RSS Feed MenuI had a good chuckle at Erick Erickson’s enraged piece on the Republican pledge, now being circulated by Democratic spinmeisters.
Question for Erickson: What did he expect?
Here is the GOP cruising to a handsome election victory. Did you seriously imagine that they would jeopardize the prospect of victory and chairmanships by issuing big, bold promises to do deadly unpopular things?
But if the document is unsurprising, it’s also unsurprising that Erickson and those who think like him would find it enraging. The “Pledge to America” is a repudiation of the central, foundational idea behind the Tea Party. Tea Party activists have been claiming all year that there exists in the United States a potential voting majority for radically more limited government.
The Republican “Pledge to America” declares: Sorry, we don’t believe that. We shall cut spending where we can – reform the legislative process in important ways – and sever the federal guarantee for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans will redirect the federal government to a new path that is less expensive and intrusive than the status quo. But if you want promises of radical change? No. Too risky. We don’t think the voters want that – not the smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate that votes in non-presidential years, much less the bigger, younger, poorer, less white electorate of presidential years. And even that smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate is highly wary of cuts to programs that benefit them, Medicare above all.
But the real news is this: You can primary a Bob Bennett, you can nominate a Sharron Angle, you can balk Karl Rove and Mike Castle – but when decision hour arrives, the leadership of the party rejects the assessment of the American electorate offered by Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and for that matter Erick Erickson.
Yet at the same time, we so-called RINOs can take no pleasure in this document. Yes, there is good in it. (Putting legislative language online 72 hours in advance seems Good Government 101.) The silly bits are not too silly: the promise to cite specific constitutional language is an empty sop to those so-called constitutionalists who vainly hope to revive the John Randolph school of constitutional interpretation.
But the true sad news is that this is not a document to govern with in the recessionary year 2010. It’s fine to reject Tea Party illusions. But without an alternative modern Republican affirmative program, the GOP will find itself at risk of being captured and controlled by special interests instead.
The most admirable thing about the Tea Party is its zeal to find a bigger message for the Republican Party than: do what K Street wants. The message offered by the Tea Party may have been unworkable, unrealistic, or worse – but at least it was large and public-spirited.
I’d like to see a Modern Republicanism that responds better to the needs of the country, while retaining still the Tea Party’s reforming spirit. What I fear is the worst of all worlds: a Republican majority that rejects not only extremist ideas, but all ideas.
Rabiner // Sep 23, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Midcon:
I noticed after posting that you modified your post with this:
“Finally, so you pretty much want workers to get to a certain age and then take their meager SS and go away somewhere to die quietly? Sorry, we are living longer these days and people either cannot afford to quit work or do not want to quit work. In order to provide for everyone we need job growth not job rationing. Finding a way to take advantage of experiental knowledge by older workers is too an excellent idea and many corporations are doing just that through creative working arrangements from the simple part time worker, to shadow programs where younger employees are mentored and coached by older employees, to consultive arrangements. This punch the clock model of working is been fading for sometime in the same way our industrialial capability has been fading. There are new work paradigms and shoving out older employees because a younger employee needs the job is not what is happening and nor should it.”
I stated that government should not provide subsidies to business to hire workers who are older than 62 at the expense of younger workers. Business is more than welcome to hire workers at 62 but they should do so because they offer business a return on the investment, not because they are cheaper than alternative younger workers who could perform the same job and be just as productive. This is far different than saying older Americans should take their social security and ‘die quietly’.
midcon // Sep 23, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Rabiner,
True. I was using hyperbole to make a point. I agree that government providing subsidies to business for older workers at the expense of younger workers is not a very sustainable plan. But wouldn’t you say the same thing about the H1B Visa program where the government essentially is subsidizing companies who hire foreign workers at the expense of younger American workers?
Rabiner // Sep 23, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Midcon:
How is government subsidizing people in the H1B Visa program? They pay FICA taxes under the H1B Visa program. It’s added competition to the labor market but it is not unfair competition in which they are given subsidies. I’m not saying that the H1B Visa program doesn’t have issues such as lower wages for Visa holders typically since they cannot freely market their services while in this country and the costs of the Visa are typically taken into account when compensating someone but government is not subsidizing them so I don’t have an issue with it.
easton // Sep 23, 2010 at 5:48 pm
CD, here are a couple of articles:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/liberaltarians
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/liberaltarianism-revisited
I have a subscription so I don’t know if they are behind a firewall.
TerryF98 // Sep 23, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I said this thing would be written by lobbyists for corporations. I was right. Zero input from the vaunted grass roots internet scam.
“The Republican Party’s 21-page blueprint, “Pledge to America,” was put together with oversight by a House staffer who, up till April 2010, served as a lobbyist for some of the nation’s most powerful oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies.
