The chances of the Democrats taking back the Senate appear to be getting slimmer. CNN is reporting that John Breaux (D-La) will retire in 2004 rather than seek re-election:
[John Breaux] is the fifth Democrat from a southern state to announce his retirement before the 2004 elections. Others are Zell Miller, Georgia; Bob Graham, Florida; John Edwards, North Carolina; and Fritz Hollings, South Carolina.
Some, undoubtedly, will minimize this loss by pointing out that Breaux was a glad-handling backroom boy, a DINO, and good riddence to him (thank you very much). Sure, he was all of that. But he was also insanely popular in Louisiana, and he faced no serious challenge for re-election in 2004. His departure means that the likelihood of the Democrats recovering the Senate is, well, unlikely.
So, here’re two half-formulated thoughts for you to ponder (or dispute): First, why the heck are the Democrats losing their few remaining Southerners to retirement? We’re past the stage of mere coincidence or unlucky timing — five Democratic Senators from a relatively Democratic-Senator-Free region is more than a lot. I’m tempted to say that it has something to do with Dean’s rise an an anti-war type — but, then, all of my pronouncements on Dean are inherently suspect given my general dislike of the man.
Second, I am not looking forward to what I now believe to be the most likely outcome of the 2004 election cycle: A Republican President, A Republican House, and a Republican Senate. This is because the current Republican agenda appears to be “detax and spend, spend, spend.” Not exactly sound fiscal planning (or conservatism, as traditionally defined).* And, frankly, I’m a little scared about the quality of judicial nominees that have thus far been offered by this administration. A Republican trifecta is hardly likely to provide the needed “Saul on the road to Damascus” moment on either point.
So, bid adieu to Breaux. We’ll sure miss ya.
von
*Remember, fellow Gen-Xers, that we’re the ones who’ll be paying the Baby Boomer’s bills. Roughly, if you’re currently between the ages 28-38, you will hit your prime earning years (your late 30s through your 40s) at the same moment that the Baby Boomers start retiring en mass. How to pay for their retirement? Well, ya gotta tax the people with money — at that moment, us. (Gen Y gets off easier because their prime earning years will be mostly ahead of them when the Baby Boomers are retiring.)
Second, I am not looking forward to what I now believe to be the most likely outcome of the 2004 election cycle: A Republican President, A Republican House, and a Republican Senate.
So how do you reconcile this concern with your statements that you’ll likely vote for Bush?
So how do you reconcile this concern with your statements that you’ll likely vote for Bush?
I’m likely vote for Bush over Dean. If Kerry, Clark, or Lieberman is the Democratic nominee, I’m on record as being in opposition position.
But, yeah, you’re right: If Dean is the nominee, I may ultimately conclude that although Bush is the better man, other factors require me to vote against him. But it’s a long way off to start speculating regarding matters such as these.
At this point I’ll take any Southern Democrat–except Miller, who I think really has voted against us on every single important vote. Breaux is less of a loss than Graham, Edwards, or Hollings, and a 59-41 Senate with a united opposition is better than a 51-49 Senate with a divided opposition. But we risk 59-41 and still divided, which would be disastrous, or even 61-39.
We ought to be able to hold Graham and Edwards seats; maybe Breaux’s too, the Louisiana Dems seem to have their act together. I don’t see how we keep Miller’s or Hollings. We should pick up Illinois.
If I were a moderate I’d vote against Bush for the Supreme Court nominees alone. Rehnquist & O’Connor seem very likely to retire, and I never thought I’d miss Rehnquist but he’s infinitely preferable to two Scalia clones. And Stevens is 84 years old, and Ginsburg has health problems. They’ll never allow another Souter. The idea of a Supreme Court with Anthony Kennedy as the third most liberal justice scares the crap out of me. And I’m not even talking about Roe v. Wade, which is the tip of the iceberg.
But “if I were a moderate” statements from non-moderates should be taken with a grain of salt.
von, I couldn’t agree more. Pardon my French, I really truly miss the days of “cohabitation”. It seems that when politicians are forced to get along with each other, they actually get things done. When they are not, all their worst instincts come out.
von,
You do know that Breaux is setting up a K St. shop with Nickles, right? Hollingsworth is rapidly approaching senility. Graham seems simply dispirited. Miller wants to enjoy a few years of well earned retirement. Edwards doesn’t need a weatherman.
Then again, how happy would you be working with Kennedy, Dodd, Leahy, Levin and Boxer? Those five have done more damage to the party than can be repaired any time soon. Breaux is closer to Miller than to any of those five and I can certainly understand his desire to maintain a distance from that odor.
I am not happy with single party majorities in all branches. Katherine makes an excellent point concerning the judiciary. Bush’s lasting impact is going to be found in his second term nominees. Ten or fifteen years from now those nominees will still be a great discussion topic.
I am anticipating a minmum seven seat pickup in the Senate for the Reps. Even at six, the days of filibuster will be over. A “united” opposition is a utopian ideal when there is a firm majority. The three or four weakest minority seats can always be picked off for practically any vote. Re-election is generally more important to Senators than party loyalty ever will be.
