It’s CPAC weekend – the grand rallying of the conservative clan here in Washington. It’s a season where conservatives from across the country meet to compare notes, share stories, and seek political consensus. The consensus forming this year however is an ominously dangerous one – ominously dangerous to conservatives themselves that is.
Conservatives live in thrall to a historical myth, and this myth may soon cost us dearly.
The myth is the myth of the Goldwater triumph of 1964. It goes approximately as follows:
In 1964, after years of watered down politics, Republicans turned to a true conservative, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Yes, Goldwater lost badly. But in losing, he bequeathed conservatives a national organization – and a new champion, Ronald Reagan. Goldwater’s defeat opened the way to Reagan’s ultimate triumph and the conservative ascendancy of the 1980s and 1990s.
This (the myth continues) is the history we need to repeat. If we can just find the right messenger in 2012, the message that worked for Reagan will work again. And even if we cannot find the right messenger, losing on principle in 2012 will open the way to a more glorious victory in 2016.
The Goldwater myth shuts down all attempts to reform and renew our conservative message for modern times. And it offers a handy justification for nominating a 2012 presidential candidate who might otherwise seem disastrously unelectable. Altogether, the myth invites dangerous and self-destructive behavior by a party that cannot afford either.
What happened in 1964 was an unredeemed and unmitigated catastrophe for Republicans and conservatives. The success that followed 16 years later was a matter of happenstance, not of strategy. That’s the real lesson of 1964, and it is the lesson that conservatives need most to take to heart today.
1964 was always bound to be a Democratic year. The difference between Barry Goldwater’s 38.5% candidacy and the 44% or 45% that might have been won by a Nelson Rockefeller or a William Scranton was the effect on down-ballot races.
Republicans lost 36 seats in the House of Representatives in 1964, giving Democrats the biggest majority in the House any party has enjoyed since the end of World War II. Republicans dropped 2 seats in the Senate, yielding a Democratic majority of 68-32, again the most lopsided standing in any election from the war to the present day.
This huge congressional majority – call it the Goldwater majority – liberated President Johnson from any dependence on conservative southern Democrats. In 1964, only 46 Senate Democrats voted for the great Civil Rights Act; 21 opposed. Without Republican support, the Act would not have passed. (And indeed while 68% of Senate Democrats voted for the Act, 81% of Senate Republicans did.)
While dependent on southern Democrats, President Johnson had to develop a careful, pragmatic domestic agenda that balanced zigs to the right (in 1964, Congress passed the first across the board income tax cut since the 1920s) with zags to the left (the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which created Head Start among other less successful programs).
Then came the Republican debacle of November 1964. Goldwater’s overwhelming defeat invited a tsunami of liberal activism. The 89th Congress elected in 1964 enacted both Medicaid and Medicare. It passed a new immigration law, opening the way to a surge of 40 million newcomers, the overwhelming majority of them from poor Third World countries. It dramatically expanded welfare eligibility and other anti-poverty programs that together transformed the urban poor of the 1950s into the urban underclass of the 1970s and 1980s.
Suppose history had taken a different bounce in 1964. Suppose somebody other than Sen. Goldwater had won the Republican presidential nomination. Suppose his narrower margin of defeat had preserved those 36 Republican seats in the House – or even possibly gained some seats. (The big Democratic gains in 1958 and 1962 were ripe for a rollback in 1964 – and indeed were rolled back in 1966, when the GOP picked up 47 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate.)
Under those circumstances, the legislation of 1965 might have looked a lot more like the more moderate legislation of 1964. The Voting Rights Act would surely have passed, and so too would some form of health insurance measure for the poor – a measure supported by the American Medical Association and health insurers as well as by congressional liberals. But Medicare might never have happened, or might have taken a less costly form. The immigration bill might have been more carefully written so as to achieve its declared purpose: eliminating racial discrimination in immigration without expanding the overall number of immigrants from the modest level prevailing in the 1950s and early 1960s.
True, the liberal triumph of 1964 set in motion the train of disasters that laid liberalism low in the 1980s. But those disasters followed from choices and decisions that liberals made – not from some multiyear conservative grand strategy for success in 1980. It was not Goldwater who made Reagan possible. It was Carter. Had Carter governed more successfully, the Goldwater disaster would have been just a disaster, with no silver lining. And there was nothing about the Goldwater disaster that made the Carter failure more necessary, more inevitable.
And anyway, as the years pass, the consequences of Reagan’s victory look more temporary and provisional, at least in domestic policy – while the consequences of Goldwater’s defeat look more enduring and more consequential. The Reagan tax cuts are long gone. Medicare is still here.
It’s important for Republicans to absorb and remember this history as they prepare to make their next political choices. Right now, Republicans are gripped by a strong martyr complex. They want to stand up for their beliefs, damn the consequences – in fact the worse the consequences, the more it proves the rightness of our beliefs. If this mood persists further into the 2012 cycle, we will pay a heavy price. 2010 is already shaping up as an inhospitable year for Republicans, especially in the Senate, where the map favors the Democrats. 2012 could be much better – unless we doom ourselves by our own bad choices.
It is this alternative possibility of success or failure down the ballot as well as up that makes it so urgent to disenthrall ourselves of the 1964 myth. Goldwater’s defeat was a prelude to nothing except defeats on the floor of Congress in 1965-66. As the next presidential cycle begins, our priority should be to identify presidential candidates who can run strongly in every region of the country – not because we expect to win every region of the country, but because we want to help elect Republican congressional candidates in every region of the country. Our present strategy is one that is paving the way not merely to another defeat at the presidential level, but to a further shriveling of our congressional party –and an utterly unconstrained Obama second term that will make LBJ’s ascendancy look moderate and humble in comparison.
