-
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
Bruce Bartlett in effect says that conservatives who are angry at Barack Obama should look in the mirror: "Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect." But even if he's correct that conservative credibility has taken a well-deserved hit because the right was too enamored of George W. Bush -- and I think he is -- it doesn't follow that conservatives are wrong to oppose a largely pointless stimulus bill, an increased federal role in the provision of health care that will cost even more than the Medicare prescription drug benefit, cap and trade, and other Obama policies.
To put it another way: Just because conservatives didn't make enough noise as Bush was running up a $1.2 trillion deficit doesn't mean they should shut up now that Obama is jacking it up to as much as $1.8 trillion. Obama supported Bush's TARP bailout, as did more Democrats than Republicans in Congress. The Democrats also favored an even more robust Medicare prescription drug benefit than the one irresponsibly enacted by Bush and the Republican Congress. And which of the policies that lead to our current mess -- artificially low interest rates, loose money, unfunded government spending, relaxed lending standards for politically favored groups -- has Obama decisively broken with now, much less opposed at the time? The Democrats were a little better on the wars' contribution to the health of the state, the Republican better on reining in Fannie and Freddie.
There are some gaps in Bartlett's history. He ignores the role the Republican Congress played, alongside Bill Clinton, in reforming welfare and cutting federal spending during the 1990s. He acknowledges Ronald Reagan's tax increases but neglects to mention that Reagan was a substantial net tax cutter, who brought the top marginal tax rate all the way down to 28 percent by the time he left office. Or as Bartlett -- who, by the way, told us in 2003 that the Iraq war would be a bargain -- put it in October 2003, "But at the end of the day, [Reagan] cut taxes more than he raised them. That is why conservatives forgave him and why they will probably forgive George W. Bush as well."
There also some gaps in Bartlett's version of current events. He describes conservative activists as "primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results." (Since when did opposing policies with which one disagrees amount to overturning election results?) But many of the new activists are as angry as Republicans as they are Democrats. Just ask John Cornyn and any number of other pro-bailout Republicans who have been booed off the stage at various tea parties.
If conservatives focus exclusively on trying to elect people with the letter "R" next to their name no matter what they stand for or what the consequences of their policies are, it will indeed be self-defeating. Almost as self-defeating as letting the Obama administration wreck the country now in order to spite the people who were wrecking it seven months ago.
View all comments (25) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/13/bruce-bartletts-misplaced-rage
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Evolve or Die
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
thirteen28| 8.13.09 @ 6:01PM
All your points are true and correct, but sort of miss the real crux of what this is about. Brucie wants attention, dammit, and what better way to get it for a "conservative" to attack Republicans. There is no quicker or better way for someone who considers themselves to be right of center to get attention than to become a useful idiot for the left and attack conservatives, and that's exactly what he's doing. He's just following Meghan McCain's example, right down to his going over to The Daily Beast.
Real American| 8.13.09 @ 6:18PM
The GOP lost the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008 and it wasn't because they were being too conservative. Conservatives stayed home for the most part and the party lost control because it forgot why it was sent to Washington in the first place. They WERE held accountable.
I also don't know where this idea came from that if you win an election, politics is over and you get what you want. That certainly wasn't what happened when the Republicans were in charge and isn't the standard now. It definitely isn't "overturning an election." It's politics.
KevlarKevin| 8.13.09 @ 6:22PM
Barlett is a big crybaby.
JadedByPolitics| 8.13.09 @ 7:02PM
Once again a Republican has gotten it wrong! As Real American stated above the losses in 06 and 08 were due to Republicans acting like Democrats! The 6+ million who put The One over the top felt like what the heck lets give the liberals a shot they can't spend any more than Republicans did. They were wrong but you get the point, when one side does not differ from the other who care enough to get fired up to go vote or put back in those that placed us debt in the first place. This is the time for bold differences not pastels (hattip Reagan) and if the GOP does not learn that lesson they will not get the grassroots fired up to change the insanity we are living in right now!
Sean| 8.13.09 @ 8:06PM
I think Bruce is right we should be angry at Bush and Obama. We should hold both accountable and we should not be fooled by Republicans they claim they are conservative and then act like liberals. We should also be angry at all Republicans that came out to support McCain in the primaries.
Red Phillips| 8.13.09 @ 8:25PM
Bartlett's original criticism (in Impostor for example) was principled criticism from the right. But I have the sneaking suspicion that he is now just moving left in a quest for that ever elusive respectability from the MSM and the cocktail party circuit. His PC grandstanding book on race is a big clue to this.
