RSS Feed MenuE.D.: You are correct that any Republican revival is not going to come by simply accepting moderates into the GOP coalition. While we have an important heritage in the GOP, simply having more Scott Browns is not going to make the Republicans a competitive party. Republicans not only need to have a Big Tent of political views, but also a Big Tent of political ideas that will make people take notice.
Paul Ryan’s alternative budget is a good idea and starting point on asking how a conservative party should govern now. He has taken the time to come up with ideas for healthcare reform and entitlement reform. Ryan is not a moderate, but he has an idea that might well appeal to moderates and it takes the GOP beyond its “party of no” image.
While many have talked about the shrinking Republican tent when it comes to how it treats moderates, there is also a shrinking tent of ideas. As much as we might want to make fun of Democrats for employing 1970s ideas to solve current issues, many in the GOP act like it’s 1980 all over again. We think that tax cuts are the answer for any problem, even when they might not work in this situation. We need new ideas for a new era. What does it mean to be a Republican or a conservative in the 21st century?
Which brings me back to the original statement by David Frum: the need for a CPAC of the center-right. We need to have a place, an event that welcomes all sorts of people: libertarians, crunchy cons, moderates and the rest and also welcomes all sorts of new ideas on how to govern. In a way, it’s trying to do what Ronald Reagan did in the 70s: create a new Republican party that welcomed moderates, but also was a breeding ground for new conservative ideas. Both are needed for a GOP resurgence.
So, I’m all for a new CPAC or CENPAC or whatever you call it and E.D, I like you to be a part of it. Maybe the way to rebuild the GOP is by moderates like myself working with wonkish conservatives like yourself.
It’s worth a shot.
JonF // Feb 11, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Re: FDR set the retirement age at 65 because back in the 1930s, that was also the average life expectancy! FDR thought SS would remain solvent because many Americans wouldn’t live long enough to collect their SS benefits.
But back then life exectancy was lower because childhood mortality rates, though much lower than in the 1800s, were still higher than today. A 65 year old in the 30s was still going to have a decade or so of life ahead of him or her. I don’t disagree with your main point; I too think the retirement age needs to go up. But even in FDR’s day it was the case that the vast majority of people who lived long enough to join the workforce and pay into the system would also live long enough to collect from it.
kevin47 // Feb 11, 2010 at 10:31 pm
“I don’t disagree with your main point; I too think the retirement age needs to go up. But even in FDR’s day it was the case that the vast majority of people who lived long enough to join the workforce and pay into the system would also live long enough to collect from it.”
The fact is that the system is untenable, so long as those who can work do not choose to do so. But yeah, FDR did not create policy based on any sort of metric. He made it up as he went along. If anything comes of the new conservative movement, it will be to recognize that we have no obligation to carry on FDR’s legacy.
balconesfault // Feb 12, 2010 at 10:48 am
The thing that people tend to often forget is that Social Security is fundamentally a social insurance program … and not a national 401K.
As such, it was intended to provide survivor benefits to families that lose a major breadwinner, and might have otherwise faced destitution. It was intended to provide workman’s comp benefits to construction and mine and factory workers who were permanently disabled and unable to support their family any longer. It was intended to insure Americans against the possibility that they would outlive their ability to find paying jobs that their elderly bodies were still capable of handling.
I think that some adjustments to SS are warranted – but we need to be realistic. There is the account manager for a company or the specialized consultant who clearly can keep working after age 65 … and there is the loading dock worker or building maintenance man whose body is going to start breaking down with continued hard work at that age. We may have been able to extend life with drugs and medicine and better lifestyles, but we have to face up to the reality that people’s bodies do age and start to break down.
We also have to recognize that when someone gets laid off at 60, it’s already hard for them to find comparable employment. At 65+ it would be almost impossible in most cases.
Anyway Kevin – you SHOULD be saving for your own retirement. Social Security doesn’t really provide enough for much of a standard of living – you may be able to afford a so-so retirement home on it, but you’re not going to end up in a very luxurious one if that’s your only income at age 75.
orphe // Feb 16, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Please comment on video (Laffer curve) … your opinion is greatly appreciated:
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/videos/laffercurve1-3/laffercurve1-3.shtml
Bebe99 // May 4, 2010 at 4:34 pm
The problem is that conservatism as it has been practiced in recent decades has proven that it does not work as planned. One example: Both Reagan and Bush ushered in some serious tax cuts. But those tax cuts did not result in smaller government — government grew in the years after all of these tax cuts. National debt also ballooned. (Don’t tell me that tax revenues went up. Tax revenues go up every decade no matter the tax policy.) The reality of tax cuts does not match the conservative theory of tax cuts. Republicans need to look at the reality of their policies and stop thinking that if it sounds good it must be good. We have some serious recent history which shows rather clearly the results of conservative tax policies. The republican party is currently engaging in a loud effort to drown out any serious discussion of how their policies failed by shreiking the loudest. It is time for some serious re-evaluation.