I’ll vote for Bush (as many times as I can get away with – I do have demo tendencies) but I also hope that the Dems get their act together. So far, there is little indication that they can.
Well, we all knew several months ago that the GOP would probably increase their margin in the Senate in 2004. Any good news for the Democrats since then has been purely consolation prizes(it’ll be nice to get that Illinois seat, Reid dodged a bullet, Knowles may win, GOP recruiting has been so-so, and it’ll be good to have genuine fights to get the Democratic vote out in Pennsylvania and Missouri), and looking at it realistically, the GOP would have maintained its majority under virtually any possible combination of factors.
Why, then, have these various Senators chosen not to run again? Let’s identify a few factors:
A – the very real and depressing possibility of losing (Hollings, Edwards)
B – unwillingness to serve yet another term in the minority after working for so long (Hollings, Breaux, Graham, Miller)
C – holding out for a VP nod (Graham, Edwards)
D – demoralized after poor presidential race (Graham)
E – change in the direction of the party (Breaux, Miller)
F – nobody has yet been cruel enough to explain to them that they aren’t going to be president (Edwards)
G – just plain ornery (Miller)
While this is big doins’, it’s more like the FL situation (from safe Dem to tossup) than SC (from tossup to safe GOP). The question is whether Breaux will now act more like Graham and still campaign for the Democratic nominees for his seat and the presidency, or act more like ol’ Zell.
As to a fully GOP federal government, that’s what we’ve got now, kids, and Breaux retiring is pretty much spitting into the ocean as far as that’s concerned, unless he pulls a Zell and endorses Bush. Highly unlikely.
Speaking of which, Georgia will likely lose its distinction as the state with the funniest pair of Senatorial first names (Zell and Saxby), and South Carolina will likely lose its distinction in runner-up in the same category (Ernest, nicknamed “Fritz,” and a male Lindsey). The new finalists pale by comparison: Mississippi has “Trent” and “Thad,” North Dakota has “Byron” and “Kent,” Wisconsin has “Russell” and “Herbert,” and Washington has the only mildly amusing “Ronald” and “Patty.” Where are the Zells of yesteryear?
Seth,
After Jeb’s win, how do you get tossup in Florida? If the panhandle shows up Florida is Rep. They won’t be fooled twice. I would give the dems an edge in Illinois and I don’t know about Reids seat but toss Lincoln in as questionable, too. As are Murray and (God willing) Boxer.
“Arlen” and “Rick” with bonus points for the new meaning of Rick’s last name?
You’ve obviously got to root hard for Erskine Bowles in NC. “Erskine and Liddy” is not half bad.
and Democratic turnout WILL be higher than 2002. So will Republican turnout, obviously, in a presidential year–but I think the Dems were especially demoralized in 2002 & will be especially motivated now.
I hope you’re right, Katherine, I hope you’re right.
RDB, on Florida, if by some chance Penelas is the nominee, he walks into office, because he brings South Florida’s usually-GOP-leaning Cuban community with him. Deutsch is a slightly tougher sell, but I’d still call the seat as a toss-up.
Seth,
Penelas carries more weight than Martinez? The Cubans are among the most savvy of the Latino electorates. How much weight will freshly minted Senator Penelas have over Senator Martinez with President Bush?
I think I might disagree on that one.
I would give the dems an edge in Illinois and I don’t know about Reids seat but toss Lincoln in as questionable, too.
I realize that Fitzy is universally despised (not the least by his fellow Republicans), but who have the Democrats got to replace him in Illinois? Mosely-Braun? Maybe. Barak? He’s my favorite, but he’s unknown to everyone else (and, speaking of funny names, has got one).
As for Breaux, heck RDB, with all the backroom deals he’s had going, I figure he’d already transferred his office to K street.
Regarding Seth‘s apocalypse now view of GOP control: it’s the filibuster game that counts. The GOP is edging ever closer to creating a filibuster-proof majority. In this sense, Breaux (and the rest of the Yellow Dog Five) weren’t spits in the ocean.
Are there any key races in the northeast? I think everyone overlooks Congress much too much, but here in Massachusetts there’s not much to be done. New Hampshire and Maine house races could be close, I suppose….
Daschle still has to go in 2004 if not before.
All the more reason that the decline in the number of Senate Democrats is a good thing for our generation. Do I really need to remind people that Bush is the only major party candidate who favors letting younger workers opt out even partially of the ponzai scheme Social Security (which actually minimizes the unfunded liability of the program because every worker is promised more than they are expected to pay) and that the Senate Democrats are still complaining that the Medicare prescription drug benefit included some competitive elements?
Frankly, on the Social Security issue alone, I think our generation is royally screwed if anyone but Bush becomes POTUS in 2004 since each of the Democratic candidates is anti-reform and anti-choice. We have had no movement on Social Security reform largely due to the divided Senate and the threat of a filibuster and the only thing to break the logjam is going to be when Senate Democrats lack the numbers to obstruct any meaningful reform. Every Democratic retirement in the Senate and every new seat picked up by pro-reform Republican is a good thing.
