I've noticed that there've been some "conservative" rumblings coming from some in the Republican party who are a bit miffed over the "blank check" that Bush seems to be giving to rebuilding the gulf coast after Katrina. Tom Coburn, the "can't we all just get along" gay-bashing senator from Oklahoma (see
Crooks and Liars for a wonderful summation), called for "sacrifices" to be made in the federal government by way of spending cuts--Not, of course, by raising taxes (or even cancelling the planned tax cuts for the wealthy).
Just guess which programs Mr. Coburn would like to cut. He didn't give a list, but he sure as hell isn't going to start railing against corporate welfare, pork barrel projects, and defense spending. Which brings up a point that I've touched on before, but which seems so obvious in the face of Katrina:
There are no liberals or conservatives.
Not really. The traditional definitions of these terms in American politics have gone all topsy-turvy since (at least) Reagan decided that "liberal" was a dirty word. My understanding of what the terms used to mean is:
A conservative: In favor of a small federal government, supports states rights, a strong military, law and order, a free market economy, and private-sector solutions for problems. Strong examples: Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower.
A liberal: believes that the government should intervene to provide for the health and welfare of its citizens. Since states do not provide uniform solutions to all citizens, the federal goverment should usurp this authority. Strong believers in civil rights at the expense of law and order. Strong examples: FDR, Lyndon Johnson.
What we have are two parties who both love to spend money, but which have different priorities. They are both bastardized versions of their natural tendancies. This owes, mostly, to the strong influence that corporate interests play in politics. They've morphed into the party that wants to give corporations handouts and kinda help the poor (Democrats), and the party that REALLY wants to give corporations handouts and help the rich.
The current Congress has embraced these conservative values, without embracing the central tenant of a small, weak, federal government. Coburn, who voted for the largest, pork laden highway bill in Congressional history, is complaining, not about the spending per se, but who will benefit from the money. It's okay to spend money if it's to benefit the wealthy, but not okay to give a "handout."
How did we get here? Well, it's been a long time coming. I think the place to start is the Great Depression, when America, like the rest of the world, was a mess. Unemployment was through the roof, banks closed in droves, and people were getting restless. FDR had a desperate plan to keep the country from rebelling and turning "red." Through the "New Deal" he would raise taxes on people's already meager incomes dramatically--through the income tax (I think the rate was 90% on wealthy!) and a new program called "Social Security." How do you sell the biggest tax increase of all time to people who are miserably poor? Use that revenue to give them jobs! With the new taxes, the government is flush with money, The WPA and programs like it managed to take this money from those who had it, and give jobs to those who had nothing. Social Security was a particularly brilliant gambit, because FDR could collect a lot of money in the short term while defering the payments to later generations (hence the current crisis).
The economy recovered, and the government continued spending on a massive scale through WWII--this time, on the war effort. At the end of the war, a united country embarked on some remarkable (and expensive) projects that helped America flourish. We built a first-class transportaion system by constructing interstate highways, we educated our populace by paying the college tuition of millions of returning soldiers through the GI bill. We rebuilt Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan. We spent freely and got tremendous returns on our investments.
Civil rights battles in the 50s and 60s led to legislation that was undoubtably "liberal." President Johnson was able to declare "war" on poverty and expand FDRs New Deal. The government would now help the poor, giving them money in the form of "welfare" and medical care through "medicaid." The federal government grew and grew under the rule of the Democrats towards Johnson's "Great Society."
Nixon expanded, not the size, but the power of the federal government. He expanded federal police powers, started the "War on Drugs" which itself demonstrates what happens when two conservative principles--small government and law and order--come into conflict. He took steps to improve relations with foreign governments, including mortal enemies of the US--the USSR and China. But, his biggest contribution to the current political climate was, of course Watergate. This is where the extreme, public, and hate-filled differences between the two parties started. There would have to be payback for Watergate, and later payback for the payback, and so on.
Through the Carter administration (I'm skipping Ford), the country focused on enegry conservation, and creating jobs (to be fair--mostly becasue of the crises in each area). While the courts issued startling new rulings on individual rights, and the right to privacy. It was the height of what Reagan would later call "The Welfare State." High taxes, out of control spending, and expansive social programs, the supreme court reduced police powers, and expanded a woman's right to choose. This, coupled with a sagging economy, made a segment of the population angry. Maybe things were so bad, not becasue of OPEC, foriegn car manufacturers, or hostages in Iran. Maybe they were bad because of these expanded social programs and civil liberties . . .