126 responses so far
1 CptBuck // Feb 27, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I disagree with your premise.
For one thing, you seem to take it for granted that the Goldwater Myth is useful only to CPAC style conservatives. But isn’t the presence of a Goldwater type reformer, someone to suggest something new enough to conserve conservatism, exactly what is need at this time?
Then of course there’s the obvious rebuttle, which is to say that in ‘68 we did pick the pragmatic candidate, and that turned out great.
2 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 7:48 am
The reason people are standing up now because Bush never defended himself. He allowed the opposition to re-write the history of the run up to the Iraq war. He called himself a conservative and yet expanded the federal government, ran up deficits. The reason the current GOP complaints about Obama’s budget are not getting as much traction as they should is because we have no credibility after what happened during the Bush administration. It has nothing to do with the Goldwater myth, Reagan fantasy. It has to do with what happened under Bush. The first step is to recognize that you have a problem. In 2008 we lost because a lot of economic conservatives stayed home or voted for Obama. It had nothing to do with failing to embrace global warming. It had nothing to do with the illegal immigration debate. It had to do with conservatives sending Newt & Co. to DC to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and see little or no results. It has to do with DeLay declaring that there was “no fat” to be cut from the budget. It has to do with pursuing identity politics instead of focusing on the natural conservative constituency of people who go to work, pay their bills and want the government off their back, out of the pocketbook and bedroom.
3 sinz54 // Feb 28, 2009 at 7:57 am
Chekote claims: “In 2008 we lost because a lot of economic conservatives stayed home or voted for Obama.” That’s absolutely false. This myth, that the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 because they didn’t turn out their base voters to vote for their candidates, is totally refuted by the exit polls from those elections. (You can check those exit polls for yourself at the CNN web site and elsewhere.) The GOP base voters turned out in numbers nearly as high as in 2004. But the GOP totally lost the Independent vote, which had split roughly evenly in past elections but is now voting overwhelmingly for Democrats. The myth that the GOP can still win by turning out its base is being promulgated by some very clever commentators who want the GOP to keep playing to its base, rather than reaching out to Independent voters. But the hidden assumption of the Karl Rove “turn out the base” playbook was that the Independent voters would remain stable. They didn’t. They’re now siding with the Dems.
4 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:02 am
sinz. When people like Rove talk about “turning out the base” they mean social conservatives. The SoCons came out in 2008 but not the economic conservatives. Actually, many FiCons switched from GOP to indie in recent years. Especially, after the Schiavo debacle. I don’t even know why you want the GOP to win. Truly.
5 sinz54 // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:09 am
Chekote: For once, just once, you should try to put yourself in the shoes of an Independent voter–because Independents are now the largest voting bloc, bigger than the loyal GOP base, and the GOP cannot win without winning over Independents. Why do you suppose the Independents broke so decisively for the Democrats in 2008? Could it possibly be because the U.S. economy fell off a cliff just two months before the election? And that this happened just 2 months after Bush assured the G-7 summit that the U.S. economy was recovering already; just one month after McCain said “The fundamentals of our economy are strong”; just five months after Larry Kudlow said that the U.S. economy was “the greatest success story never told”; and just 6 months after every Republican candidate for President except Huckabee and Ron Paul kept saying that the economy was doing pretty well and Bush should get credit for that. The U.S. economy fell off a cliff while most of the GOP was looking the other way. And that is why Independent voters were willing to risk the semi-socialism of Obama–because they don’t think the Republicans know economics anymore. The GOP has to change that perception. Ranting about tax cuts sounds like the GOP has learned nothing about how a market can collapse. One more thing: If you mention the Community Reinvestment Act or Fannie and Freddie one more time, you should know that Bernanke himself doesn’t believe that’s why the entire global financial industry collapsed. Neither do I.
6 helios // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:12 am
The Goldwater critique of government and what the current CPAC crop consider conservatism diverged with the rise of the religious right. Look at the CPAC agenda. There’s as much time devoted to fighting “the culture war” as there is discussing specific issues like health care. Goldwater himself recognized this shift which is why he started speaking out about it more aggressively. CPAC today has almost no lineage left to Goldwater. It is now the movement of Tony Perkins.
7 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:19 am
“Why do you suppose the Independents broke so decisively for the Democrats in 2008?” Bush. He had a 23% approval. Obama made the argument that McCain was a continuation of the Bush. McCain failed to distinguish himself from Bush. After each of the debates, I watched the Luntz focus groups and independent voter after independent voter said that McCain never spelled out how he would be different from Bush. There is your answer.
8 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:24 am
sinz. Bernanke is a joke. He and Paulson made a bad situation into a catastrophe. So I couldn’t care less what that clown has to say. Same with Geithner. he was the one who lifted the regulatory limits on Citibank which led to it taking on more risk that it could handle. Why do you think we had the financial meltdown? Just curious.
9 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:25 am
Helios is right. CPAC and the present conservative movement has been taken over the religious right. It has very little resemblence to Goldwater’s libertarian streak.