As Paul Krugman has explained approximately one billion times, social security is pay as you go–your taxes pay this year’s benefits. Individual accounts, even if they’re a good idea in the long run, do absolutely nothing about the crunch when baby boomers retire. That’s going to take revenue from the general fund, a rise in payroll tax rates, lifting the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, means testing of benefits, or cuts in benefits.
Putting people’s taxes into individual accounts is only going to put it much deeper in the red. I’m guessing you’re all for benefits cuts–though it’s not necessary in people’s financial interests if they’ll end up having to support aging parents–but they’re a separate issue from Bush’s “reform”; all privatization will do in the short run is make more cuts necessary. And Bush has proven that even with control of all three branches of government and a wartime popularity boost, he does not have the political will to cut spending. I think people who expect this to change next term are kidding themselves.
In the long run, I still think it’s a bad idea. Social security is an insurance program, not a 401K investment. The whole idea of insurance is risk pooling; if you can opt out, it doesn’t work so well. There are plenty of opportunities for the middle class and wealthy to invest, and there should be more opportunities for the poor, but I believe in the safety net.
Ponzi scheme? Is the growth of the US economy a Ponzi scheme?
Von,
your prime earning years (your late 30s through your 40s)
I believe income continues to rise through people’s 50s, meaning at that particular point, the tail end of the Baby Boom will still be kicking in, and have higher incomes to tax, but yes, as a greater share of boomers ages out of the work force, a smaller generation will be filling the peak earning years.
And though the children of the boomers will be earning less, there are a lot more of them than us, and so, as a generation, they still will be cumulatively putting a lot into the kitty.
Thorley,
the only thing to break the logjam is going to be when Senate Democrats lack the numbers to obstruct any meaningful reform.
Do you think that the power has been definitely cut to the third rail? I’m seeing this suggested elsewhere, but it still seems like it could be an issue.
Before I begin my rant, let me make clear that (per RDB) I believe a divided government to be the best government. I do not favor complete Democratic victory.
You’re a hopeful sort, Thorley. Thus far, a Republican-controlled House, Senate, and Presidency have generated some of the largest spending increases since the New Deal. Most of it has been on programs that can be most easily described as “entitlements” and “pork barrel projects.”
At the same time that spending has increased, this same Republican President, House, and Senate has drastically cut taxes. Now, I have nothing against tax cuts — indeed, I’m quite fond of them. Moreover, judged on their individual merits, many of Bush’s tax cuts were reasonable, necessary and defensible. The difficulty comes when all of the Bush tax cuts were implemented at virtually the same time.
Extraordinary spending increases coupled to extraordinary tax relief has resulted in deficits. Extraordinarily large deficits. I should at this point note yet another caveat (I’m full of them*): I have nothing against deficits per se. But I do have a problem with large deficits that have no end — what are called structural deficits. Those are the kinds of deficits that we have now.
At this point, I’ll note that the foregoing two facts have caused virtually every economist not associated with Bush’s economic team to think that the economists who are associated with Bush’s economic team to be deeply disturbed, deeply stupid, or deeply in denial. Really: Please provide me the name of an economic economist with any reputation for independence who is willing to stake that reputation on the economic policies that are being currently pursued by a Republican President, and aided and abetted by a Republican Senate and House.**
Now, there are two ways out of what we can just call “a terrific mess.” We can raise taxes. Or we can cut benefits.*** On the Baby Boomers. You tell me which you think will win in 2014.
Your confidence in the Republican party is impressive, but I fear that you have set yourself up for a hard fall.
von
*Not to be confused with being full of it.
**Not all Republicans, of course, are equally responsible. Voinovich, for example, still remembers that “fiscal conservative” is not synonymous with “deficit spender.”
***I recognize that SS payments in fact come from a separate fund; my point is that aggregate taxes (i.e., income and payroll taxes) are likely to increase.
were , co, while simultaneously cutting taxes
von,
He’s from LA, he’s always had an office on K St. I meant that he was going to put his name on it (will it be Breaux-Nickles or Nickles-Breaux?). I regard the IL seat as a “coattails” seat, if Bush goes above 57% then it will go Rep (same with Nevada). Katherine is right concerning turnout. The Dem problem is that turnout is generally predicated on “for” not “against” decisions. “I’ll fight for you” can be (and is) construed as an “against” message.
If you believe that elections turn on security (economic or physical) issues then (reductio ad absurdem) the Dems actually don’t have a candidate. Clinton (accepting the premise) won because the physical security issue (Cold War-GWI) had been resolved and the economic security issue was the strongest play – and Bush I never got his hands around it. The current situation is much more analogous to the Reagan ’84 campaign than any other, with terrorism having replaced the USSR as the physical security issue. The current positions of the Dem candidates are not exactly comforting with regard to the physical security issue. Has the UN in its’ entire history ever engaged in an activity that could justifiably be said to have increased the security of the US? Has “international” cooperation ever been a demonstrably significant factor in doing so?
I believe income continues to rise through people’s 50s,
You might be right about that, MattK. (Or it might be that salaries increase during the 50s only for specific, already-middle-class, persons — I just can’t remember.) So my attempt to provoke generational warfare may rest on innuendo and some questionable facts. (Since I supported the war in Iraq, I’ll resist drawing the obvious parallel . . . . )
The current situation is much more analogous to the Reagan ’84 campaign than any other, with terrorism having replaced the USSR as the physical security issue.
Well, that’s interesting. I don’t necessarily disagree, RDB, but this is the second time I’ve come across the “Dean as Dukakis” meme. There’s some legitimacy to it (and certainly more legitimacy than the “Dean as McGovern” meme).*
Dukakis, after all, was a New England moderate who ran to the left during the primary (exploiting liberal rage at Reagan) and then desperately tried to claw back to the middle during the General Election. It failed. (Remember the Dukakis in a Tank photo? With that hair, the man didn’t need a helmet.) One wonders if history will repeat itself.
von
*Some of this is undoubtedly the result of certain righties finding it far preferrable to cast Bush as Reagan in the current electoral drama (as Bush himself is wont to do) rather than as Nixon. I’ll not suggest the possibility that the VRWC is also involved . . . .
Please provide me the name of an economic economist
Oops. “Academic economist.” Having been raised by an academic economist, however, I’ll confirm that many economists are “economic” as well (some would say “cheap”).
Are there any key races in the northeast?
Nope. Basically everybody in the Northeast is a lock. Schumer (D-NY) and Leahy (D-VT), those banes of Bush nominees, will be pretty safe; Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) have their seats for as long as they want them; if the Democrats couldn’t elect their sitting governor for an open seat in 2002, then they won’t oust Judd Gregg (R-NH). PA is the only interesting race there, and although Hoeffel is a good candidate and Specter has a primary challenge, I’d still bet on Specter to return in the fall.
RDB, if Martinez wins the primary, he’d be slightly favored over whatever Democrat is the nominee. Florida is unpredictable, which means there’s decent odds of the Dems losing the seat. But the odds of them keeping it are better than their chances in any other open Southern seat.
In terms of filibustering, losing Zell is a wash and losing Breaux hurts a smidgen; losing the other three reliable Dem votes is dangerous for the ability to filibuster. All else being equal, if the GOP sweeps all the open seats (not unlikely), you’ll have 56 GOP votes, you’ve got the Nelsons, and you’ve got whatever two or three Dems the GOP can get to waver. After Bayh and Baucus, everybody else is pretty loyal, but you’re right, that’s too close for comfort (for my comfort, that is; Moe may choose to disagree). But in all likelihood, all else won’t be equal; I’m confident that four or five of the half-dozen Dems running for the Illinois Senate nod can win (see, f’rinst, state Comptroller Dan Hynes, who’s been elected statewide already).
von,
That would be “Dean as Mondale” – GWHB ran against Dukakis. Which raises an interesting issue – you and Katherine seem to be “young” in a sense that Moe doesn’t. You have a completely different life narrative than mine (neither better nor worse – simply different). I was 16 when Reagan was elected governor of California. I experienced him in a completely different way than (I believe) you or Katherine did.
As you consider GWB – as President or as candidate – do you ever consider that he has been deeply involved in presidential campaigns since 1976? His campaigns in Texas were classic electioneering at their ultimate. He makes Clinton look like the county courthouse pol that he was. He has stated both in Texas and as President what his goals were – from the beginning – and he has executed the steps necessary to reach those goals. I believe that his (unstated) goal is to surpass Reagan’s ’84 margin (popular). If that is true, then I wouldn’t bet against him.
I did not (and would not) characterize Dean as Mondale. Mondale had a set of core beliefs that I consider to be honorable and arguable. Dean, to this point, has neither expressed nor exhibited any beliefs that could be characterized as other than hubris.
My my, a main course of “deep reflections” for me. And, what’s that? My favorite, humble pie!
That would be “Dean as Mondale” – GWHB ran against Dukakis.
What a supid mistake by me. (Mmmm, mmmm, that humble pie is good. I love eating dessert first!) There have been those who have recently compared Dean to Dukakis, however, which is why I lept at the opportunity to proclaim full-fledged memedom. Mea culpa.
Which raises an interesting issue – you and Katherine seem to be “young” in a sense that Moe doesn’t.
That’s probably correct. I’m hovering at 30. I suspect Moe’s hovering a few years above, and Katherine a few years below. (Of course, to the extent that you’re using “young” as a euphemism for “conservative,” well, you’re also correct.)
I experienced him in a completely different way than (I believe) you or Katherine did.
I would say so. I have no memory of Reagan as governor. (I think that my first “political” memory was of the Iranian hostage crisis. I remember playing, “let’s save the hostages” with Luke, Han, and the Milennium Falcon. Obviously, I needed counseling.)
I believe that his (unstated) goal is to surpass Reagan’s ’84 margin (popular).
I suspect Bush’ll be disappointed.
Dean, to this point, has neither expressed nor exhibited any beliefs that could be characterized as other than hubris.
On that I agree. See my prior posts.
von
” After Bayh and Baucus, everybody else is pretty loyal, but you’re right, that’s too close for comfort (for my comfort, that is; Moe may choose to disagree).”
Actually, no: a filibuster-proof Senate means that the Democrat Party will be at extreme risk of falling apart – which would likely mean that the Republicans would follow suit two elections later.
This would be a suboptimal result.
Moe “Who is not that old; 34 in a couple months. That’s not old at all…” Lane
RDB,
Mondale had a set of core beliefs that I consider to be honorable and arguable.
Glad to hear you say so. I’ve got a soft spot for ol’ Fritz, and it’s good to hear that I may not be off the mark.
Which raises an interesting issue – you and Katherine seem to be “young” in a sense that Moe doesn’t… (Of course, to the extent that you’re using “young” as a euphemism for “conservative,” well, you’re also correct.)
Does that mean that since I’m less conservative than Moe, I can also say I am more “young” as long as I put in quotes? I’d only gain a couple of years, sure, but I bet I could find some super-conservative dude in his 20s out there, and I’d definitely be more “young” than him. Hm, liberals and vampires, eternally young, so long as we can find victims. Annnnd I think I’ll drop the train of thought right there, before I get myself into trouble. I’m off to play some hacky sack–do the young people these days still do that?
Yeah, I was 10 years old at the end of Reagan’s second term. I do remember the 1984 debates (my Grandma was furious at the pundits who called the VP debate for Bush over Ferraro), but basically I know most of what I do about Reagan from books and history classes. The first time I really paid attention to politics was the Clarence Thomas hearings, I think.
As to Dean and McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis/ Goldwater/whoever–I like Josh Marshall’s quote, even if he couldn’t find the source:
“I’m reminded of a line from the great historian Edmund Morgan who once wrote: (and I’m roughly paraphrasing here) History never repeats itself. It only seems like it does to those who don’t know the details.”
Moe,
From my perspective I could (biologically) refer to you as “son”. That said, you would still be “older” (political sense) than von or Katherine. That was the intent of my observation.
von and Katherine are taking a serious interest in presidential politics for the 2nd or 3rd time. At the 10th or 11th time the issues become a bit cloudier and yet a bit more clear. With you, I sense a referent to the 5th, 6th or 7th time. A better perspective, without the ennui that I carry.
I am heartened by their interest, for the decision at hand has implications beyond the silliness of the candidates involved. As my generation was corrupted with the concept that collective wisdom had a value higher than individual wisdom, so my grandchildren have the possibility that a return to individual responsibility might be achieved.
Collectivism is surely the road to serfdom and I would prefer that my grandchildren (and their grandchildren) might at least have a taste of liberty (with all its concommitant costs). I wish that the Dem party had someone who could present a platform that would incorporate a vestige of individual responsibility but I see no evidence of that possibility.
4th time at least, actually. I tuned in during the Thomas hearings and never really tuned out again. Ah, 1992….
Oh I’m sure that ideological/partisan groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the NRDC who are in the business of scaring people to raise funds and to slant the issue in favor of their particular candidate won’t like it but there is nothing particularly “horrendous” about his environmental policies.
Bush is actually pushing a more pragmatic environmental policy which has continued the progress towards cleaner air and water, while making some common-sense reforms (such as the changes to new source review which are probably going to end up being more effective than the old ones when you figure the older standards by discouraging repairs contributed to pollution) that are more results-oriented, continuing a multiple-use policy on public lands (just like TR), and rightfully opposing some of the more disastrous policies (Kyoto, motorist-killing CAFÉ standards, and the arsenic debacle) which no one really wanted to see implemented – they just wanted the issue to hang over his head.
MattK,
Hacky sack? How would I know? I meant no disparagement of the young. I think Katherine’s activism in favor of Dean is great. I applauded (and applaud) your support for Graham. Thinking (and/or feeling) advocates of candidates and causes are the lifeblood of democracy.
I acknowledged that I suffer from ennui – I find as much comfort in Ecclesiates as in any other book in the Bible. If the republic is to continue, it will be on your’s and Katherine’s shoulders (as well as all of those of the same (roughly) age. At a certain point you will understand that the human heart is vile and uneducable – that “teaching” good ideas is doomed. At that point you will have to either abandon pretense or continue in it.
It will be your decision for the forseeable future.
RDB,
Actually, I think it’s a dim view of human nature that leads me in the direction of the “good government” approach. If a conservatives’ bugaboo is the thought of the US as a socialist miasma, I would think some liberals’ would be the US as Dickensian England. I certainly understand your yearnings for a less intrusive government, but worry about a return to the regular economic busts, shady business practices, and wretched working and living conditions prevalent in the 19th Century.
Rest assured, I take no offense at your “young” comment. I was just playing with the idea. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Ben Franklin, “An old young man becomes a young old man.” Though hopefully, not quite as, ahem, randy as Ben.
