-
Rick Santorum Pulls the Trifecta
February 8, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Mark Levin on Clint Eastwood
February 7, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Ninth Circuit Court Panel Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 | 79 comments
-
Obama Flip-Flops on Super PACs
February 7, 2012 | 1 comment
-
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Constitution
February 7, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Reihan Salam has an interesting column in Forbes wondering if Mark Sanford represents the return of Goldwaterism on the American right:
When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, conservatism was a rigorous and demanding creed. Rather than promise tax cuts, Goldwater insisted on balanced budgets and sound money. After promising to get rid of any number of New Deal social programs, and after pledging to privatize the Tennessee Value Authority and other cherished infrastructure projects, Goldwater didn't promise anything material in return. No manna would fall from the sky in Goldwater's America. He simply argued that shrinking the federal government and reducing its power would encourage self-reliance, and that self-reliance would encourage the virtues of thrift and industry.
It is easy to see why the supply-siders later derided Goldwater's old-fashioned worldview as "root-canal economics," as it promised a lot more pain, at least in the short term. But Goldwaterism had the virtue of coherence and consistency.
It also will soon acquire the virtue of being necessary. There was a brief window when a viable economic conservatism could cut high marginal tax rates while leaving the federal government's spending commitments largely intact, although even during the Reagan years bigger spending cuts could have prevented tax increases later. But there simply isn't as big a revenue reflow effect from cutting a 35 percent or even 39.6 percent tax rate as there is from cutting tax rates that exceed 50 percent. And the federal government is in a more precarious financial position than it was in the 1980s, in no small part because both parties have failed to control spending.
Spending cuts -- especially anything that reduces entitlements for the middle class and wealthy -- aren't any more popular than they were when Goldwater was running in 1964. But they are currently justified by more than fidelity to the Constitution. Sanford's political creed isn't sunny and it remains to be seen if it can be sold to the electorate. Nevertheless, the days of tax cuts without spending cuts are over. In the absence of Sanford's Goldwaterism, Republicans aren't going to have much to say about fiscal policy.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/17/sanford-au-h20
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Current Wisdom
- Mission Implausible
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 3.17.09 @ 5:20PM
Sanford Au-H20 — But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Admr. S.O.B. Buniontow VI| 3.17.09 @ 5:31PM
The Obama presidency leaves a target-rich environment for both tax and spending cuts. More importantly, his presidency is based on ideology lead budget priorities few Americans will fully appreciate.
But the bigger issue concerning Sanford is the provision of the stimulus that permits state congress to set the terms (over the governor) in how funds are allocated and used.
Sanford is forcing the issue and thereby lead the confrontation.
JimBeam| 3.17.09 @ 6:31PM
And Mr. Sanford will get buried in the largest landslide since Mr. Au-H2O. He simply hasn't done a very good job as Governor.
South Carolina has the nation's second highest unemployment. Only Michigan is higher, and Michigan has a good excuse for it. What's South Carolina's reason?
donna| 3.17.09 @ 11:11PM
tennessee valley authority ?
John Lofton| 3.17.09 @ 11:17PM
Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Pingback| 3.18.09 @ 3:51PM
Mark Sanford: The G.O.P.’s Goldwater Solution? - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: