THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE - DANIEL MCCARTHY
#2 Comment By EngineerScotty On October 17, 2013 @ 7:40 pm
The Tea Party isn’t really for small government. Y’all like to think you are (and some Tea Partiers really are honest-to-goodness libertarians), but most TPers don’t mind the sort of governnment that benefits them directly.
It is just the parts that benefit someone else (whether poor persons, particularly of color, or moneyed northeasterners), and the parts that get in their way, they dislike.
While the Paul Ryan wing of the GOP has a pipe dream of slashing Medicare and Social Security (these things need to be cut to be saved–in other words, recipients ought to be paid less now to forestall the possibility of recipients being paid less in the future), they have a problem: many of the GOP base is collecting these things, considers them earned benefits rather than welfare, and politicians who touch them, die. The GOP establishment’s dream is for these things to be slashed and for Democrats to get (or at least share) the blame; Obama has not gone along with this.
There’s a reason that Medicare GREW during the Bush Administration, when the GOP could have done whatever they wanted.
But Obamacare? If you’re collecting Medicare already, it is of no use to you; and it may be a threat (to the extent that Medicare funds go to it). And rightly or wrongly, it IS perceived as welfare, not something that a Good Honest Working Man would ever need use.
Likewise for the military. Until recently, the demographics that make up the Tea Party (again, excepting a few Paulites who make up a minority) were all for bombing Irawhateverstan, and eagerly denouncing those (generally on the left during the aughts) who opposed this as quislings and traitors.
What many in the TP want is “white socialism”.
It is just the parts that benefit someone else (whether poor persons, particularly of color, or moneyed northeasterners), and the parts that get in their way, they dislike.
While the Paul Ryan wing of the GOP has a pipe dream of slashing Medicare and Social Security (these things need to be cut to be saved–in other words, recipients ought to be paid less now to forestall the possibility of recipients being paid less in the future), they have a problem: many of the GOP base is collecting these things, considers them earned benefits rather than welfare, and politicians who touch them, die. The GOP establishment’s dream is for these things to be slashed and for Democrats to get (or at least share) the blame; Obama has not gone along with this.
There’s a reason that Medicare GREW during the Bush Administration, when the GOP could have done whatever they wanted.
But Obamacare? If you’re collecting Medicare already, it is of no use to you; and it may be a threat (to the extent that Medicare funds go to it). And rightly or wrongly, it IS perceived as welfare, not something that a Good Honest Working Man would ever need use.
Likewise for the military. Until recently, the demographics that make up the Tea Party (again, excepting a few Paulites who make up a minority) were all for bombing Irawhateverstan, and eagerly denouncing those (generally on the left during the aughts) who opposed this as quislings and traitors.
What many in the TP want is “white socialism”.
RESPONSE BY MCCARTHY:
Scotty, Paul Ryan voted for Medicare Pt D. If “slashing Medicare” is really his dream, he’s even more confused than the government-growing small-government populists are.
Red, Ron Paul was never under any illusion that his voting against legislation of all kinds would have any practical effect. The Republicans in office today don’t vote the way Paul voted, wouldn’t survive long if they did, and either wrongly believed that they could win this fight or, more likely, cynically knew that they’d get credit from gullible right-wingers even if they served up symbolism with no substance.
Red, Ron Paul was never under any illusion that his voting against legislation of all kinds would have any practical effect. The Republicans in office today don’t vote the way Paul voted, wouldn’t survive long if they did, and either wrongly believed that they could win this fight or, more likely, cynically knew that they’d get credit from gullible right-wingers even if they served up symbolism with no substance.
#21 Comment By G. On October 18, 2013 @ 5:28 pm
Thanks, Mr. McCarthy.
I have three problems when talking about the debt with Tea Party members:
Thanks, Mr. McCarthy.
I have three problems when talking about the debt with Tea Party members:
1) There are very, very specific things that George W. Bush *and conservative Congressional Republicans* did to increase it: The tax cuts of 2001, the tax cuts of 2003, the Iraq War, and Medicare Part D being the most prominent. (Medicare Part D was forced through the House, using illegal rule changes–and possible extortion of a Michigan GOP House member–by conservative Republican Tom deLay.) What Tea Partiers say when they talk about the debt is “But we hate Medicare Part D!” or “but it’s even *worse* under Obama!” There’s no specific criticism of the Iraq war. If Iraq comes up at all, there’s a desperate “but some Democrats voted for it too!” No acknowledgement that it was a bad idea, that lots of Democrats knew it was a bad idea, and that we were fundamentally right to want to not invade Iraq. (except from certain honest GOPers like the writers from this magazine, and you guys are awesome, but you’re outliers).