Better to be reading Ecclesiastes than Leviticus, though no doubt you would sleep better (and more frequently) were you to try to be a regular reader of the latter. 🙂
Just to clarify, I do not think of either of the above bugaboos as a likely occurrence. Just trying to give extreme examples.
“I’m reminded of a line from the great historian Edmund Morgan who once wrote: (and I’m roughly paraphrasing here) History never repeats itself. It only seems like it does to those who don’t know the details.”
Touche, Katherine.
von and Katherine are taking a serious interest in presidential politics for the 2nd or 3rd time. At the 10th or 11th time the issues become a bit cloudier and yet a bit more clear. With you, I sense a referent to the 5th, 6th or 7th time. A better perspective, without the ennui that I carry.
That’s about right for me. I’ve been “interested” for the last five or six rounds; it’s an earlier round for me, however, if we’re talking about a “serious” interest.
That said, be careful about generalizations. People are different in print than in person.
At a certain point you will understand that the human heart is vile and uneducable – that “teaching” good ideas is doomed. At that point you will have to either abandon pretense or continue in it.
This is intriguing. I actually start at the same place, but end at the opposite. We’re all terrible little creatures, I agree. It is pretense, however, that keeps us from indulging our worst instincts (What will my family think? What will the neighbors thing? What will God think?). In this sense, guilt and remorse are the currency of just existence — for guilt and remorse keep existence just.
Perhaps I have a different view on life, or I’m at a different stage of my life, or I’m an idiot. Or, perhaps, all three.
von
MattK,
I sleep quite well having read Eccesiastes. Leviticus takes me to places that I don’t understand.
You (and von) are my hope for the future. You both (properly) reject the apparent obvious inequities in the current system. The apparent solution at hand (dem party) addresses the symptoms of the problem (as you see it). Over time, the true nature of the problem will become more apparent to you. Hopefully, you will turn to the explanation that has primary appeal to reason and abandon emotion. At that point, should you stay with the Dems, you will be part of the transformation.
Have you read Kirk or Hayek? If not, reading them may be advisable if you wish to understand true conservatism or true liberalism. What passes for current thought is no substitute. And yes, I have traced liberal thought from Locke through Comte and Mills and Marx and Sartre and Foucalt and Derrida. Kirk and Hayek simply render my understanding of what I see every day in terms more palatable to my observations.*
*I acknowledge that Locke is also claimed as a font by conservatives. I place him with liberals. And I would add Montesquie with conservatives (if he weren’t French).
von,
You hit the nail on the head.
What will my family think? – Personal
What will God think? – Personal
What will my neighbors think? – Personal
What will society think? (you didn’t ask) Collective.
Thinking (and concluding)concerning the personal (never collective) responsibilities of the indvidual is the hallmark of the conservative. A conservative will never explain personal duty and responsibility in a collective sense. A conservative will always acknowledge a collective duty (charity for example) but will rarely assert a collective right.
If you think of this theologically the answer is even more clear. The statement “He is my Lord and Savior” has little meaning if you do not understand what Lord means. Cheap salvation (or cheap grace) is accepted by almost everyone. Lordship (and concommitant discipleship) is accepted by very few. (in this respect, I would cite C.S. Lewis – ‘Mere Christianity’ and Dietrich Bonhoefer – ‘The Cost of Discipleship’). If you can keep from reflexive disdain when you consider the “conservative” side of the spectrum and focus on what the world might be like if dissension were reduced to arguments concerning implementation of policies formulated by classical liberals or “progressives” I believe that you and Matt would turn toward the conservative viewpoint. Katherine may too, but additional exposure to the “masses” will be a prerequisite in her case.
Moe may be tougher than Katherine.
RDB–these last couple posts are very opaque to me. Which “masses”?
But if I understand you, which I probably don’t: the problem with reducing it to personal responsibilities is that there are too many people who are simply invisible to us. Are you advocating no government-provided social services? I can say with reasonable certainty that I will never be convinced of that.
Katherine,
In one sense a conservative will have a problem with a collective (rather than a personal) duty to the “masses”. Because the personal duty is so high (10% is an absolute minimum) a true conservative will flinch at the state imposed additional burden. Very few true conservatives (those giving 10% in aid of the “masses”) exist. Thus, the compromise begins.
I cannot in good conscience argue that no governmental provided charity should exist until the basic minimum is met. A 10% charitable gift would in fact eliminate any need for governmental services. A fair portion of the liberal “agenda” reflects that fact. Taxes are exacted in lieu of charity. It is little different than the temple tax or tithe exacted 2500 years ago. The coercive means of exaction differ slightly but the implicit ends differ greatly.
I do not tithe to the government. I will use every means at my disposal to avoid paying any more than the law exacts. I do tithe to the church and I will not under any circumstance make any attempt to avoid my duty in that respect. I abhor the state and adore the Body of Christ.
There is a portion of humanity which must be cared for. In percentages it lies between 6% and 10% – I don’t know the precise percentage but I do know that it is invariable (although the particular people involved will shift in every year). Both liberal and conservative political processes agree that these people must be served – but they differ substantially as to the means.