10 sinz54 // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:51 am
Chekote: To blame *Bush* for the losses that the entire GOP faced is to miss the point. The congressional GOP could have acted like watchdogs over Bush, opposing his grandiose spending, and holding hearings in 2005 and 2006 over the deterioriating situation in Iraq. Instead, the congressional GOP (with few exceptions) acted as cheerleaders for Bush, equating criticism of Bush’s conduct of the War on Terror with disloyalty to the nation, and passing Bush’s gargantuan Medicare prescription drug benefit. It was not till 2007 that some in the GOP found the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Bush, on the immigration bill–and yet that was the wrong place to take a stand. We conservatives could have been watchdogs over Bush, all the time he was in office. Instead, probably because of 9-11, most of us chose to be cheerleaders. Were YOU criticizing Bush in 2005 and 2006, predicting that Bush’s actions were going to lead to electoral disaster in 2008? Or were you one of his cheerleaders back then? When, exactly, did you finally stop supporting Bush? I’ll tell you when I broke with Bush once and for all. It was when HAMAS won the Palestinian elections in Gaza, in 2006.
11 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:10 am
Sinz. So you are for democracy and freedom as long as you agree with the election results? What nonsense. The Palestinians should have the right to elect whomever they want as long as the elections are free. We also have the right not to recognize governments and, above all, we are under no obligation to send our money to Gaza. I have been critical of the GOP’s embrace of the religious right for many years. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 because his “Compassionate Conservatism” unacceptable. I supported him in 2004 because of his war on terrorism. I didn’t agree with Kerry’s “global test”. You are making the same points that I do but you still think that you disagree with me. As I said, we sent Newt & Co, to DC to limit the size and scope of government. We got bigger government under Bushism. Hopefully, we have put Bushism behind us and we are returning to the Goldwater libertarian approach to the federal government. Finally, as a legal immigrant I find nothing wrong with any party to stand up for “legal” immigration. I am fed up with people backing down just because the other side calls you mean, racist or bigoted. For this country to work you need to preserve the rule of law. If we want open borders, then repeal the immigration laws. But letting people pay not consequences for violating laws is a recipe for civil unrest.
12 ireign // Feb 28, 2009 at 10:11 am
David, I don’t agree with many of your solutions but you nailed the problem. Great piece.
13 Claude // Feb 28, 2009 at 11:41 am
I too have never understood the affection for Barry Goldwater. Conservatism would be far stronger today if his Presidential campaign had never happened. One of the heavy, long term burdens inflicted by Goldwater was the idea that Republicans were hostile to civil rights. There’s a big difference between getting a third of the black vote and getting almost none of it.
14 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I’ve not been posting for a few weeks to just watch, listen and learn what the Prsident’s leadership is about and to take the pulse of the American people. It’s becoming clearer and clearer the country is in the early stages of a strong liberal period where, for better or worse, the current administration, and for the most part, the majority of the country, favor balancing out the past 30 years of right leaning policies, especially the fiscal ones, with left leaning policies.
I can’t understand why the GOP and Conservative movement feel this compulsion to scream and shout before they even know what they’re reacting to. Their non-cooperation around the stimulus bill has cost them whatever little support they had with the average American.
People want to see solutions and parties working together. Until the Conservative movement and GOP realizes that the country is calling for a left lean for at least 4 years and begin to remove themselves from the past, they’ll have no voice at the table.
If they Conservative movement and GOP feel they want to stay in the wilderness to let this left leaning period play out, well, then, so be it. It’s sad though, because if they could accept a more liberal version of conservatism, they may just find there’s something in what the country is trying to tell them.
15 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“because if they could accept a more liberal version of conservatism,”
Details please.
16 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Chekote “But letting people pay not consequences for violating laws is a recipe for civil unrest.” What are your feelings about the perceived Bush crimes? Did they break the law and if so should they face the consequences? Do you support a criminal investigation?
17 Brad Smith // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Good column, David. Both \ parties and movements grow by addition and multiplication, not by subtraction and division.
18 petty boozshwa // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:57 pm
David’s main point about the Goldwater phenomena – that somehow lost cause purity is good for the party and our country – is something the Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s are going to have to learn by hard experience. Rush used to mock this notion that losing was good for the soul, but lately he’s embraced it because the alternative means he has to cede power to squishes he loathes more than liberals.
I have to say I’ve never been more discouraged about the next 10 years prospects for our party. Maybe Newt and Romney are intelligent enough to grasp David’s argument, and maybe they [especially Romney] could refashion some of their talking points and emphasis to reconnect with the real concerns of independents rather than pandering to the ditto-heads. Without that we have no chance of profiting from the Dems inevitable overreaching. Newt’s frontal attack on Bush at CPAC was a start. I have a lot of personal affection for GWB, but we, as conservatives, have to admit we was the most miscast war leader and war-aims communicator since Zsar Nicholas II. We should also openly criticize Tom DeLay selling our Congressional majority birthright for a few rounds of golf in Scotland and ask the current house leadership to step down..
19 Brad Smith // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I think one reason for the mythology is that the Goldwater campaign did bring together group of activists and conservatives, many of whom rose to the fore in the Reagan years. Reagan himself, of course, made his true national political debut in the campaign. But now that infrastructure of activists groups already exists (in fact, it is at CPAC), and there is no guarantee that a smashing defeat in 2012 will introduce America to another Ronald Reagan, any more than the Democrats found future leaders in the debacles of McGovern and Mondale.
20 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Chekote: Cameron in the UK is probably the model the conservative party should be studying. Liberal classically means breaking free from things that don’t work. It’s pretty clear the current Conservative model doesn’t work. It became associated with intolerent religious factions that the majority of Americans reject. When I say a liberalization of the conservative party I mean taking time to inventory the current conservative beliefs and systems and discovering how to liberalize it from what is not working and begin to package it in a way that the American people will find more compelling. For example, immigration. I think it’s very conservative to welcome immigrants as those who seek America’s great freedoms. The conservatives have backed themselves into a corner by appearing anti-immigrant in a nation of immigrants. Another example would be race. Conservatives have a history of being non-inclusive, eg McCain’s hold out to make MLK Day a national holiday. They need to review all these failed policies, accept where the American people are and then reapply their values to adopt policies that are both in line with their beliefs and yet solid in the re-establishment of high principles. Hope that helps a little.
21 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:07 pm
petty: You make my point exctly. And thank you for having the courage to model what reflection looks like. The conservatives and GOP needs to review all the times they, consciously or unconsciously, protected policies that hurt America over the last 8 years, starting with the invasion of Iraq and the entire neo-con (yes Mr. Frum, your biggest error) hostage taking of the country’s foreign policy. In the name of being a good soldies, the GOP went down a path Americans, the majority clearly voicing last November, rejected. The rejection started in 2006 and just grew stronger. There’s tremendous power in this rejection because the conservative party behaved poorly, whether fiscally or around Iraq or around global warming or around the financial markets with lack of regulation.
Until the conservatives and GOP takes full inventory and, if you will, confesses to their sins, they will be barren of vision and as we all know, without vision, the people perish.
The President’s vision and the Dems resurgence comes from having been speaking the truth about many issues the conservatives and GOP refused to hear. And they not only refused to listen and talk to them while in power, they behaved with great hubris (Cheney, Rumsfeld, for strters).
What’s ironic to me is that the GOP and Conservatives, are in fact, paying a price for sin and yet, though as religious as many call themselves, fail to understand that this rejection is a call to penance.
22 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“Cameron in the UK is probably the model the conservative party should be studying.” He hasn’t won an election yet. When and if becomes Prime Minister, I will take a look at him. Although, if he wins now it has to do more with the financial meltdown in Britain than anything he may have done.
23 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“What are your feelings about the perceived Bush crimes? Did they break the law and if so should they face the consequences? Do you support a criminal investigation?” What crimes are you talking about? I couldn’t care less if the Dems investigate Bush. Let them. By opposing it, it just feeds into the notion that they have done something wrong.
24 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“around the financial markets with lack of regulation.” As a financial regulatory consultant and former regulatory examiner with FINRA, I can categorally tell you that we did not suffer from a lack of regulation. We suffer from ineffective over-regulation. Less but more focused, effective regulation should be our goal.
25 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Cherokte: one more thing. A wise Jesuit priest friend once educated me to an interesting social dynamic. He said that the perception of Jesus goes through cycles that impact society. For 20 – 30 years Jesus is held up as divine and society gathers around the ‘higher principles’ normally associated with the right.
Then the cycle shifts as human need shows itself and the human Jesus is held up through policy, meaning society focuses on how to help people in need. Classically that’s known as a left turn and that’s the cycle we just entered.
Forgive me if the Jesus references are offensive, it was a Jesuit priest speaking through his belief system to someone who shares his beliefs.
The bottom line. People respond to the truth and reality. When people are suffering, fellow citizens want them viewed as human and given assistance through charity and more humane practices. When things are good things tend to focus on the divine aspects of life and moving forward. Thus the right looks like the shiny party of parties and the left like the nurses to society!
26 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Chekote: the Conservatives have made great strides at the local election and he’s polling very high. I think you may want to look at him beforehand to possible learn something.
Though you’re clearly an expert on regulation, I’m just a neophite average citizen that is witnessed a ridiculous swing of wealth from the bottom to the a very small percentage at the top, failing banks, failed mortgage lenders who gave bad loans, and a general cycle of greed that has been masked in a capitalistic banner. I’m sure you can out argue me on the technicalities, I’m looking at the results. There’s a good reason that the electorate is furious at Wall Street for its largesse and greed and though you feel there’s too much regulation, I fear that’s a position you’ll be forced to live with for sometime to come. More regulation will be coming and I hope it’s the type of regulation that doesn’t allow the kind of loans and insane bundling of loans, (derivatives?) to the market that is collapsing the world’s markets.
27 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Chekote: sorry, I owe you an apology. I reread your post on regulation and realized you are calling for smarter regulation. I agree and apologize for what I said in the previous post.
28 sinz54 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Chekote: In your job as financial regulatory consultant, did you deal with credit default swaps? How about other kinds of derivatives? What brought down the entire financial system was the securitization of mortgages. Mortgages were packaged up into supposedly “safe” securities and sold to investors worldwide, with credit default swaps for “insurance” in case the borrower defaulted. The problem was, the credit default swaps got traded around too, through the financial markets. So quite often, when it became necessary to call in one of these “insurance policies” when the borrower defaulted, the current holder of the swap didn’t have sufficient funds to pay it. It was overspeculation in credit default swaps that brought down firms like AIG and Lehman Brothers last year. The reason the SEC didn’t have authority to oversee credit default swaps, was that the SEC was prevented from doing so by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which sailed through the Congress in 2000 without any debate. Only now, after the financial markets have already collapsed, has the SEC asked Congress to give it back the authority to oversee credit default swaps. The total size of the derivatives market is some 30 trillion dollars–several times the GDP of the U.S.. Lord help us if many of these derivatives turn out to be worthless.
29 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:28 pm
More regulation means more money for me. I live off it. But I still say we need “effective” regulation if we are interested in actually preventing another debacle. If we are interested in looking like we are doing something, then just pass more unfocused regulation. Hague and others too won a few by-elections and yet did not make to Number Ten. Again, if we were to win now I think it has to do with the economic situation. Also, people are mad at Wall Street because they got bailouts. If they had just allowed for a orderly bankruptcy to take place, we would be better off today and the bad players would be removed from the market. Instead, Paulson and Bernanke went from doing nothing (Lehman) to full intervention. There is a happy middle.