The sense I get from the Tea Partiers is that conservatism can never be wrong. It’d be a lot
better if people like Clint, rather than throwing around the 17 trillion number like it all magically showed up under Pres. Obama, could say, “and, yeah, 4 trillion of that’s Reagan’s, and 8 of it’s Bush’s–I was wrong to support Iraq, as was the GOP; I was wrong to support the ’01 and ’03 tax cuts, as was the GOP.”
2) And, of course, some of the debt increase under the Obama administration came from the fact that the Iraq war was magically kept off the books for all of Bush’s administration. It was finally added to the book when Pres. Obama took office. That’s like, $900 billion
3)***The GOP leadership has been playing a game for a long time. It’s called the starve-the-beast game. The way it works is the GOP drives up the debt, and deficit spends, while in office, and then, once *out* of office, screams about how big the debt is and how we have to cut social programs that the American people otherwise very much support. It’s dishonest, and suggests that Republicans know they can’t win arguments about popular social programs, but they refuse to be up-front about their true desires.***
I have no way to tell whether the concern about the debt is genuine–I believe it is from some rank-and-file Tea Partiers, but I also believe many are easily scared by big numbers and have little-to-no understanding of macroeconomics, which is very, very different from “running a business” or “balance sheets.”
But with the GOP leadership? It could be the starve-the-beast trick. They’ve been doing this for a long time.
So maybe the right thing to do, for those of you who are genuinely concerned about the debt, would be add a sentence or two: “I’m really concerned about the debt… so I support repealing the irresponsible Bush tax cuts of ’01 and ’03.” “I’m really concerned about the debt… and I acknowledge that liberals were right and most conservatives were wrong about the Iraq war, so let’s just tax some war profiteers and oil companies.” “I’m really concerned about the debt…and am prepared to see the Republican party make sacrifices for it. I understand many GOP leaders have acted in bad faith re: the debt, so I’m not just going to try to gut social programs.”
I’m pretty sure this is a fool’s errand on my part, but I thought I’d let you know.
The sense I get from the Tea Partiers is that conservatism can never be wrong. It’d be a lot
better if people like Clint, rather than throwing around the 17 trillion number like it all magically showed up under Pres. Obama, could say, “and, yeah, 4 trillion of that’s Reagan’s, and 8 of it’s Bush’s–I was wrong to support Iraq, as was the GOP; I was wrong to support the ’01 and ’03 tax cuts, as was the GOP.”
2) And, of course, some of the debt increase under the Obama administration came from the fact that the Iraq war was magically kept off the books for all of Bush’s administration. It was finally added to the book when Pres. Obama took office. That’s like, $900 billion
3)***The GOP leadership has been playing a game for a long time. It’s called the starve-the-beast game. The way it works is the GOP drives up the debt, and deficit spends, while in office, and then, once *out* of office, screams about how big the debt is and how we have to cut social programs that the American people otherwise very much support. It’s dishonest, and suggests that Republicans know they can’t win arguments about popular social programs, but they refuse to be up-front about their true desires.***
I have no way to tell whether the concern about the debt is genuine–I believe it is from some rank-and-file Tea Partiers, but I also believe many are easily scared by big numbers and have little-to-no understanding of macroeconomics, which is very, very different from “running a business” or “balance sheets.”
But with the GOP leadership? It could be the starve-the-beast trick. They’ve been doing this for a long time.
So maybe the right thing to do, for those of you who are genuinely concerned about the debt, would be add a sentence or two: “I’m really concerned about the debt… so I support repealing the irresponsible Bush tax cuts of ’01 and ’03.” “I’m really concerned about the debt… and I acknowledge that liberals were right and most conservatives were wrong about the Iraq war, so let’s just tax some war profiteers and oil companies.” “I’m really concerned about the debt…and am prepared to see the Republican party make sacrifices for it. I understand many GOP leaders have acted in bad faith re: the debt, so I’m not just going to try to gut social programs.”
I’m pretty sure this is a fool’s errand on my part, but I thought I’d let you know.
No comments:
Post a Comment