- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Issues
- Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Magazine Archives
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Answering Kristol
Mark Tapscott at The Copy Desk today takes on Bill Kristol's odd paean to the oxymoron that is and always will be Big Government Conservativism. Unlike a lot of people who were conservatives even before Reagan was elected, I always have been and remain a big fan of Kristol's. I think he is a good man who overall has contributed mightily to the conservative cause. But for the reasons very well explained by Tapscott today, Kristol is wrong as wrong can be in his diagnosis. This is worth a whole essay, not just a blog post, but the short response is that Kristol, like almost every other member of the media elite, utterly misrepresents the success of "small government conservatism" in the few times it has been tried -- and misrepresents, or more precisely does an evasive maneuver, when talking about what happened to the "Gingrich Revolution" in 1995 and 1996. As I was there right in the middle of it, successfully helping shape the public message in the winter and spring of 1995 for what turned into $50 billion of actual (not projected) savings in just two years, this chaps me, no end.
When we actually governed as careful stewards of the public fisc, cut domestic discretionary spending, reformed welfare, and balanced the budget, we won. When we abandoned fiscal conservativism, we started losing. The Medicare fight Kristol mentions is a red herring: Yes, of course we lost the Medicare battle in the winter of 1995 and 1996, but that is because we muddied our message, let tactics get ahead of (and utterly undermine) our strategy, chose the wrong ground to fight on, and played a funeral dirge when we were supposed to be blowing a trumpet (or, at times, when we were supposed to be playing no music at all but merely guiding a discussion in patient tones while doing a lot of listening).
As I said, a more extensive explanation awaits a full-length column, but for now, let me throw in my lot with Tapscott, and ask the often wise Mr. Kristol to reconsider.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Iran in Turmoil
Is the Obama administration doing a good job handling the aftermath of the election in Iran?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Bob| 12.9.08 @ 11:23AM
Quin, the issue is not big vs. limited/small government, the issue is much more pragmatic -- how to get elected. The Republican party is shrinking. It is composed almost totally of whites and most of them are older. The growing segments of the population -- the young, Hispanic, black -- do not remember the Reagan years and see big government as the standard. They can't imagine a world where government does less. You are not going to convince these segments of the merits of small/limited government. It is sheer stupidity to believe otherwise.
The other factor affecting this is the increasing disparity between the rich and the poor and the fact that disposable income for the middle class is declining, not increasing. As disposable income levels decrease, the people are going to be looking for more from government. Furthermore, most people don't make the distinction between state and federal government. Only ideologues see the difference. In addition, ideologues also talk about federal income taxes as separate, when most people just look at their total tax burden because that's what comes out of their checks every two weeks. They don't distinguish between federal, state, FICA, medicare and disability -- they are all taxes. Many of those taxes are regressive, not progressive. So taxation arguments don't have the bite they used to have.
If you want to continue to lose elections, then surely stick to your ideological underpinnings and promote a social conservative agenda only. (Social and neo-conservatives, by the way, actually want big government to do more for their specific concerns which weakens your argument.)
Kristol, Frum, Will, Brooks, Parker, etc., are talking about winning elections. You are talking about an ideological purity that will cause the party to lose elections.
Quin Hillyer| 12.9.08 @ 12:10PM
Bob,
I daresay I know more about winning elections than you will ever know. Been there, done that. Many times. Then again, the goal isn't just to win; the goal is to win IN ORDER TO ADVANCE one's philosophy. Otherwise, it's just a game. I'm not playing games. I'm trying to best serve my country.
Bob| 12.9.08 @ 4:13PM
Yes, Quin, you surely know more about winning elections than me -- no argument there. However, if you don't win, you can't advance your philosophy. In real life, there is usually a trade-off between how much you are willing to compromise in order to win and how much you stick precisely with your principles. I am pro-choice, but I would certain vote for a Romney or Jindal because I agree with them on most other issues. That is NOT playing games, but making an informed judgment based on my priorities. I would not vote for a Palin because I believe we need smart, knowledgeable people in the White House even though I may agree with her on some conservative principles. Pure competence is at the top of my list.
I am also trying to best serve my country and I don't take kindly to your inference otherwise.
But tell me, if your philosophy leads to Democrats being elected for the next couple of decades implementing Supreme Court picks you don't like and making government bigger, was your rigidity worthwhile?
William R| 12.9.08 @ 5:12PM
Kristol has never been a conservative. Back in 2004 he said "I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right. If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."
There you have it. Kristol only cares about fighting endless wars in the Middle East. Send the NeoCons back to their natural home, the Democrat party.
Paul E. More| 12.9.08 @ 5:31PM
William R is right of course. How has Kristol been an ally of conservatives, either the traditional cultural value kind or the libertarian free market small government kind?
Kristol was wrong on the Iraq war.
Kristol was wrong on immigration and amnesty.
Kristol is wrong on the issue of “big government.”
Kristol is wrong and weak on social and value issues.
Kristol is wrong on (he likes) FDR, LBJ, JFK etc.
Conservatives will make a comeback when they ditch Kristol and Neocons like him and go to a populist conservative agenda of stopping illegal immigration/no amnesty; reducing legal immigration; a realist foreign policy that puts the national interest first, not democracy promotion; adopting a trade and tax policy that creates jobs in the United States and puts the national economy before the “global economy.”
Ran Hay| 12.9.08 @ 6:03PM
"However, if you don't win, you can't advance your philosophy.
May I point out that Reagan won precisely because (...wait for it, Bob...) he advanced his philosophy. Over the objections of a hostile GOP elite and a uniformly hostile media establishment, the American public heard him loud and clear.
He followed it by courageous and forthright action at every opportunity once he was elected.
Look, you should know that - you've claimed you'd voted for Reagan. Then again...
Bob| 12.10.08 @ 8:58AM
Ran -- it's nice when you use revisionist history. The Reagan win had little to do with his philosophy and a great deal to do with individual pocketbook issues. (Please re-read polling results after that election). It was a change election and all Reagan had to do to win was convince people he was competent.
Unfortunately, most people don't vote on issues, they vote against the incumbent or for someone they "like". They vote on issues that impact them directly. Reagan wanted to make the 1980 election about foreign policy, but he couldn't make that work. People were hurting and they blamed it on Carter. It was that simple.