30 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Chekote: for the record, Cameon was polling very high before the financial meltdown, though it may help him, it also could hurt because it will be associated for all time with the Ameican system collapsing the world’s economies.
31 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Chekote: as my handle says, I’m all for the “middle.” Cameron hasn’t yet run for Number 10. He switched policies and tones of the UK Conservatives by accepting the left was in charge. Until the right accepts the left have a right to power and have a God given position, as much as the right, the right will stay out of power. President Obama was quite smart in recognizing the time for a return to respectful dialogue after years of the partisan nonsense that controlled cycles. As an average American (renter by the way, not owner), I think it’s healthy the country is allowing new leadership. It will swing again the other way, as it should, but for now, I think it far healthier that someone who genuinely appears engaged in the issues and like a decent human being, is in charge. It’s no surprise his approvals are 65-70 even after passing the stimulus.
32 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“did you deal with credit default swaps? How about other kinds of derivatives?” Yes. And I can tell you for a fact that vast majority of the people dealing in said products had no idea what they were doing. Nobody fully understood the risk involved. But they were making money, so nobody cared. Personally, I would establish a new financial product review process before products are allowed to trade. Give a chance to understand the risk and adjust the regulatory regime. Instead, we always do it backwards. New products are developed that are outside our current regulatory regime. After losses take place, we come in and develop regulations. As far as the securization of mortgages, is not necessarily a bad thing. Given the current enviroment, all MBS are being treated as worthless even though most are still sound and providing cash flows. We don’t have a mechanism or plan to separate the wheat from the chaff. So everything is being treated as chaf. That is why we need a specific and concrete plan to restore our financial markets. That should be the number one focus instead of using this crisis to shove healthcare, energy and enviromental policies down our throats.
33 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I have a completely different take on Obama. Where others see confidence, I see immense arrogance. Where others see elegance, I see a complete lack of graciousness. The constant reprise of “I won, I won” is childish. Bush was very gracious towards him, and yet Obama does not miss a chance to bash Bush. He is on the biggest power grab I have seen in years. There is nothing American about him.
34 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Chekote: I’m going to guess that healthcare, education funding and the environment are issues that don’t affect you directly. It sounds like you’re very knowledgeable and versed in the markets and I appreciate learning and hearing from your position. For many, healthcare and education and the environment are issues as important to them as you feel about the market. I’m sorry you feel like something is being jammed down your throat. My sense is that most Americans will appreciate the government doing something significant to progress these three areas from the current states they are in. Too many are uninsured, too many are losing jobs, too many kids can’t afford school. There’s a lot more to being an American than having a market a free market person feels will work.
35 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Chekote: Obama did win, and unlike Bush, he won with a clear majority, both the White House and the Congress. With that does come a mandate for change. His assumption of power, however you may judge it, is appropriate. And with that win comes the power to institute policies he believes in.
I don’t agree that he’s arrogant at all. From what I can see he’s continually reached out to the Republican membes of the House and Senate and frankly, they appear, and the polls agree, like disgruntled children who haven’t accepted they lost a game.
It’s funny to hear from a conservative a lack of understanding of ‘winner wins’ and sets policy when W, for 8 years acted like the Democrats were ignorant and unworthy of being spoken to. I could never see President Obama or Vice-President Biden do what Cheney did, especially on the floor of the Senate.
No doubt President Obama is a confident man, afterall, he drove a successful campaign for the most powerful job in the world, while being black and under intense attack. One has to be confident to carry that off. Having said that, I’m not finding his confidence threatening, just a politician assuming his power.
36 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Chekote: PS. I don’t hear President Obama bash President Bush, I hear him honestly assess the policies that he instituted and how they failed, which, they have.
I saw nothing but graciousness between the two of them during the transition and President Obama made a point, on many occassions, of speaking to how great President Bush was, and his team, during the transition.
When it comes to policy, however, President Obama has every right to remind everyone how we got into this mess.
37 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“I’m going to guess that healthcare, education funding and the environment are issues that don’t affect you directly.” Those issues affect me too. However, unless we are able to fix our financial system there will be a sustainable recovery. The stimulus bill may give us a temporary pop in the GDP like the last bill did, but we need a recovery not a pop in GDP. I don’t like to cost of healthcare but I do like the quality. My focus would be in bringing down costs. Electonic records are a great idea. But I don’t understand why the taxpayers have to foot the bill. Can’t doctors, hospitals, insurance companies do that? Why is it that we call the oil executives to testfy before Congress every time the price of gas goes up, and yet I don’t recall one congressional hearing asking university presidents to explain the skyrocketing tuition costs. These issues need to be address through the normal process of hearing. Instead Obama is using this crisis to shove his plans down everybody’s throat without any discussion. That I resent.
38 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“President Obama has every right to remind everyone how we got into this mess.” He was in the Senate since 2004 and I don’t remember him predicting the financial meltdown. The deficit he inherited from Bush was mostly due to the Paulson bailout which Obama voted for. Also, he voted to fund the war in Iraq which according to him caused the deficit. To say that he inhereted the deficit implying that he had nothing to do with it is a little disingenious and certainly not gracious.