When Reagan came to office, he played on this theme, and started a "conservative" revolution tied tightly to partiotism, a strong defense, and christian values. He managed to gather votes from people who were fed up with the disappointment over Nixon, the economic malaise in the Carter administration, and the failed war in Vietnam. He made it "fun" to be an American again, while cautioning that we had lost our way. He, like FDR, stimulated the economy and created jobs by vast increases in government spending, especially on defense. Unlike FDR, however, he cut taxes, rather than raise them. He talked the talk of a "conservative" eliminating many 'pesky' social programs and talking about smaller government, while all while running record budget deficits. Reagan provided the Republicans with a blueprint for long-term success:
- Focus on American's patriotism. Give voters strong symbols of leadership, and the sense (which was sorely lacking at the time) that America is the best nation on earth.
- Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes. Don't worry about paying for the cuts, run a defecit. You can run in an election saying "I'm going to cut your taxes and that guy won't." You'll be popular.
- Build up the "enemy." The Soviet Union was, of course, an actual threat. But Reagan made them into the "evil empire."
- Focus on the theme of self-reliance as a way to curtail social programs and give tax breaks to the wealthy. Teach Americans to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." Invoke frontier themes.
- Court the Christian vote. Reagan, while not a big church-goer, was able to convince Christian Americans that Republicans, not Democrats, had their best interests at heart. His alliances with the Moral Majority and his strong opposition to abortion cemented a voting block that had historically largely gone to the Democrats. The Democrats lost the South, and politics was changed forever.
- Under the guise of a "free market" economy, you can give tremendous amounts of money to corporate interests. Corportate lobbyists, who had begun to grow in power since the mid 1970s now had a President who would deliver their agenda.
As corporate interests grew in power, the deficit kept growing, and spending continued unabated on defense. Reagan was not able to roll back the New Deal and Great Society reforms of FDR and LBJ, but he laid the groundwork, and he got Republicans thinking that there would be plenty of money for their priorities--mostly giving away money to corporations--if the very expensive social programs would go away.
Reagan also had his share of scandals that made the "Watergate payback" urge even greater. Iran-Contra was arguably the greatest breach of public trust in history, as Reagan (yes, he knew) covertly sold missles to Iran (IRAN, PEOPLE!) to finance the Contras in Nicaragua--against the express wishes of Congress. This scandal exacerbated the tension between the two parties, and set the precident (that I think we'll see for the foreseeable future) of the "second term scandal" for all modern Presidents. Bush may avoid it with a strong majority in the House and Senate, but let's just say that since Watergate, we've had a lot of job security for "Independent Counsels."
GHW Bush continued the tax cutting/deficit expanding habits of his predecessor, but he actually paid for Reagan's policies in the form of a recession in 1991 that sank his Presidency. Also, like his son later, he failed to respond promptly and compassionately to a hurricane (Andrew). Still and all, he would have won re-election, except for one tiny problem--Ross Perot, whose Texas millionaire swagger co-opted Reagan's "self-reliance" theme and won 19% of the vote. Still, Clinton was a clever choice by the Democrats. He was a southern Christian who knew how to quote the bible when necessary. He also managed to steal the patriotism card from the Republicans and focused on the good times ahead (remember "Don't stop thinkin about tomorrow" and "It's the ecomony stupid!"). The Republicans had lost their long-fought-for stranglehold on the presidency and were determined to get it back.
To make matters worse, when Clinton was in office, he embarked on a social program that even FDR and LBJ never tried--national health care. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries went on the offensive and derailed the plan. Meanwhile, the Republicans distilled Reagan's lessons above into a "Contract with America " that promised to cut "wasteful" federal spending, i.e. social programs like Social Security. This led to an unprecendented "Republican Revolution" and doomed Clinton's social agenda forever. Clinton ultimately outmanuvered the Republican Congress during the "Government Shutdown" and the New Deal programs were left intact. Clinton moved to the center, maintaining, but not expanding social programs, while establishing better ties with corporate interests. He was forced to curtail Welfare, but he managed to cut spending and the deficit dramatically and preside over a period of economic growth unmatched since WWII. The Republicans would not rest, though. They hunted Clinton throughout his presidency, determined to provide a suitable scandal as payback for Watergate and Iran-Contra. They did, of course, but ultimately failed to remove Clinton from office, because the public, while fascinated by the scandal, really didn't think it was that bad. On the day of his impeachment trial, Clinton had a 60% approval rating. Maybe it is the economy, stupid.
The Bush-Gore election was a snoozer. The common theme was that "It doesn't matter who wins." Prosperity had made the electorate disinterested, and Clinton's move to the center had made it difficult to see the differences between the two parties. It was clear the the priority of both parties had become corporate interests--Ralph Nader based his campaign on this. No one could see that Clinton had only managed to hold the line against the Republican cause to eliminate social programs. He was actually a liberal who played a reluctant moderate out of necessity. Al Gore ran a miserable campaign, and refused to use his greatest asset, Clinton, because of the lingering scandal. Meanwhile, the Republicans crafted a candidate based on all of the Reagan principles listed above, a frontier-themed, tax cutting cowboy who was a born-again Christian. The only wrinkle was that this guy was playing a "moderate" a "compassionate conservative." Clinton had stolen so many themes from the Republican playbook that they had to co-opt one from the Democrats. And they still lost (well, not officially)--Let's just say that the election had low voter turnout and was very, very close.