He is correct that the current protesters were far too silent under Bush. But they should generally be commended for coming around and encouraged to continue rather than just criticized for past failures.
SoCon| 8.13.09 @ 8:51PM
Clear out ALL of Washington, D.C., including the piggish bureaucrats; you wouldn't hear any complaints from me.
We aren't the ones wedded to huge government, Bartlett-- go pound sand.
Liberal Reader| 8.13.09 @ 9:07PM
I see your point, Mr. Antle.
Still, Bartlett has a point.
The Republicans had control of Washington for six years; for the last two years, they had the White House and a very strong influence in Congress. (Plus a slightly rightward leaning S.C.)
What's the result?
President Obama took office 16 months INTO the worst recession in decades. During the month Obama was sworn into office, three quarters of a million people lost their jobs.
And this is after a Bush economy in which a large percentage of job gains were low paying service positions.
The middle class became increasingly unstable throughout the years of Republican governance.
Does that mean you should surrender and become Democrats?
No. However, you might consider the possibility that a) Democrats are not hell bent on destroying America; they're going to do the best they can, and if it doesn't work, your guys will get voted back into office; AND b) maybe Republican ideas did not fly out of the sacred asses of angels: maybe there's more room for debate and compromise than you at first imagined. Just a thought.
Tina Marie| 8.13.09 @ 11:29PM
The only ass around here, Jeremiah, is YOU--and you're a ROYAL ASS. Jerk.
Pingback| 8.14.09 @ 1:27AM
ALLAHPUNDIT Is In The Wilderness Again… | The Rude News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Greg Ransom| 8.14.09 @ 2:37AM
Bartlett's sole has been twisted like a pretzel after he was fired by a Bush-friendly Texas think tank.
He can't seem to get over it, and his writing seems deeply distorted by the experience.
Rather sad, actually.
Greg Ransom| 8.14.09 @ 2:41AM
Bartlett is a crude Keynesian -- Keynesian even in ways rejected by Keynes himself. Bartlett endorses the stimulus, despite that fact that all self respecting Keynesians say the bill has very little in it that does what Keynesian stimulus has to do.
Bartlett is not a conservative or free market economist, he's an historian who likes Keynes.
You wrote:
"it doesn't follow that conservatives are wrong to oppose a largely pointless stimulus bill"
Pingback| 8.14.09 @ 8:00AM
On Health Care Reform - Page 8 - The Village Square links to this page.
Tim| 8.14.09 @ 10:44AM
Liberal Screeder
I don't agree word for word bou make perfect sense. Repubs had the ball, but instead of scoring they somehow ( I'm looking at you 43) ran in every other possible direction.
Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 11:40AM
Tim --
While I do think Republicans could engage in a little more soul searching, I also do NOT think it's appropriate for them to say that Republicans went wrong because their conservatism wasn't "pure" enough.
Governing is different from thinking or criticizing.
You get into office, and all of a sudden you have actual responsibilities -- moral, political, ethical, even spiritual.
So I think the proper question is not really about the rightness or wrongness of a "pure" conservative philosophy (Small government! National defense! Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! Drill baby Drill!).
The question is whether the Republicans governed well when they controlled Washington.
I think the answer to that question is most absolutely not.
Ronald Reagan, a very successful president, governed when Democrats controlled Congress, and part of his legacy is his great friendship and working relationship with Tip O'Neal, one of the great liberals of post war Washington.
Perhaps mixed governance -- the de facto choice of the electorate -- is best. I have a feeling after the midterms it's going to another experiment in the two parties sharing the responsibility of governance.
Liberal Reader| 8.14.09 @ 11:46AM
This is another way of saying that the "pure" conservative philosophy propounded by -- say -- Rush Limbaugh is a chimera.
Rush can sit in his bunker and never come out; all he has to do is watch cable for material.
But Republicans had to govern; they had to compromise and make deals and do things the outcomes of which they couldn't know.
I wonder about a political party that keeps telling itself "Government IS the problem."
How can they govern well if this is their knee-jerk response to every issue?
If they define themselves by virtue of their hatred of govern, their loathing of legislation, their contempt for parliamentary procedure, why should they be trusted with government, legislation, and the Byzantine intracies of parliamentary rule?
Pingback| 8.18.09 @ 5:33PM
Bruce Bartlett E-Mails Some Liberal Bloggers « Around The Sphere links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Laughing All The Way| 9.11.09 @ 2:48PM
The facade crumbles
No moral majority
White faces screaming
Klueless people yell
Klucking hysterically
Klandestine white fears
Sore losers mask shed
Immoral minority
Party of hatred
Fall from the pulpit
Hide secrets behind white robes
Their hearts of darkness