39 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Chekote: Unfortunatley a failed health care insurance system, which plays a significant role in our economy, is beyond busted. Something has to be done. Managed care, which was supposed to help, made things worse as it’s reducing quality of care. The President announced that insurance companies will have to bid for medicare money. I think that’s great to reduce costs and improve access. I don’t disagree with you that the economy needs to be stabilized for a sustained recovery. And frankly, I’m jury out about whether we should just let it all fail, hit the bottom and rebuild. It’s easy to say that but I don’t think any of us have ever known what it means to go truly hungry and what impact that would have on our society. If we do nothing, that’s where the failed policies of the last 30 years leave us. I wish I had answers, I don’t. No matter what’s done, there’s going to be significant pain.
I do agree that insurance companies can do some things to improve it, but unfortunately they’re still overwely wed to ridiculous profits. Until everyone, and I mean everyone, in this country returns to a larger sense of ethics and carrying for each other, we’re sunk as the same self-centered greed based decisions will rule the day.
40 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Chekote: To say that President Obama supported the war and had any power, as a junior senator in a GOP controlled Senate (until what? 2 yrs before?), is the more disingenious statement. And to his credit, he was after the banking and finance industry attempting to establish some regulations but was met with a stone cold NO from the GOP controlled House.
I appreciate our dialogue, by the way, but let’s be honest, when President Bush was in the White House and the GOP congressed Congress, they did everything he wanted and the Dems had zero say to even bring amendments, let alone real legislation. To not recognize the GOPs hand in all of this with its spending and bad policies is, I believe, to remain stuck to the past.
41 A.B. // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:30 pm
(DF)”But those disasters followed from choices and decisions that liberals made not from some multiyear conservative grand strategy for success in 1980…” Exactly, I would add that other modern trends (trajectories, if you will) had great influence on these disasters. For an example that you have touched on before, penology had a momentum all its own, that directly led to prison overcrowding in the 60s. And so on. History is complicated, not simple. And, of course, “extremism in the name of self-indulgence is a fault, and a political sin.”
42 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:36 pm
InThe Middle. I was talking about the deficit which Obama does not miss a chance to say he inherited. Most of that deficit is the Paulson Plan. Did Obama vote for the Paulson Plan? The Dems took over Congress in 2006. What did they do for the last two years to prevent the financial meltdown? The raised the minimum wage which does not affect most workers. What else did they do for two years? They ran around saying “Bush is bad”, “Bush is bad”. That’s it. I never said that the GOP bears no fault. As a matter of fact, the GOP forgot why we put them in charge in the first place. That was their main failure.
43 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Chekote. Quote ” He was in the Senate since 2004 and I don’t remember him predicting the financial meltdown”
Here is a letter he sent to Bernake and Paulson March 2007. He did predict the crisis and told them what to do. They ignored him. How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.
How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.
How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.
How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.
Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short- term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.
Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don’t let this opportunity pass us by.
44 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,
There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.
We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes.
And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.
Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody’s interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.
The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators’ Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:
What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.
How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.
45 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm
sorry it’s impossible to post long documents here and the lack of paragraph breaks makes things almost unreadable.
46 VA Gator // Feb 28, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Interesting column. Sans Goldwater, we might be without the 35 Trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities.
That would be great, but we do now have 35 Trillion in unfunded liabilities for Medicare, 12 is for SS, and another 5 or so for federal pensions. Add in the ever growing actual deficit and you’ve got…a big number.
What is the winning conservative strategy for a nation that believes someone else will pay for what it wants?
I read a great piece 15 years ago called “Will the Baby Boomers Grow Up Before They Grow Old?”
The short answer? No.
If Dave & Co want to win elections, bully for them, but there is no clever cure for the nation’s impending entitlement bust.
47 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 5:03 pm
krove. When did he send the letter? When the subprime problem was already identified. He is a master politician. He sees the trends and puts out enough vague language to be able to say: I did something. Asking for a summit? Obama is every corporate cliche out there. Now let’s break up in working groups for two hours and report with solutions. If he weren’t in the process of destroying the very nature of our country, it would be hilarious.
48 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 5:05 pm
BTW, if the banks had observed the customary lending standards, most of those low income communities that Obama talks about would not have gotten mortgages. Of course, then they would have been accused of redlining, discrimitation and ACORN would have been at their doorstep protesting.
49 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Chekote. March 2007, I don’t think you read all the letter, you just got to summit and formed your opinion. The letter is split into 2 pieces due to length restrictions. I know listening to other peoples point of view before you make a decision is foreign to many, however it is actually good practice and prevents things like going to war on an ideological basis and so forth.
50 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 6:39 pm
krove. For that matter Bush proposed legislation dealing with Fannie Mae who was responsible for the securization (and thus the spreading of the risk worldwide) of these mortgages in 2005. That is what made this into a system risk. If banks issued mortgages and kept them on their books we would not have any problems right now. Those banks would just write them down and move on. Maybe a few banks woud fail but we wouldn’t have the mess we have now. Do you give Bush any credit for his foresight? Of course not. Bush is bad. Bush is dumb. He and McCain were ahead of Obama. Do they get any credit? They went further than writing a letter when the crisis started to surface. Obama is a fraud.
51 InTheMiddle12 // Feb 28, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Chekote: you asked for evidence and it was produced. I understand you’re bitter that your party lost but to dismiss any hope and calling President Obama a fraud is, at best, dilussional (sp). Bush had control of the house and senate and could have gotten anything through – he did actually. Anything he wanted he was given. And when the Congress went Dem he acted like he didn’t have to respect Congress. Over and over, from ’signing statements’ to false budgets, President Bush earned his failed reputation. President Obama has done more in the first month of his Presidency for bi-partisan dialogue and addressing reality than President Bush did in 8 years. You may not like his policies but he’s anything but a fraud. A fraud wouldn’t get so many people believing in his vision, including many Republican Governors.