In a draft version of The Pledge that was being passed around to reporters before the official release, the document properties list “Wild, Brian” as the “Author.” A GOP source said that Wild — who is on House Minority Leader John Boehner’s payroll — did help author the governing platform….
Until early this year, Wild was a fairly active lobbyist on behalf of the firm the Nickles Group, the lobbying shop set up by the former Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Don Nickles. During his five years at the firm, Wild, among others, was paid $740,000 in lobbying contracts from AIG, the former insurance company at the heart of the financial collapse; $800,000 from energy giant Andarko Petroleum; more than $1.1 million from Comcast, more than $1.3 million from Exxon Mobil; and $625,000 from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc.”
mickster99 // Sep 23, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Hey Mr. Chuckles,
You’re a little late on this one.
The GOP has already fulfilled this pledge.
They have already have done nothing.
Way too easy.
Let’s raise the bar a little bit.
Why don’t they just go back to 2000, dust off any old legislation they have laying around.
Say tax cuts for super rich.
And pass those again.
Whoops, tooooo easssy.
Well how about privatization of Social Security.
Karl Rove is still around. So are boehner, mcconnell.
Delay could come back and dazzle with some snappy footwork.
Maybe they could get some extra miles out of those old powerpoint slides.
Might have to upgrade to a newer version of Office but Goldman Sachs would pay for it I’ll bet.
Might have to shut down government for a few months but who’d notice really.
Government is really for chumps anyway.
quanta // Sep 23, 2010 at 9:03 pm
“I thought, since your head might explode, it might be fun to tell you that not only am I your intellectual superior (evident on every thread), but I am gainfully employed and regularly engage with medical school deans, hospital/hospital network CEOs, award winning biologists, venture capitalists, state and city governments, and top flight counsels. I do this by day, and by night I work to hand the island of Manhattan over to the conservative wing of the GOP.” – WillyP
Wow Mr. Palumbo such a big shot.
CD-Host // Sep 23, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Easton –
Thank you! I could read the 2nd but not the first. And the 2nd linked off to: http://theamericanscene.com/2008/06/27/the-age-of-abundance
And this, of course, makes libertarianism the ideology of the responsible center: supporters of both capitalism and the liberal social changes it produces. And while few independent voters self-identify as libertarians (much less Libertarians), they’re libertarian insofar as they reject the left’s antipathy to capitalism and the right’s antipathy to social tolerance. There is, of course, an element of the pundit’s fallacy here, but I think there’s a lot of truth here too. Over the last four decades, public attitudes have shifted dramatically rightward on economic issues (even with a sweeping Democratic victory this fall, it’s hard to imagine a return to the 1970s’ levels of taxes, regulations, unionization, or monetary expansion) and leftward on social issues (feminism, gay rights, and sexual openness have all made great strides). I think it’s pretty clear that the left has been gradually winning on social issues while the right has mostly won on economic issues. While neither side has been all that libertarian, the net effect has been to push things in a libertarian direction.
I’d have to say I agree with this but it misses the key point. The key point is that there isn’t a social liberal economically liberal left so much anymore. Rather what we have on the left is a federation of:
1) economically liberal social conservatives and moderates (generally female)
2) economically moderate foreign policy and social liberals (identify as liberals)
and libertarians really live on the extreme of the 2nd group. What is interesting is the 2nd group are your classic liberal Republicans. So really with the focus on social issues the two parties are just going to end up totally flip flopping with Democrats becoming the 1950s Republicans and vice versa.
CD-Host // Sep 23, 2010 at 9:11 pm
TerryF98 –
Its obvious it didn’t include the ideas from the internet. For example, the most popular proposal on the internet was legalize Pot. That doesn’t even get mentioned.
chriscurrey // Sep 23, 2010 at 11:56 pm
I read the new pledge, and i had a “deja vu” kind of feeling. So i went and dug up the Contract for America of 1994, and some of the stuff the leadership of the GOP said today were the same things that were said 16 years ago. However, there was something else about this “new” pledge that sounded very familiar. So i asked my grandson to do a search on those of topics in this “new” pledge (he used something called nexis lexus or something like that). And lo and behold, word for word, most of this “new” pledge is as old as my pacemaker. This is, as my late wife would call it, yesteryear-leftovers. Who do they think we are? A bunch of idiots? Do we have amnesia? Do they really think that we this dumb? Maybe they do…otherwise they would not have dared.
Oh my god, that was lame as my great grandson would say.
drdredel // Sep 24, 2010 at 3:37 am
Chris,
I think that sad truth is that we (and I don’t mean you and me, but you know what I mean) ARE this dumb!
