Ross Douthat identifies precisely why Palin is not an answer to the problem facing the GOP ... but also why she is completely mainstream within the party too (that is to say, nothing remotely radical, except superficially):
From Glenn Beck to the Tea Parties, much of the energy in the post-Bush G.O.P. is with people who have grasped, albeit sometimes in inchoate ways, that big government and big business are increasingly on one team, and the champions of free markets and limited government are on the other. But they don't know what to do about it, and what they do seem to know -- cutting taxes, and letting the rest take care of itself -- is often non-responsive, not only to the problems the country faces, but to the problems they themselves have diagnosed.
I've written about how this thing Ross identifies is, for me, the most substantive lesson, if that's the word, to be gleaned from Palin's book. I don't think she's being cynical at all; I think she genuinely doesn't grasp the contradiction at the heart of the way she explains the world to herself. I think the sense many of the people Palin identifies as "ordinary, hardworking" patriots have of being screwed over by the powerful is real, and based largely in fact. What is a mystery is how they are incapable of seeing that the post-Reagan economic model they've sworn loyalty to -- the idea that there's nothing wrong with us that more tax-cutting and "getting government out of the way" can't fix -- is incapable of addressing the situation we're in today. In this way, Palin is not only useless, but she's actually harmful, because she obscures the real issues. In this, I hasten to say, she's no different from any other leading Republican politician, but it's a pity that she and Mike Huckabee, the two top GOPers whose background ought to have prepared them to come up with a critique that accounts for this problem, and in turn have devised a possible solution, seem prisoner to 30-year-old Republican cliches.
I've often thought that the problem with Jesse Jackson -- and, in a way, his tragedy -- is that for him, it's always 1965 in Selma. That is, what was once a strong and true response to the world as it is becomes, over time, calcified dogma irrelevant to the world as it has become. For many Republicans, it's always 1980 in Carter's America.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Those transfer-payment programs have developed powerful constituencies and institutions (the AARP, for example) who are prepared to focus on and fight for those programs, whereas those who tend to favor limits on government spending are not as focussed. This tends to produce growth in those social programs, at the expense, perhaps of the nation’s military needs."
Which might be persuasive if there were any evidence that American has not spent enough on defense due to those transfer programs. It doesn't seem like there's any evidence that's happened at any time in at least the last 30 years, which would tend to undermind that contention.
Mike
"This tends to produce growth in those social programs, at the expense, perhaps of the nation’s military needs."
Of course this observation completely overlooks how military spending has become de facto social spending in those legislative districts where a large number of people are employed in support of the military. The recent debacle in Congress regarding approval of projects that the Pentagon had not only never requested but had flatly opposed is ample evidence of this.
http://komitv.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1039:26-billion-in-defense-spending-diverted-for-pet-projects&catid=47:us-world&Itemid=95
So please, spare me the harp and sackbut serenade over how fulfilling the Constitutional duty of promoting the general welfare somehow diminishes the ability to provide for the common defense. Evidence on the ground disputes that allegation, and does so in rather grand style.
hlvanburen: I want to buy you a drink! We're still waiting for an answer to exactly which aspects of government wilhelm and friends want to restrain. Instead, he tells us he shouldn't have to define "restrain." Like arguing with a dining room table.
Lord Karth I am very well aware of the free rider issues and the history of NATO. I did not discuss this because I was trying to avoid a long post. It is precisely this arrangement with our European "allies" that I believe needs to be reconsidered. We are long past the point where Europe lacks the capacity to defend itself from the specter of the Soviets (incidentally Russia also only contributes 4% of all military expenditures). While Europe has recovered from the devastation of WWII and rebuilt their societies, we are going bankrupt in part because of the cost of protecting them. It is past time for them to protect themselves. When I suggest we need to re-evaluate our military spending this is clearly one of the issues that we should be re-visiting.
As for the constitution - the constitution does identify a purpose of the government as protecting and providing for the welfare of the people - one can interpret that however you like. There is certainly nothing in the constiution that requires us to go bankrupt so the Europeans can enjoy a higher standard of living than we do. The constitution also does not require the government to protect free markets.
While we spend such a disproptionate amount of the world's military budget - our standard of living has declined - we aren't even in the top ten anymore. Our competitiveness both in commerce and science is jeopardized by the continued failings of our education system (we are now 25th in the world). Military spending is surely not the only culprit but it must be on the list. And I say again - what profit is there for us to have this highly regarded military if we end up destroying what is worhwhile and valuable about our nation? The "nation" is it's people.
Yes, Bart, and it seems to be a common belief among conservatives. Insisting that they explain their positions, or define their use of catch phrases seems to irritate them. It's as if they expect their pronouncements to be accepted as Holy Writ passed down from the throne of God himself.
My experience has been that when people refuse to explain themselves, it is most often because they really do not understand what they are saying. Sometimes that is not the case, but I see no evidence to the contrary in this instance.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.