52 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Chekote, Bush was in charge, if he was interested in fixing the problem in 2005 then he had all the power at his disposal. A majority in both houses and a compliant legal structure in place. The question is Why did he not act to enforce regulation and correct the problem before it became a crisis? Please tell me because I am unable to find an answer anywhere else. Your ideology seems to force you to be petty and juvenile in your responses to the President and anything to do with his policy positions. I am guessing that in other forums you use much more extreme language to describe your objections to him. Am I right?
53 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Have you guys heard of filibuster? Bush did not have the 60 votes in the Senate. If Obama only had 55 Dems Senators, the stimulus would not have passed. Bush made mistakes but let’s face it Obama is continuation of Bush’s worse tendencies. Expanding the scope and size of the federal government. And increasing deficits. Obama is even continuing Bush’s war on terror (even if the fraud in chief doesn’t want to call it as such). I just love the way you criticize Bush for not doing enough but trip all over yourselves in congratulating Obama for writing one letter as the crisis was becoming apparent. You can’t give Bush any credit for idetifying the systemic risk that Fannie and Freddy posed for the American economy. But give Obama kudos for choosing Geithner who has been part of every failed effort to deal with the subprime problem. You guys are too funny. And please don’t lecture me about ideology. You two are just as ideological as I am. Obama is a left wing ideologue. If he was interested in solving our current economic problem, he would have addressed the banking/financial system first. Instead, he chose to use this crisis to pass a bill to undue welfare reform and fund his political constituencies. Yeah, there were a couple of good things in the bill. But overall, it is a waste of money. Or worse, a power grab. Of course, the media will never refer to Obama as partisan or being an ideologue. Those terms are only reserved for people on the Right.
54 joemarier // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Chekote is right, and yet… I’m not sure that it would have been absolutely impossible to get enough dems to flip on an effective GSE reform bill. It would have been a real showdown, though, and in the middle of a hot war. Weren’t we talking about Goldwater at some point, though?
55 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Chekote. Can you please give me a date of the bill before congress to address the financial crisis that Bush proposed. His treasury secretary could and should have dealt with the problem why did he fail?
56 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:07 pm
krove. FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT introduce by John McCain in 2005. Obama said nothing at the time. He basically voted present to buy time to see how the wind would blow.
57 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm
krove. here are a couple of links. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRpLp32L-v0
58 krove // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:26 pm
How did bush propose this McCain bill? The only information I can find on it says it never was , debated or voted on. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
59 Chekote // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Krove. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print . I can put many more links on this subject if you like me to. The point is that the Dems obstructed any attempts to reform or rein in Fannie and Freddy all in the name of helping low income, minorities. Their policies have done so much damage to poor people. But we are not allowed to question the results. We are only allowed to praise their intentions.
60 Teller // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:40 am
I am sorry but that letter Obama wrote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the crisis we are having, and in no way qualifies as having foreseen the crisis. The letter contains some passages that indicate that Obama is oblivious to parts of the problems.
To start with, the housing market reached its peak in August 2006, and had been declining for months by the time Obama wrote that letter. That there was some sort of problem with default on subprime was known to anyone who read WSJ or The Economist (overwhelming majority of the bad loans had already been made at that point).
Secondly, Obama does not come close to hit the heart of the problem. The problem was not that poor people where defaulting, which our Social Worker turned President is concerned about. The problem was overleveraged financial institutions, who treated subprime-based securities as safe investment. The banks had 30-40 dollars in loans for every dollar in equity. That is how 1 trillion in subprime losses turned into 30 trillion in total losses.
There were two components to the crisis, non of which Obama really hit. Part 1 was 2 trillion in sub and near prime loans to people with bad credit, which eventually led to 500-1000 trillion in losses (and counting). Half of all subprime borrowers where minorities, people that the Federal government actively tried to steer credit to.
Part 2 of the problem was that credit institutes had too much debt and too little equity, so that these losses where close to the entire equity value of American banking, and represented leverage of something of tens of trillions of dollars in assets.
Obama does not propose a solution to the crisis. community-based-organizations to provide counseling. Are you kidding me here? At that point there was nothing marginally lower default rates would have done to avert the crisis, and anyway what Obama is suggesting is about keeping people in there home, not about lowering the bank losses (both are good, but only one has anything to do with the crisis). Obama did something that somehow touches on the mortgage market, and that qualifies our God-King as having foreseen it? Its absurd, if you read the details.
Someone who would have predicted the crisis would have screamed about IMMIDIEATLY putting more solidity into the bank books, reducing leverage, slowly writing down the subprime-based assets, spreading them to more secure institutions. (Unlike what David Frum has suggested vaguely yelling crisis for 7 years like Paul Krugman does not qualify as having predicted the crisis either.)
Obama suggests steps in his letter that would have made the problem worse. adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination
Calling the traditionally strict standards that led to fewer mortgages to African Americans and Hispanics (who have lower incomes, worse credit ratings and higher defaults than whites) discrimination was one of the two pillars of the crisis. If the Americans banks had not been pushed (I admit not forced, but certainly enticed) to give loans to minorities the crisis would never have happened. Dont expect to read about this in the NYT, but thats the cold truth. According to data gathered by the Federal Reserve half the subprime loans went to minorities, who have higher default.
