges to the RINOS was exactly right. The thing that worries me is can the Tea Party do math? Do they understand that the bargain for cutting spending and cutting the deficit will require an increase in tax revenues?

I still don't know if Tea Party members would cheer if Obama was forced to abolish Medicaid in exchange for increasing tax revenues to 20% of GDP?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/10 13:26

Interesting comments on letters to the editor. My experience is that they're biased, although perhaps somewhat less than editorials. Maybe 20-30% of the conservative letters to the editor I submit are published. But when I submitted one criticizing George Bush (41) it was the award winning letter of the day.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/10 13:47

I voted for Williams for railroad commissioner in past years, but I admit I don't remember much about his positions.

I can't think of the last time a black conservative was running for a major statewide office in Texas (in the general election) on a major party ticket. Liberals would likely be quaking in their boots at the prospect. And it would be hilarious to see the likes of Sheila Jackson-Lee having to campaign against him. It might just make that ridiculous hairdo of hers stand straight up.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
TinyTed
   12/17/10 15:13

"some relatively inconsequential but symbolically important question about gay soldiers"

I suppose it's inconsequential if you aren't in the military and don't have to worry about dealing with the consequences of overturning DADT.

What I have really learned about the undebated DADT question is how little American's really care about their all volunteer force. It's not just a simple question of gays being open. It's complex and it's not being debated. At all. The DOD study was biased. DOD never asked how this will improve or hurt military readiness and effectiveness. They are trying to ram it through without debating the merits. Just like they did with the stimulus and Obamacare.

So I guess if you aren't out there in with the military in Afghanistan or Iraq I suppose it is an inconsequential question.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/10 16:25

Tiny Ted,

My son is a Marine, and he doesn't have a problem with gay Marines. Would anybody have a problem with the following rule:

"No member of the armed services may have a sexual relationship with any other member of the armed services who is in the same chain of command."

Would that make you happy?

This includes heterosexuals and homosexuals. Why anybody should care about someone's innermost sexual urges as long as he doesn't take action on them in the workplace or battlefield is beyond me.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/10 16:50

So money is in, morals are out as your key concerns. You can pick your priorities as you please, but when it comes time to pass out of this world, I'm guessing that order won't mean much. And now's the time to make changes in your priorities, while you still have a chance.

Also, the effectiveness of our military is at stake. Did you know that half of Marines surveyed indicated they'd leave earlier than planned if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly? They might even depart immediately, since this changes their enlistment contract materially. I can tell you, if I was in military family housing and two male homosexual couples were on either side of my house and my kids, I'd be out of the military as fast as I could. This is a big deal, and don't kid yourself.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   12/17/10 17:17

I think DADT is largely symbolic and inconsequential because as soon as DADT was implemented, the question of gays in the military was transformed into a logistical question, not a moral one. That means that DADT was never going to last, that it was always going to be a provisional arrangement. As I wrote, I don't much care about DADT and would be happy to leave the chiefs of the various services to settle the question however they like -- open gays in the military, no gays in the military, whatever, it's just not at the top of my list of concerns. (Your mileage may vary.)

What's significant here is that the GOP did not allow itself to get sidelined by an issue that it did not have the votes to win on and that is, in my opinion, of decidedly secondary importance.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Linds
   12/18/10 09:16

just wait until Congress actually starts to cut programs and budgets (it could happen, really!) - then you will see the affected folks in the streets just like in the UK - people are people...you start taking away things they like and they get cranky, burn a few cars, break some windows, no one is going to like/accept the solution unless it is a SHARED burden, i.e. cut spending across the board.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
jmatt
   12/18/10 13:13

I'm glad to see that the Republicans aren't up to their old tricks: create a media diversion by ginning up some cockamamie social "crisis" (gays, flag burning, stem cell, school prayer, Terri Schiavo, etc etc) as a smokescreen for them growing government from merely huge to sheerly collosal.

It's time for us to stop the bible thumpers from enabling Big Government Republicans. You can have whatever position you want on those subjects, just don't let your social crusades get in the way of restoring Constitutionally limited government.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Xander
   12/18/10 18:43

I think the major problem is the continued Tax cuts. While both parties may be in the beginnings of 'oh we are sooo out of money and screwed' they certainly don't seem to be doing much about it.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Harry Stone
   12/18/10 20:07

I disagree with your position on DADT. I have very few issues which matter to me. Those are defense of America, out of control spending,and our deficit.

At this point, I see no difference between Kirk, Snowe, Collins, Brown et al, than any other progressive in the Senate. If they all lose, that would be more than fine with me.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
txnuke
   12/19/10 11:47

Thanks for the collum, Kevin.

I disagree with you on the importance of Congress "overturning" the policy of "Dont ask dont tell", but maybe not about its RELATIVE importance.

Specifically, in my opinion, this was not an issue of importance to many mainstream gays. Pres Obama and congress made it an issue for PR reasons. Perhaps this is another reason why you called it a "relatively inconsequential but symbolically important question about gay soldiers."

My main gripe is that the entire DOD (including a multitude of civilian bureaucrats) were included in the "Study" on DADT. In my opinion many reasonable (ie, non-activist) gay individuals would rightfully be concerned about a military with openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

But back to more local issues.

Thanks for your insightful observations, for having a wonderful way with words, and for replying to reader comments.

It was news to me that the 2000-page spending bill was replaced by a one-page continuing resolution. Like you, I think that was spectacular, and motivated by the reasons you explained above.

And like you, I hesitate to praise McCain. He seems to want to speak for the Tea Party, which is laughable and looks like more Presidential ambition to me. All I can say is I hope he has no chance for the nomination, even though I would hold my nose and vote for him (or almost anyone) against Obama in 2012.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
jokin
   12/19/10 16:02

El Gipper wrote:

"This includes heterosexuals and homosexuals. Why anybody should care about someone's innermost sexual urges as long as he doesn't take action on them in the workplace or battlefield is beyond me."
___________________________________
Gip, A refutation of your assertion is very simply stated (even your own Marine son would undoubtedly agree)- Pat Buchanan said it succintly: "A mixing of Fire Island Values with Paris Island Values is incompatible in close-quarter battlefield conditions.

Feel-good social engineering and invalid evidentiary polling assertions have no place with our country at war; and it will directly affect combat readiness and unit cohesion and effectiveness- and could well result in unnecessary loss of life.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/03/11 14:15

El Gipper-

Can YOU do math? We CAN get by without raising taxes. Cutting medicaid is a great way to start. Our biggest structural deficit problems are the Entitlements (including Medicare and SS). Those may need reform that includes increasing contributions as well as scaling back the benefits.

Other than that, WHY would we need to raise more tax revenue? Our country got by 6 years ago on less revenue than we take in today, and I personally don't see any programs during those years that deserve to stay at current levels. Across the board.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact