Catching up on my reading, and finding a dumb question
Doug Mataconis at Below the Beltway posted this on Tax Day (and I just read it last night):
A Question For The Tea Partyers
It’s fairly clear what your against and, by and large I agree, but what, exactly, are you for:
The link leads to Andrew Sullivan:
Protesting government spending is meaningless unless you say what you’d cut.
(…)
All protests against spending that do not tell us how to reduce it are fatuous pieces of theater, not constructive acts of politics. And until the right is able to make a constructive and specific argument about how they intend to reduce spending and debt and borrowing, they deserve to be dismissed as performance artists in a desperate search for coherence in an age that has left them bewilderingly behind.
Doug says:
It is, I think, an entirely fair question.
“Fair” being in the eye of the beholder, I think it’s a pretty obtuse question. I commented on Doug’s post:
Is it a fair question? Maybe, although the Left sure hates to take the question “how much tax money is enough?”
But it’s a tone-deaf question. Conservatives have railed against government spending for decades, but the Tea Parties didn’t happen until Obama quadrupled (is it still only quadrupled?) the deficit. Anybody who needs to ask “what would you cut” is either ignorant of current events, hasn’t thought those events through, or is deliberately ignoring them because it hurts his argument.
The bailout will be over a trillion dollars by the time all the interest is added up. A great deal of that money is targeted at pork projects; a great deal more is targeted at companies (both private and not-really-private companies) whose past decisions should have disqualified them from a single penny of taxpayer money. Nobody should have to ask the question: what would you cut?
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
“Conservatives have railed against government spending for decades”
Really ?
Where were they when George W. Bush doubled the national debt in eight years ?
Where were they on Medicare Part D ?
Where were they on TARP ? (Most of the House leadership voted it FOR it, and tea-party hanger on Newt Gingrich specifically endorsed it by the way)
I don’t deny the genuineness of the concern behind the tea parties, I do deny that conservative Republicans have any credibility at all on this issue.
Don’t confuse conservative with Republican, Doug. They overlap, but they’re not the same (full disclosure: I’m both).
Lance,
It’s hard to see where the line is considering that so-called conservative pundits spent eight years carrying water for what was, objectively speaking, one of the worst Republican President’s we’ve ever had.
Doug, I don’t disagree about the conservative pundits (I’m a little guilty of that myself), but that doesn’t change the basic premise here: asking Tea Partiers “what would you cut” is entirely off-base. It’s completely beside the point.
Lance,
No, it’s not.
If I take them at their word that the real cause of their anger is the growth of government, then asking them what they would do to stop and reverse it is not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary.
Protesting big government without talking about what you’re willing to get rid of is little more than intellectual masturbation.
Let me hear these people say they’re willing to cut defense pork and so-called “entitlements” and I’ll start taking them seriously. Until then, it’s just partisan Obama-hatred in my opinion, which accomplishes nothing if all it does is put the spend-thrift Republicans back in power.
Ah. So being angry about the trillion dollar bailout – that just doesn’t count? That was the catalyst for all this. Doing away with that (or with the Bush bailouts, or simply opposing more bailouts) doesn’t require “cutting” a single thing.
That said, conservatives have been ticked off about pork (in general) and entitlement spending for quite some time. You did notice the results of the last two elections? Conservative discontent was a big part of that.
I’m wondering what you mean by “these people.” I’ll bet if you asked, any of the protesters would rattle off a whole bunch of things they’d like to cut.
I get that you’re trying to be fair, Doug (or I think so, anyway), but it seems like you’re letting that blind you to some basic realities. Among them: Andrew Sullivan isn’t a real reliable source for criticism of conservatives and their issues.
Only true, if you want to ignore the broader reality, which is that we already can’t afford the government we have and either we cut it or we raise taxes to avoid a mountain of debt. It’s the same debate we’ve been having for decades and I’ve seen no evidence yet that either the conservative base in general, or Americans as a whole, really have the stomach for the kind of cuts that would need to be made to fix what’s wrong.
Then why do they keep voting for the same SOB’s — including Republican SOB’s — year after year ? Why do they cheer big-government “conservatives” like Newt Gingrich ? Why do they call anyone who suggests we need to cut an incredibly bloated defense budget someone who wants to “disarm” American ?
I don’t get where you’re going here, Doug. Are you honestly including all of the half-million-plus Tea Partiers when you say “they?”
You did notice the last two election cycles, right? “They” aren’t voting for the same “Republican SOB’s”. If any of “them” say no to cutting defense spending, maybe it’s because they’re prioritizing entitlement spending, welfare spending, public services for illegal immigrants, millions of dollars for museums and art studios nobody will ever visit.
At any rate, asking Tea Partiers “what would you cut” is still irrelevant: it’s obvious what they would “cut.” The bailouts. You’ve seen the same charts and numbers I have. That’s why we see all the protest signs saying something like “don’t spend my children’s future.” That was the catalyst, and everybody knows it, and to ask “what would you cut” is to pretend that you DON’T know it, and that you think “they” don’t know why they’re protesting.
You want to see conservatives putting the screws to their elected representatives? You should be pleased to see these protests. You should be egging them on.
Lance,
What do I see ? I see Conservatives supporting statists like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee only to turn around and vote for John McCain anyway just because he nominates some woman from Alaksa to be Vice-President.
I see them re-electing the House leadership and every other Republican in Congress.
I saw them put George W. Bush in the White House and then re-elect him despite the fact that he had a spending record that made him look like the last Texan to occupy the White House, a guy named Johnson.
And as far as the cuts go, 80% of the Federal Budget is made up of defense spending (including defense-based foreign aid to countries like Israel), entitlements, and interest on the national debt. Unless you’re serious about cutting all of those areas (and we really only have control over the first two), all this talk about controlling the growth of Government is just that, talk.
Let me see them put in office Republicans who will actually follow through on their promises of smaller government, rather than the phony nonsense we got in 1994 and against in 2000, and maybe I’ll start believing they’re putting their money where their mouth is.
As for the bailouts, those started under a Republican President, and a Republican Congress and some of the same people leading the charge against Obama now were leading the charge for the bailouts last year. And, yes, I’m talking about you Newt Gingrich.
Well, if we want conservatives in office, we have to get them elected. That takes people and effort. Organization, enthusiasm, people getting out and making themselves heard.
In other words, things like the Tea Parties.
But according to you, the rallies are populated by hypocrites. The people out protesting against the bailouts, for smaller government, for personal liberty. Who are creating an atmosphere in which that attitude carries weight – i.e., an atmosphere that will get conservatives elected, and that will force the already-elected to pay attention. They’re worthless, as far as you’re concerned, because most of them probably supported Bush.
So that’s it, then. You’ve created a self-fulfilling prophecy. None of which, by the way, makes “what would you cut” any more relevant.
Lance,
No, what I’m saying is that the so-called conservative Republicans are, by and large, hypocrites. They talk a good game of fiscal conservatism, and then when they get in office it’s something entirely different.
We saw it happen in the 1980s. We saw it happen in 1994. We saw it happen again in 2000.
Three times in twenty years.
Only a complete fool would think that these politicians would do anything different if given a chance a fourth time.
I don’t disagree, Doug. So what do we do about that? How does hitting the Tea Partiers with gotcha questions like “what would you cut” help?
It doesn’t help. They’re out demanding the same things you are. We have to support efforts like that if we’re going to have any hope at all of getting what you want. We certainly can’t be throwing in with Andrew Sullivan – he does not have your goals in mind.
Lance,
Because the “what would you cut” question is essential to any movement for smaller government being taken seriously. The guys at Cato have done it, why not the tea partyers ?
Until I see it, I will just continue suspected — as I did long before I read the Sullivan piece by the way — that this whole movement has little to do with actually cutting the size of government and is simply an anti-Obama, pro-GOP, crusade in disguise.
Some people apparently still believe that the Republican Party can be taken seriously when it talks about reducing the size of government, I’m not one of them.
Lance,
And just how is a “what would you cut” inquiry a “gotcha” question ?
If they really do want to cut the size of government, one would think they’d have an opinion on that, no ?
It’s only a “gotcha” question, if it causes them to inadvertently admit they’ve got no idea what they’re talking about.
It’s a “gotcha” question because there’s no legitimate answer from your point of view. They’ll either answer wrong, won’t answer at all, or they’re hypocrites who are just saying the right thing at the right time.
Did you attend a Tea Party? I’m guessing not (you didn’t blog it, anyway). If you had, you’d have seen a whole lot of people expressing the same things you are. Except that wouldn’t have mattered to you, because as far as you’re concerned, they’re obviously lying. Your attitude leaves you an island. You have no allies and, unfortunately, you need them if you’re going to achieve your goals.
But you refuse to take anyone at their word, so that’s out. Even people you don’t know; people you’ve never met; people whose pasts and thoughts and opinions you know nothing about. All hypocrites!
That’s your interpretation, I’m simply looking for an answer to the question.
Republicans have spent decades talking the limited government line and then failing to follow through on it in any significant respect. Like I said earlier, they’ve burned me three times in twenty years. I’d really like to know how this new movement is different, if, as you’re claiming, it is.
How can I refuse to take anyone at their word, when the question isn’t even being answered ?
If you think that all that needs to be done is for people to show up at protests with signs while dressed up in Colonial Era garb, then you’re being incredibly naive.
You’ve made your distrust of the protesters pretty obvious, Doug. Contempt, even.
Ah, the “it’s not enough” argument. It doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t do everything. Nothing is “all that needs to be done.” Yet we need things – multiple – to be done. The Tea Parties are making people feel like they’re part of something – not just alone. That’s something. They’re letting elected representatives know that conservatives really do pay attention, and really do have a voice. That’s something. They’re creating an atmosphere. No, it’s not everything. But it is something. You don’t create any kind of movement by just having everybody sit home by themselves.
Lance,
It’s not the protesters I distrust, it’s the people leading them.
All I can say is this…..
I don’t know how old you are but I’ve seen this before, many times, and it has always ended in disappointment for those of us who believe that limited government and individual liberty are more than just phrases to use to get elected.
And it’s always ended in disappointment.
If I saw a sign that this movement was different, I’d say so. In the beginning, it seemed like that possibility existed. Now that this entire movement has been appropriated by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey, though, it seems like skepticism is not only healthy, it’s mandatory.
As I said in the past, if all this movement results in is the return of the GOP to power, it will have accomplished nothing.
That’s not what you were saying a few comments ago, Doug. Back up at #9.
Maybe, but you’ve got to start someplace. The Tea Parties ARE someplace to start…unless you have something else in mind? Or would you prefer that conservatives were just sitting on their hands doing nothing?
Lance,
I would prefer conservatives who actually stayed opposed to government power after they come to power.
I would love to see more tea parties where the participants boo hypocrites like Huckabee and Gingrich and Hannity.
Most of all, I would love to see a Republican Party that was something more than a re-tred of what we’ve seen since the 1990s.
Doug, I’d prefer conservatives like that, too. Right now, though, the Republican Party and these Tea Parties are what we’ve got. There is no viable third party, and the Tea Parties are, at least, generating a great deal of interest and enthusiasm from conservatives who say the same things you do. If you want consistently conservative government, you should be throwing in with the Tea Partiers.
As a general rule, I don’t do political protests.
However, I wish them luck and warn them not to trust the Republican Party.