RSS Feed MenuColin Powell offered some advice for the Republican Party. For many, the majority perhaps, it is sound advice. Speaking personally, as a conservative, I cannot help but think following his counsel would be as wise as prescribing a tranquilizer to a patient who has overdosed on tranquilizers… and just as fatal in the long term.
“The Republican Party is in deep trouble,” Powell recently told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. “Americans do want to pay taxes for services,” he said. “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”
What is someone like myself, a business owner who instinctively favors less government intrusion, less regulations and lower taxation to make of this? My first thought upon reading his remarks was this: “Well it’s official. Colin Powell is a Democrat.”
But then I thought, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he really does represent what it means to be Republican now, in 2009. As I watched in dismay throughout the decade, the party I once called my own became a party of big government that would make Lyndon Johnson proud. In fact, the GOP left unfettered to govern as the “fiscally responsible” party, oversaw the greatest increase in the federal deficits and discretionary social spending in history. And yet Mr. Powell seems to think that this is what the people want, so the party needs to embrace a more, let’s just say it, liberal philosophy to stay relevant.
I speak only for myself when I say that if this is the case, if this is the direction the GOP must go, then it has lost me as a member for the foreseeable future. After all, what good is voting to put a group in power, if they do not exercise that power to steer the country in a direction I wish it to go? I want a country of smaller, less centralized government, less regulation, and less taxation. Those used to be considered good things. Those were the days. Sigh.
I stand amid the ruins of the once dominant Republican Party that currently has one of its most prominent members preaching the virtues of taxation and big government and I ask can this possibly be the same GOP of Ronald Reagan? Did we not come to gain the White House in 1980 and Congress in 1994 by espousing just the opposite agenda that Powell claims we must now embrace or be banished to the fringe as a party? Has America fundamentally changed so much in so short a time that one of my favorite Reaganisms: “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives,” has become passé? Am I an anachronism? Do I no longer have a party I can call home?
The GOP lost me and many of my fellow conservatives because it sacrificed its credibility in the area of fiscal responsibility to try and maintain power through dispensing federal largess. It became that which it claimed to oppose: a party of lavish spending and expansive entitlements. For me the tipping point was the behemoth Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. MIMA was the most sweeping overhaul of that program in its 38 year history. Here was a bill introduced into the House by Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert and signed into law by Republican President George Bush. This was a bill with an estimated 10-year cost of roughly $400 billion. But within a month, after it was signed, its cost estimate was revised up to $534 billion. By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion! Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s… because we promise way more than we can afford to keep.” Enough said.
Thus was alienated this socially liberal but fiscally conservative Republican and many of his independent friends. We are voters who understand that such peripheral issues as gay marriage, prayer in schools, evolution, etc. though important to some, and even maybe to us personally, were nonetheless secondary matters for the states to sort out so long as the GOP ran the books responsibly. But when the GOP showed that it could run up deficits and social spending in a way some Democrats in the past could only dream of, there was no longer any appeal. Many of us disenchanted folks began using the terms “Democrans and Republicrats” interchangeably to refer to the parties.
I have an acquaintance who confided in me after the election while peering deep into a half drained tumbler of scotch that he actually, in his words, “held my nose and voted for Obama.” This man is a staunch conservative mind you. I asked him why and his answer was striking. He said he actually wanted the Republicans “to get clobbered so they would wake up and become once again the GOP we yearn for.” “Even if it takes twenty years to recover,” he told me, “the Obama victory may be the best thing that could happen to the party. It told them they can’t get away with this. They’re supposed to stand for something different!” And do not think that idea never crossed my mind. After all with John McCain at the head of the ticket, what was the difference between a true Democrat and a “Democrat Lite”? In the end my concerns over security issues like Islamic terrorism, rampant nukes, and troops in harm’s way all being addressed by what I see as Obama’s global naivete trumped my desire to teach the spend-thrift Republicans a lesson and kept me barely pulling the “R” lever in 2008. Plus I knew that as bad as the spending spree had been under the GOP, under an Obama White House and Democratic Congress it would be twice as bad. I was wrong… it has already turned out to be four times as bad and counting. But I digress.