For a year, America really didn't care who the president was. Bush pushed his dramatic tax cuts through Congress and stood next to Ted Kennedy and introduced "No child left behind." The Bush gameplan was clear--his majority in the senate was small (then, later, non-existent) and he wasn't particularly popular. So, he would push the corporate-giveaway, tax cuts for the rich angle quietly while hiding behind "compassion." Remember when Bush sent every American taxpayer $300? A great PR stunt to show people what "tax cuts" mean. And a great way to make unequal tax cuts seem fair. Bush was headed for a lackluster presidency and few small gains for Republicans in the tax codes . . .
Then it all changed. 9/11. The whole country stood behind Bush, transforming a weak and unpopular President into "leader" with a mandate. Suddenly, the "enemy" that was missing from Reagan's formula above showed itself. Modest goals for the Bush administration were replaced with lofty goals. After a pre-functory war in Afghanistan (you sort of have to go after the acutal enemy), Bush unveiled the Republican wet dream, modelled on Reagan:
- Focus on American's patriotism. The Patriot Act stripped freedoms from Americans that had been won in the court battles of the 1970s. Long held rules of war like the Geneva Convention were "quaint." Torture was acceptable, all in the name of Patriotism. Any dissent in the Democrats, or in the media was treason.
- Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. Do you have to finance a major war and reconstruction effort? No need to raise taxes. Just run deficits! In fact, make the tax cuts "permanent."
- Build up the "enemy." Axis of evil anyone? Ever notice that Afghanistan and Al Qaeda are never mentioned? There are "no good targets" in Afghanistan, but Iraq holds considerable wealth for US corporate interests . . . Also, the creation of Department of Homeland Security (which Bush initially opposed) provides an opportunity to spend wildly on the defense industry while curtailing spending on FEMA and other vital "big government" programs.
- Focus on the theme of self-reliance as a way to curtail social programs. Social Security needs to be "reformed." Headstart might need to be cancelled. We're going to create an "ownership society." While we're at it, let's make it harder to declare bankruptcy and to sue corporations.
- Court the Christian vote. Need I say more?
- Under the guise of a "free market" economy, you can give tremendous amounts of money to corporate interests. Bush presided over the largest giveaways to corporations ever and the rolling back of almost all environmental regulations.
Today, we see the partisan headhunting by the left swinging into high gear (as a payback for Clinton), and the stakes have been raised dramatically by Iraq and Katrina. So what we are left with is not a useful liberal/conservative distinction, but two parties that hate each other with different goals:
Republican: Destroy the New Deal and the Great Society, reward corporate donors and other interests. Dismantle the Federal "safety net" and consolidate power in the executive.
Democrat: ???--No seriously, what is their goal, except weak attempts to stop this? For the Democrats, having achieved all of their desires in the 1970s, they struggle to find a theme. Hopefully Katrina will help them to focus on poverty, jobs, and health care--Bush has handed them their mandate back, by rolling back all of their gains. And hopefully distance from 9/11 and a disasterous Iraq war will focus the Dems on rebuilding America's reputation and restoring personal liberties. John
Kerry weakly stood behind these issues, the Democrats need to stand forcefully behind them.
For the Republicans, the chickens may finally be coming home to roost. They have now played the "strong leader," 9/11, and WMD cards to death, and after Katrina blew the first two away, they're left with a President with strong majorities in Congress, but a 40% approval rating. Who knows what the political future holds? I am certain that Bush will continue to push his legislative agenda as if nothing had happened, but will Republicans in Congress who are facing re-election stay in lock-step with him? I think that they'll wait a few months to give more tax cuts to the rich, and I think that Social Security reform is on life support, but if they keep their majorities in 2006, it will be business as usual.
I actually don't know of any liberals or conservatives in either party. If Hillary is the candidate, she is much more likely to run as a moderate--like her husband in his last term, than an FDR style liberal. Still, I think the liberals would support her, or anyone, after Bush. The Republicans have the tough task of holding together a coalition of Christian wingnuts, wealthy people, and true conservatives in the face of an increasingly disasterous second term for Bush. If Bush's luck continues to fade, the next Republican candidate might look more like Gerald Ford after Watergate than Bush Sr. after Reagan. I can only hope. I can say with certainty that the days of civility between the two parties are over and that the corporate giveaways and Watergate paybacks will continue, leaving liberals like me and true conservatives longing for politician we can believe in.
--Tinfoil out
