David Frum kicked off a firestorm on the right with his article, "
Why Rush is Wrong." A
Hot Air piece on it has over 700 comments, many of which demonstrate why I don't comment on most right-wing blogs. Here are a couple of key points by Frum. After describing Obama as a positive figure to most Americans, he gives this contrasting picture of Limbaugh
A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating!
Sounds accurate to me. He also points out that
Every day, Rush Limbaugh reassures millions of core Republican voters that no change is needed: if people don't appreciate what we are saying, then say it louder
The whole article is worth reading. I don't agree with Frum on everything, but this article is a serious look at GOP problems. It stands in strong contrast to the kinds of things we hear from Limbaugh and his sycophantic followers. Screaming louder about "real" conservatism, being inflexible idiots who can't tolerate any criticism or opposing views in the party, and dismissing people like Frum as RINO's or worse are not ways to build a winning GOP coalition.
In a way, Limbaugh actually helps Frum's cause. No matter how conservatives argue against Obama nowadays, they'll lose. The best idea even Gingrich had for responding to the stimulus was to propose massive tax cuts, which most economists believe are far less effective now than government spending. But if Frum can portray the Republican loss now as a defeat for Limbaugh's shrillness rather than as a defeat for Reagan's anti-government rhetoric, he'll be able to come up with minimal changes to his ideals in a few years. In a way, Frum is offering a kinder, gentler form of the argument that conservatism doesn't need to change.
ReplyDelete"No matter how conservatives argue against Obama nowadays, they'll lose. "
ReplyDeleteRight now yes, because Obama is popular and he hasn't yet worn out his welcome to the presidency. But that's temporary.
"In a way, Frum is offering a kinder, gentler form of the argument that conservatism doesn't need to change."
I don't think so. Change doesn't have to mean changing everything. It doesn't mean you have to abandon core prinicples. Frum is definitely arguing for changing the emphasis of the party.
I don't see it. Frum's specific examples of how to change the emphasis are symbolic, such as accepting pro-choice VP nominees. He generally exudes hostility to the religious right, but that's a common trope among many conservative intellectuals. There is nothing in his articles suggesting the Republicans should opt for a realist rather than a neoconservative foreign policy, or that they should stop prescribing tax cuts as the solution to everything, or that they should drop the Hooverism.
ReplyDeleteA better article would have instead focused on some of the following issues:
1. The Republicans are losing all domestic issues to the Democrats, even ones they could be winning, like infrastructure. This mostly stems from the Republican aversion to any government spending, even things that reduce spending in the long run, like universal health care.
2. Bush's failure came by and large from his indifference to expert opinion on economics, Middle Eastern policy, and the environment. The best the GOP can do is reorient itself according to expert consensus, and then hammer the Democrats when they listen to hacks too much about issues like trade.
3. Bush came surprisingly close to shifting the Hispanic vote to the GOP by backing immigration reform. He lost it mostly because his bill tried to split the difference, angering immigrants. If he hadn't, or if he had introduced his reform before his popularity tanked in 2005, he could've permanently secured the loyalty of Hispanic voters. As a corollary, the Republicans can offer a more proactive immigration reform now, as a way of driving a wedge between immigrants and big labor. However, the rising unions, like HERE, are more immigrant-friendly, whereas the more anti-immigrant unions, like the UAW, are in decline.
4. Jindal and Palin are idiots. Gingrich is a pseudo-intellectual. And 2012 is a lost cause unless Obama screws up majorly. It's better to think about 2016.
5. The economy is an issue of competence. On issues of competence, you listen to competent people. Leave the "it's better to be a red than an expert" rhetoric to the reds.
1. I think they are losing on domestic issues primarily because of Bush, the GOP Congress, and their inability to articulate free-market economic positions. I don't think it's in any way because of some aversion to government spending -- since there hasn't been any such aversion. Being Democrat-lite on economic issues is one of the main things that landed them in their current mess.
ReplyDelete2. Those seem like reasonable recommendations.
3. Yes, as you may remember I'm in favor of expanded immigration, particularly from Mexico, as well as some sort of amnesty for illegals. But amnesty is anathema to the base.
4. Jindal I'm not sure about as of now. I see Palin as roughly as smart as Joe Biden. But with the damage she sustained during the campaign, I don't see her as a viable candidate. Gingrich is better as a critic and idea generator than as someone in power. I have no desire to see him ever running for office again. It's too early to write-off 2012. But yeah, there is clearly no apparent GOP challenger to Obama. In my opinion, Obama is already screwing up majorly -- but he'll be able to get away with it for awhile.
5. It's more about sounding competent, combined with luck. From what I've seen the Obama administration is pretty incompetent, but they know how to sound and act like they have some idea what they are doing. But eventually if the economy gets worse, people will start to catch on.
Off-topic: while Frum proposes mostly a kinder, gentler Bushism, David Brooks has a more sober take, which recognizes that riding on top of the tide history yelling no is inappropriate when the tide is about preventing a depression.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know you're in favor of more immigration and listening to expert consensus. The problem is that the GOP as a whole isn't. I'm not blaming it for having its own Krugmanesque shills, like Greg Mankiw and Robert Barro, but why do Republican leaders insist on quoting uncredentialed hacks like Amity Shlaes?
"David Brooks has a more sober take, which recognizes that riding on top of the tide history yelling no is inappropriate when the tide is about preventing a depression."
ReplyDeleteExcept if you believe that the government is helping bring on a depression, then yelling no is an obligation. As I said before, the problem is that it has to be done in a way that is politically feasible.
"but why do Republican leaders insist on quoting uncredentialed hacks like Amity Shlaes"
Because they don't accept that characterization? I'm sure the Council on Foreign Relations made Shlaes a Senior Fellow for Economic History because of her lack of credentials. Read her bio on the CFR site.
Her degree is in English; she has published nothing in economic history in peer-reviewed journals. And professional economic historians seem to think her book is stupid.
ReplyDeleteOn another note: one of my points here is that the Republicans are crazy if they think spending will create a depression. Sometimes, you really do need to change core beliefs. The Democrats did on welfare; why can't the Republicans on fiscal policy?
"Her degree is in English; she has published nothing in economic history in peer-reviewed journals."
ReplyDeleteShe has plenty of other economic credentials.
"And professional economic historians seem to think her book is stupid."
Not from what I've seen.
"On another note: one of my points here is that the Republicans are crazy if they think spending will create a depression."
I'm not sure why spending money we don't have couldn't cause all sorts of problems and lead to a depression.
"Sometimes, you really do need to change core beliefs. The Democrats did on welfare; why can't the Republicans on fiscal policy?"
Because it would be a really bad idea? We already have one party advocating major government interference with the economy. We don't need the Republicans doing the same. Republicans should be more fiscally conservative, not less.