It’s a very unfortunate reality. When you listen to the debates from England, you see grown-ups, arguing in grown up terms, in front (and with) other grown-ups. The audience is not treated like either mentally challenged 8 year olds or parkinsonian 80 year olds. The issues are discussed in depth and when someone says something that is factually incorrect, they are taken to task for it, again, in very straight forward and non pandering terms.
Cut over to the debates here. It’s like watching a conversation between Mr.Hooper and Big Bird. And as soon as someone dares speak to the masses with the assumption that they aren’t a bunch of ignorant monkeys, they are dismissed as being boring, or elitist, or nerdy.
Haven’t you heard who the “real” Americans are? If you are smart enough not to be led around by the nose with empty slogans and appeals to your most base fears and biases you are NOT a real American.
Sorry.
drdredel // Sep 24, 2010 at 3:42 am
I work to hand the island of Manhattan over to the conservative wing of the GOP
Good luck with that.
when you’re done, perhaps you can work on handing the bulk of New York’s pork production to the conservative wing Williamsburg’s orthodox Jewry?
Get Ready For Biflation And The Era of Wrestling With China // Sep 24, 2010 at 4:49 am
[...] enraged piece” and wonders what Erickson and other Tea Party activists expected. He wrote that the pledge rejects the Tea Party notion that “a potential voting majority for radically [...]
nhthinker // Sep 24, 2010 at 7:29 am
“And lo and behold, word for word, most of this “new” pledge is as old as my pacemaker.”
For a party that is supposed to represent conservative ideas- having a pledge that contains many pieces that are as old as your pacemaker is not a bad idea.
Rejecting a policy idea because its old is typically the wheelhouse of an adolescent mind. Conservatives have to evaluate the multi-generational impacts of a new idea before warming up to it and replacing an old one.
Ask a progressive how big government should get in the next two generations and they give you a blank stare.-
They never consider such a thing- they only look at problems and first look to larger government to fix it.
CD-Host // Sep 24, 2010 at 9:58 am
Drdredel –
Well I don’t agree. I think you see very good policy debate. What we don’t have is America is a homogeneous media so the type of discussion / debate is geared to the audience.
For independents you might hear “The Jobs kill bill”
For partisans “Payroll adjustment act of 2014″
For knowledgeable partisans / insiders “HR3179″
I think that forking of conversation is useful. It allows for broader participation in our democracy. It allows media to cater to different audiences. The net result is a better understanding of policy than would otherwise occur.
Europeans in my experience are remarkably uninformed about what their government is doing and why. I’m pretty critical of the USA in a lot of respects but this is one area I think we are getting it right. Take 2 people with the same actual education level (say an American who dropped out of school at 18 and a European who dropped out at 16) and compare their level of policy knowledge.
CD-Host // Sep 24, 2010 at 10:02 am
As for Biflation that sounds like another word for a falling dollar. Hard to think of anything that would be better for the USA than the dollar to go down sharply.
easton // Sep 24, 2010 at 11:21 am
WillyP: but I am gainfully employed and regularly engage with medical school deans, hospital/hospital network CEOs, award winning biologists, venture capitalists, state and city governments, and top flight counsels.
Yes, he asks them if they want fries with their shake. Badda bum. Thank you, thank you. I will be appearing here nightly.
For someone “gainfully employed” he sure is wasting his employers money considering the amount of time he is here. I teach 15 hours a week so I got time to burn.
Candy83 // Sep 24, 2010 at 11:28 am
I’m looking forward to a number of the tea-partiers winning seats in Congress, particularly with the Senate. They should be expected to deliver on the kind of leadership and “idea” they profess to represent. If they fall in line with just about anything and everything expected of them by the Establishment Republican Party … we’ll know the likes of Joe Miller [R-Alaska], Ken Buck [R-Colorado], Christine O’Donnell [R-Delaware], Marco Rubio [R-Florida], Rand Paul [R-Kentucky], Sharron Angle [R-Nevada], and Pat Toomey [R-Pennsylvania], et al. have been utterly full of s***.
A GOP Pledge to Do Nothing « JoeWo Joe Wosik Blog // Sep 25, 2010 at 11:54 am
[...] Story is located here [...]
GOP’s ‘Pledge to America’ includes plan to cut federal workforce by GAOUnion.org . . . . An independent website // Sep 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm
[...] A GOP Pledge to Do Nothing David Frum, Frum Forum – September 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm [...]
Analyses & Commentary on the GOP Pledge to America by GAOUnion.org . . . . An independent website // Sep 26, 2010 at 1:11 pm
[...] A GOP Pledge to Do Nothing David Frum, Frum Forum – September 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm [...]
independentsforkerry.org » Blog Archive » The GOP “Pledge” // Nov 9, 2010 at 10:50 am
[...] the “Pledge” as a sell-out of the tea party movement; Republican curmudgeon David Frum finds it retro and short on “modern” and “affirmative” ideas for governing during [...]