Back to Colin Powell’s thesis, that Americans want to pay taxes and have more government. Perhaps Mr. Powell is right. Maybe we entrepreneurs and those who hold self-reliance as an American virtue are in the minority now. According to Gallup’s 2008 Economy and Personal Finance survey, since April 2003, Americans labeling the amount of taxes they will have to pay this year as “fair” has been at or above 60%. (So much for my dreams of a new tax revolt any time soon, national “Tea Parties” notwithstanding.)
But there are some numbers to be found in the polling that may put Mr. Powell’s claims to the test. Dissatisfaction with taxes remained substantial until January 2003, with over 60% claiming their tax burden was “too high.” In 2000, it was as high as 68% even. After 2003, however, this dipped significantly to 47% and has continued to remain relatively low in each subsequent year. What happened in 2003? Well, the Bush tax cut took effect so perhaps there is a statistical significance here. I, for one, am curious what those polled will have to say should the Democrats let the tax cuts expire in 2011.
Until then I have to accept the fact that we are a nation swept up in the confidence of Obama-mania (Mr. Powell voted for him). Having watched the near collapse of capitalist titans due to mismanagement, there is an optimism about the powers of government with “the One” at the helm to effect positive change in people’s lives I must admit I have never seen before. But I can also see that we are in the midst of a personality cult that has been mere rhetoric so far as these particular categories go. The actual real world effects of higher taxes and bigger, more intrusive central government, so often proved by history to be a recipe for economic stagnation and even collapse in the long term, have not yet been visited upon the oblivious “yes we can” crowd. When policies start to hit home, when tax bills go up, health care quality diminishes, inflation spikes, interest rates soar, unemployment remains high, and the overall economy sputters, the political climate may be different.
I am in the commodities trading business. It is a business about statistical probabilities, financial modeling, predictions, fundamental analysis, technical analysis, all manner of scientific method to predict future trends in markets. And yet, I have seen some of the best traders make the gutsiest (and most profitable) calls when they throw their models out the window, and play the markets “by feel” even when the data points and hard numbers contradict their intuition. Perhaps I may be in the same position now regarding my take on the direction the GOP needs to go. The numbers that Mr. Powell and I both see tell me that, from a purely scientific analysis, to attract more votes we need to adopt the Democrat playbook to survive. That we, too, need to be a party of big government, more intrusive regulations, higher taxes, largess for all, wealth redistribution, and cradle-to-grave welfare. We need to be, in a word, Socialist Europe.
Look, maybe I still don’t get it. Maybe my fiercely independent nature is blinding me to a sea change in our national psyche. But I am just not willing to play the numbers here. My gut, my in-grained German “Fingerstitzengefühl” (intuition at the fingertips) which has come in so handy in business, is whispering in my ear: Do not give in. The Republicans will come back to reality as will the country. Then we will remember what made us great: individualism, thrift, personal responsibility, optimism, rewarding, not punishing, success, and the unleashing of capital to fund American ingenuity and invention to better our lives and enrich the nation. As far as I’m concerned, these were and always should be Republican mantra.
To put it bluntly, I believe that adopting the Powell approach would be tantamount to party suicide. I may not speak for the majority… yet. But I am not alone. Still, I freely admit I have nothing but my gut instincts to back up this assertion. Many a time in my life, that’s all I have needed.
ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 6:32 am
Franco 7:45(And being first black, first woman doesn’t add anything in my book – doesn’t mean he is better in any way just first -meaningless )……….Well that would be because you obviously have zero understanding of how things work in the real world….it also indicates a degree of insensitive oafishness which alas has become one of the distinguishing features of your brand of far right conservatism.
sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 6:53 am
ottovbvs & Franco: I happen to agree with *Franco* on this one. I am getting sick and tired of liberals using the “insensitivity” defense to defend someone committing indefensible actions, on the grounds that we should go easy on him just because of his race. Nothing doing!Powell is *NOT* a “black” (and he’s certainly NOT an African-American, his ancestors came from Jamaica). To me he’s a Homo Sapiens, a former General, a former member of several Administrations, a former political moderate–and now a definite liberal, whose suggestions for the GOP I reject.(And if even I reject them, given my pro-choice and pro-civil unions stance, then you can imagine that the GOP will reject them too.)
ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 2:11 pm
sinz54 6:53 AM”Powell is *NOT* a “black” (and he’s certainly NOT an African-American, his ancestors came from Jamaica). “…….Er…..and how did they get to Jamaica?….by cruise ship?…….As I’ve observed before Sinz you frequently descend into self parody…….Anyone who has worked in American business at an executive level, or belonged to a country club for that matter, for forty years plus will tell you that there has been a massive sea change in attitudes towards minorities and women in professional and business life. I worked in companies forty years ago where jews were tacitly excluded. The military was only desegregated in 1948. During my own military experience in the early sixties there were no black officers in our mess. To deny the existence and surmounting of these racial and gender barriers demonstrates total oafishness and insensitivity to the facts of history and the realities of tribalism and group think. Franco is a bumpkin…..don’t join him.
sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 5:04 pm
ottovbvs: I’m not denying the existence of racial and religious barriers–50 years ago.I am insisting that there has to come a point in time where liberals stop beating younger white Americans like myself over the head about it. I was born in November 1954 (hence my userID “sinz54″). I wasn’t part of Bull Connor’s forces. I don’t see why I am being grandfathered in, literally, into an endless guilt trip of liberal guilt. On the other hand, my family in New York City had to flee from racial violence on the part of blacks and Hispanics, who didn’t want any “Whiteys” living in their neighborhood and sent us death threats. (You liberals always turned a blind eye to THAT type of race violence.) And that continued well into the 1990s; go learn something about the Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn, which even the Government admits were black-on-Jew hate crimes.But I am not trying to levy a guilt trip about that on Obama’s kids. It would never occur to me.The only Original Sins of which my generation (and future generations) are guilty, are described in the Bible.
ChristianMiller // May 17, 2009 at 7:26 am
ottovbvs,You need rube lessons. Obviously your education has served to cover up the truth rather than reveal it. So here are some facts and logic from a simple mind, one that is clearer than the complex web of falsehoods clouding your brain under the guise of education.”Americans do want to pay taxes for services”This statement is false. No one prevents Americans from paying taxes. Most Americans don’t pay taxes, and of those who do, none volunteer to give the US Government extra money, therefore the statement is false.This stands the issue on its head and then tries to criticize the newly elevated feet. Americans don’t send the government money and then say, “please give me some service for that”. The government takes taxpayer’s money as a requirement for services that have already been decided and being rendered.It would make more sense to say, “Americans want services for their tax dollars”, but that puts the onus on the government, and I suppose Powell doesn’t like that position, it doesn’t advance his, or his friend and race-mate Obama’s agenda.Colin Powell whatever-the-hell-his-color-is and however brilliant his resume, cannot speak for Americans in this way. Is he citing a poll? Of what, taxpayers who are Americans or just “Americans”. Is he trying to say “the majority of Americans”? But he didn’t say that, did he? The statement is untrue. But, even if there were some poll, and there was a specific question asking if the taxpayer was willing to pay more taxes for more (unnamed) services and the majority of taxpayers agreed, it still would not warrant the kind of overstatement Powell made. Colin Powell said, “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”The statement is false. There is no empirical evidence to back up this blanket statement.
kroner // May 18, 2009 at 1:14 am
Franco, the polls you’re asking for are plentiful. They are our elections. If a majority decided that it was best to severely reduce or abolish taxes, then representatives who supported those policies would be elected. That hasn’t happened recently at least on any sort of national scale.You’re right that people don’t want to volunteer more taxes individually. That would represent a large loss for them, for marginal gain, since their donation would be spread among the services provided to an entire nation of 300 million people. But the majority of people do recognize that it’s in their interest for the collective population to pay taxes, and that in order for that to happen they have to accept their fair share of the burden as determined by the law. After all, the majority collectively decides the the law through our representative democracy.
Jeffryw // May 18, 2009 at 5:13 am
Kroner…”they have to accept their fair share of the burden as determined by the law.”I see that phrase “fair share” tossed around a lot. The stat that Schaeffer ciites (granted just one study) shows that people felt that they were paying more than their fair share before 2003. Now they seem more content. So maybe we are at that equilibrium at the moment. If Obama starts to raise them again we may see dissatisfaction re-emerge. As to taxes in general. I think people object more to paying taxes that are WASTED rather than taxes per se.
ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 7:16 am
kroner “Franco, the polls you’re asking for are plentiful. They are our elections. If a majority decided that it was best to severely reduce or abolish taxes, then representatives who supported those policies would be elected.”First, the majority doesn’t PAY taxes. If people are paying zero in taxes and they, as Colin Powell asserts, want to pay taxes, then why aren’t they doing it? So a large part of the “majority” that elected Obama want taxes raised on other people, therefore, they themselves don’t wish to pay more taxes, right? Powell could have said ” the majority of Americans want other Americans to pay higher taxes” That statement might be safe to say is inherently true and could be backed-up by polls and even this election. But that is not what he said is it? Conflating those who already don’t pay taxes with those who do and then saying they all want to pay taxes is misleading. If Powell is as smart as his resume one would have to believe he phrased this statement deliberately to mislead. You cite the election as proof that Americans have accepted higher taxes even as Obama campaigned on not raising one dime from 95%! And few if any other Democrats campaigned on raising taxes. You are flat-out wrong.
Jeffryw // May 18, 2009 at 7:22 am
Franco, maybe Powell should say: The majortiy of Americans want a FREE LUNCH”!
That would be more apropos.
ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 9:21 am
Jeffryw ,Powell certainly wants a free lunch from Democrats. If he voted for Obama and is calling himself a Republican it is obvious he just needs love and attention.
sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 9:28 am
Franco claims: “the majority doesn’t PAY taxes.”That is FALSE.Virtually everybody who works for a living has to pay Social Security payroll tax. And despite what liberals may say, it really is a tax, not a “contribution.” Some $200 billion of SS revenue is diverted each year to be used as general revenues for the usual Federal expenses.Beyond that, some 60% of American workers–a clear majority–pay income tax each year.
sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 9:43 am
Jeffreyw: Are you sorry that the Federal Government built the Interstate Highway System? Or Boulder Dam? Measured in today’s inflated dollars, these projects cost trillions of Federal dollars.Would you have preferred that they not be built, if the only way to have built them was with Federal money?There are services worth paying for. We pay taxes to support highways, bridges, and the air traffic control system. We pay for the National Weather Service, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control.Unless you take the Ayn Randian position that the only things a government should do are cops, courts, and military.In which case you are not a conservative.
Jeffryw // May 19, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Sinz. The interstate highway was a military project so as that falls under the realm of what government is meant to do I am not upset at all about it. As to the dams, I would have to see if it could be done privately. Can’t comment more than that on it as I know very little about it. I DO know that all the make-work projects did NOT get us out of the Depression (see economic stats in 1938 for reference) but rather WW2==despite what liberals would like to believe so. I also know that there are few true libertarians. That government does provide vital unique services. But I prefer to first make sure the money I already give an institution is spent wisely and efficiently before digging into my pockets for yet MORE tribute because those in charge of my taxes are spendthrifts.You seem to see your government as efficient. Are you saying we should pay MORE in taxes??
Patrick // May 22, 2009 at 8:39 am
You grazed on what I believe to be the central issue that Republicans face – credibility.For years we were told that the GOP is the party of Fiscal Responsibility, Rule of Law, Constitutional Inviolability, Personal Responsibility, Good Governance and Principles over Personality.The 8 years of the Bush administration completely wrecked all that.Besides the spending spree you noted, the Rule of Law was cast aside when convenient (Scooter Libby, Torture, et. al.), the Constitution was ignored when convenient (spying, torture, et. al.), Personal Responsibility was abandoned in favor of Constitutional initiatives (aimed at denying American citizens their full measure of citizenship, Terri Shiavo, personal hypocrisy, et. al.), Good Governance was abandoned in favor of hyper-partisanship and ineptitude (Donald Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, etc., etc.) and the Cult of Personality surrounding George Bush allowed many to embrace all of the above in direct violation of what they claim to adhere to.The GOP lacks credibility on all these issues because their words do no align with their proven actions.And frankly, I don’t know how the GOP can regain the credibility they once had. Being so far out of power, they lack the ability to actually prove that they can act on the principles they claim to want to return to.Talk is cheap, and unfortunately, the ability to act is severely compromised by just how far the GOP has fallen in recent years.It’s a nasty mess, and one not easily solved. What is clear is that just being the so-called “Party of No” isn’t going to get it done.The GOP has to engage the DEMs and do their utmost to try and shape policy, influence direction and moderate the actions of the President and Congress – thereby proving that they walk the walk.But the damage is done and it’s going to be a long road back, and until the GOP can prove that they will actually act upon Conservative Principles again, the credibility just isn’t there.Furthermore, the Old Guard of Cheney, Gingrich, and folks like Limbaugh, Kristol and Hannity are doing their utmost to insure that credibility gap stays exactly where it is.