A conservative focus on how charity is administered will focus on that portion of the 6%-10% that is in transition (the unchangeable portion must be served at any rate). Those in transition need as much carrot as stick but they do need the stick. A liberal focus throws the stick away and purchases additional people for the transitional class.
This is a gross simplification of societal problems and solutions but at the basis it does identify the difference in views. In short, no conservative can be opposed to the maintenance of the helpless and no conservative can be in favor of the purchase of additional clients for a bureaucracy.
Katherine,
With regard to your first question, the masses are those for whom you (apparently) seek justice. Those who are unable or incapable of acting or speaking for themselves. I may be mistating your feelings in this respect but I do so having carefully read most of what you write.
To me, you appear caught up in an unending narrative that pits a voiceless (and powerless) mass in opposition to an unthinkably powerful oligarchy. I would submit (and I could be absolutely in error) that you may not have spent much personal time in contact with the truly powerless. I have. In general the ones that I have had the most contact with are stupid, they literally stink and they are remarkably ungrateful. God may love them but outside of his commands I would choose to have nothing to do with them. When you have had a minimum of three of them throw up in your car and get out with out offering to help clean up then I will be able to listen to you (you can count incontinence as throwing up if you like).
Well, I’m doing asylum law next semester so I guess we’ll see. I also know a fair bit about severe mental illness from both family and employment. I appreciate your sincerity but I can’t help but find this fairly patronizing. Surely you know that it’s not just the young and the naive who are liberal.
Katherine,
It was not my intent to patronize in any manner. I admire your loyalty and tenacity in support of Dean and the liberal cause. I am suggesting that a close contact with those for whom you hold conceptual deep feelings may change those feelings. The separation in terms of ends that you see between liberals and conservatives may be nothing more than means.
Keep up the good fight and your studies – above all keep your eyes open.
RDB,
I’m afraid my enthusiasm for removal of taxation in favor of private donations is dampened by the suspicion that most people would welcome the former while skipping the latter.
As for the nature of people who benefit from government services, I offer myself as an example. If not for government backed loans, no college for me, and I never would have bought a near condemnable house and put it back on the tax rolls. In fact, I would probably be living near the poverty line, like I grew up, and where much of my family remains because they’re too proud to take advantage of the situation.
As for Katherine’s take on the world, good gracious, I believe she’s in New York City; how insulated do you think she could possibly be?
One big stumbling block on the path to converting me to conservatism is that I really don’t particularly care about money. Flat out, if our democratically elected government deems it worthwhile to take some of the money that living under its umbrella has allowed me to earn and distribute it, I don’t have a problem with it, even if the people are, as you say, stinky and ungrateful. I know several people who have been on unemployment or disability who are neither, and just hit a bad patch. For some, the bad patch may not have ended if not for the backup.
Since we got onto a Biblical tack, let me burden you with an interpretation from the Religious Left, from Leviticus, ironically enough (I was actually making a little joke before–all that stuff in Leviticus about how to orient your camp tends to be a little drowse-inducing):
“And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.”
Deuteronomy says more of the same and finishes: “And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.”
It doesn’t say gather everything, then decide who to give it to after judging whether they are worth it. It says, leave it. Not having a field to harvest, I am content to have the government handle the leavings. So I’m fine with taxation, but concerned that a growing number of my fellow citizens seem to feel they are being robbed.I could go on, but this post is already overlong.
MattK/D1,
I believe that I acknowledged above that the conservative ideal is far (and will remain far) from the conservative reality. Government aid (and therefore, taxes) will remain a necessity. Lev. and Deut. do instruct the wealthy 1% on how to manage their property. I am sure that it was honored then as an instruction just as it is now, which would amount to hardly at all.
To the extent that a government program aids in transition from poverty over a predetermined period it is a good thing. The final cost of your government backed loans will be less than 0 (in your case) because they will be repaid and because you will probably pay more in taxes as a result of your education.
I must leave now but in parting – being around the poor is not the same as being with the poor. It is the “with” that I don’t read in what Katherine writes. After being “with” them a bit one reaches the understanding that for a certain percentage of them education is no answer at all.
MattK/D1 wrote:
I don’t think that the power has been cut entirely but more and more people are wakened to the reality that these programs are essentially bankrupt when the baby boom generation begins drawing benefits. We need to make serious reforms to both programs such as raising the retirement age (grandfathering it in), adjusting the COLAs (which overstate inflation by about 1%), and means testing. It will be a lot easier to enact these sorts of reforms and resisting the drive to raise payroll taxes again (ala Howard Dean) if we have a group which has an interest in reforming a program which (a) isn’t going to do anything for them but cost them money) and (b) when they have an alternative they are less likely to be conned with the morally dubious “you pay for Social Security and Medicare now but someone someday will be paying for you to be on it” line of BS. The thing about Personal Retirement Accounts (PRAs) is that not only do they serve a purpose of reducing the unfunded liability of Social Security (thereby mitigating the problem) but they create a pro-reform counter-constituency (albeit a smaller one at least initially) to the anti-reform groups like the AARP which would make it politically easier to enact further changes to both programs.
Von wrote:
Actually I think the appropriate terms are “increase revenues” and “reduce expenditures.” Granted a lot of people translate that into “raise taxes” and “cut benefits” but I don’t think that is necessarily true in all cases.
For example, if workers were allowed to invest a portion of their FICA dollars in exchange for opting out of Social Security (not receiving benefits), it would have the effect of “reducing expenditures” because on the aggregate every worker is promised more in benefits than they are expected to pay in revenue. This is certainly one way of “reducing expenditures” that would probably not be seen as “cutting benefits.”
Also as I said in my response to MattK/D1, I think that this would only be the beginning of the reforms needed (means testing, COLA adjustment, and raising the retirement age) but these reforms would be a lot more viable with a group of people who no longer have a vested interest in the status quo.
As far as Bush and the GOP lead Congress not reducing spending, I agree that it is indefensible (although I would point out that much of it occurred with the “divided government” of a Democratic Senate and that Democrats have made clear that they want to spend even more than their GOP counterparts in which case it seems silly to vote for the greater spenders of the two). However in so far as Republicans tend to support reforming entitlement programs in ways that offer people market-based alternatives and undercut the “universal” nature of these programs, I think it lays the foundation for their eventual reform and long-term savings.
Thanks for your thoughts, RDB.
As for Thorley:
It would also reduce revenues, would it not? So, providing a voluntary opt-out is a good way of reducing a structural deficit, but not a very good way of eliminating it.
But I’m not disputing that such a voluntary opt-out (or, God forbid, an involuntary opt-out) isn’t the way to go. To the contrary, I’m quite fond of the idea. And it may be possible that we’ll go down the line and do the same for each and every entitlement out there. (I wouldn’t hold your breath, though: why give up a guaranteed return — particularly w/r/t health care services — in exchange for risk?
My main point is that I don’t believe that the Republicans will deliver if wholly in control, given their recent (1980-2003) track record.* Moreover, a political party holding all the keys to the kingdom is more vulnerable to the special interests of its individual constituents than a party that holds only some of the keys. Republicans are just as capable of pandering as Democrats, and the special interests interested in SS and Medicare/caid reform are truly special in their gigantic size.
von
*There has been the suggestion that certain on the pro-tax-cuts side of the aisle hope that the contry’s financial crisis becomes so severe that the we’re forced to cut benefits. It’s a similar theory to the theory promoted by Ralph Nadar (or, for that matter, bin Laden) that “it’s good for things to go bad” because that will prompt the desired counterreaction. Playing chicken with your country’s financial well being, however, is not something that I’d call particularly wise (or patriotic).
Seconding Von, RDB, thanks for your comments. Sometimes when I get enthusiastic about a subject, I get too pointed, boring, and pompous… I hope that I was none of these toward you. Unfortunately, I feel issues sometimes clarify better if they are pushed a bit, so when dealing with a temperate person, I sometimes do.
On the other hand, since it was your words of encouragement that kept me visiting blogs after my candidate folded, I suppose if I’m a bit of a pest, you have only yourself to blame. 🙂
As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. Oh, and thanks for the recommendation on Kirk and Hayek. I have to confess complete ignorance of both.
MattK/D1,
Tou (and von) are very welcome. I did not feel any discomfort whatsoever in your pointed response nor did I consider anything that you wrote to be pompous much less boring. I appreciate the opportunity to carry on a discussion with you (and von and Katherine). In reviewing my comments I do notice a tone that could justifiably be characterized as patronizing toward Katherine. That was not my intent and I will exercise more care in the future.
By all means read Kirk (The Conservative Mind) is probably the best starting point and Hayek – “The Road to Serfdom”. They will be a great help in identifying conservatives rather than just Republicans. They will also lead you to Burke and Montesqieu (and perhaps even to Nock). If you are interested in the Constitution – Montesqieu’s “The Spirit of the Law” is very interesting with regard to separation of powers.
I look forward to further discussion with all of you.
In reference to RDB’s posts above, perhaps the local powers-that-be could add a Reccomended Reading List to the blog…
In reference to RDB’s posts above, perhaps the local powers-that-be could add a Reccomended Reading List to the blog…
Hmmm. Perhaps the powers that are should speak with the power-that-be (i.e., the one with the blog writing powers). Hey, Mooooooooe!
Umm, if my cobloggers send me a list, I’ll see what I can do. Just be advised that I have a somewhat… unique… take on the Most Important Books of Our Time. 🙂
Excellent posts in this thread all around.
Von-
(I wouldn’t hold your breath, though: why give up a guaranteed return — particularly w/r/t health care services — in exchange for risk?
As far as SS is concerned, most sources I’ve seen project a return on a given individual’s SS contributions between 0% – 2% before inflation depending on when they start contributing, projections of what future benefits would be, etc. To continue with the current system is therefore to assume a large risk (betting that inflation throughout ones period of contribution is less than 2% at best) in order to garner a paltry return (the differential between the return on ones SS contributions and the inflation rate). In other words, one is choosing to almost certainly lose money or gain infinitesimally.
Keith Johnson