61 Teller // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:42 am
I tend to agree with David Frum, but one problem he doesnt really discuss is anti-conservative bias in the intellectual class. In a fair debate the left would not have been able to blame the crisis on generic capitalism and de-regulation. Certainly Conserva-tives (like Bush, Rove) were responsible through following politically correct programs, but conserva-tism was not to blame.
62 Teller // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:43 am
Chekote generally seems wise, but gives to much credit to Bush. They trued to rain in the GSE:s, that were creatures of liberal ideology (the federal government INVENTED mortgage backed securities!). But in the general “give more money to poor people” Bush was a culprit. He pushed a goal of increasing minority home ownership by 5.5 million, including through more lax standards. A open question no one has answered to my satisfaction is how much of the cool-aid in this issue was ideological, and shared by the financial market. Nevertheless the idea – that we can’t “discriminate” some people by admitting they on average make worse loan applicants, is a liberal one. Regardless of what strategy the Republican Party follows it is very hard to win the war of ideas when fighting with one hand behind your back, and with a hostile audience in the media and academia.
63 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 6:04 am
Teller, Ah wise one, it was all the poor black and brown peoples fault. Who would have thought those evil poor people were going to bring down the great Wall street. I guess it had nothing to do with corporate greed on the banks/insurance/hedge funds/ derivative traders part. I guess all those poor blacks leveraged mortgages 40 to 1 and took billion dollar bonuses as their banks were making huge losses. I guess they did not self regulate themselves. Look stop blaming Fanny and Freddie. They were bit players in this crisis. There is much blame to go around, it obviously suits your ideology to blame the poor blacks. The truth is there were plenty of whites who rode this bubble like a rodeo steed. That flipped house after house. Irresponsible government and Senators like Phil Gramm who forced through deregulation. Bush who was in control of the whole institution of power for 8 years, yes and people on both sides of the house who encouraged lending to those who could not afford it. So stop with your simplistic “it’s the blacks fault” argument it’s patently obvious where that is coming from.
64 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 6:25 am
Americans identifying themselves as Democrats outnumber those who say they are Republicans by 10 percentage points, the largest gap in party identification in 24 years.
The gap has widened significantly since President George W. Bushs re-election in 2004, when it was a mere 3 percentage points. But by the time Mr. Bush left office in January, less than a quarter of Americans approved of his performance.
These days, 38 percent of Americans say they are Democrats, 28 percent call themselves Republicans, and another 29 percent identify as independents, according to an average of national polls conducted last year by The New York Times and CBS News.
65 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 1, 2009 at 6:41 am
Krove: I just read those number in the NY Times article and found them interesting too. As I’ve reread this thread I think there’s something that’s obvious. It seems like th economics debate is the conservatives calling for trusting free markets, removing dumb regulations and resolving the credit issue to start the flow of money and the liberals are sasying there’s a mess that’s been created that needs to be fixed by understanding what happened, putting in new regulation, supporting those that are most vulnerable before the country falls into complete depression and putting faith in the middle class. I think both arguments have merit and the resolution will come from something in the middle. And I think that’s why President Obama’s approval rating is in the 60’s. I think the pragmatists from both sides understand it’ll be a combination, and that’s what he’s proposing. Of course the devil will be in the details but the spirit of his leadership seems to be speaking to both. So, for the last time on this thread, I’ll say this: until the Conservatives begin to be open minded to the other side, who have the power now (they wouldn’t have to if they had power) they will get less of what they want. That is the bi-partisan desire that Americans are reflecting by giving the GOP Congress folk a 20 point minimum deficit in approval over the Dems.
66 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 7:05 am
“Look stop blaming Fanny and Freddie. They were bit players in this crisis” This statement shows just how little you understand of the problem Fannie and Freddie created the vehicle through which bad loans were spead across the world. Poor people have nothing to do with this. They were not the ones developing the policies. The Bush administration identified the problem but did not push for a solution. Perhaps because Bush himself was promoting the “Ownership Society” and saw the increase of home ownership in minority community as positive. In any case, Obama writing a general letter – as the problem was becoming apparent – asking for a summit hardly qualifies as leadership or foresight.
67 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 7:14 am
InTheMiddle. The conservative approach is to let the bad players be punished. The government needs to step in an arrange orderly bankruptcies. We cannot have a situation were we socialize the losses and privatize the gains. It distorts the markets. The liberal approach is to reward the bad players and punish the good players in the name of fairness. It is unfair to let people lose their homes. It is unfair to let people lose their jobs. However, that is what it will take to get out of this mess. There will be pain.
68 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 1, 2009 at 7:24 am
Chekote: Liberals award the bad players? I don’t think so. I can see how you think that with the bailout, but let’s remember, the original bailout was President Bush’s driven by fear that the credit freeze would do far worse than we’ve already seen. Other than getting yelled at by some Congress folk, I haven’t seen anyone punished under the conservative leadership. Your using bad and good players is confusing. People losing their homes and jobs are bad players? I’m confused. Can you please explain what a bad player is and what a good player is?
69 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 7:41 am
InThe Middle, you should get a look at today’s Frank Rich column. Really funny and a tale of why the Republicans are losing that 10% and getting bigger by the day. ”
As he stood before Congress on Tuesday night, the new president was armed with new job approval percentages in the 60s. After his speech, the numbers hit the stratosphere: CBS News found that support for his economic plans spiked from 63 percent to 80. Had more viewers hung on for the Republican response from Bobby Jindal, the unintentionally farcical governor of Louisiana, Obama might have aced a near-perfect score.”
y funny and a tale of why the Republicans are losing that 10% and getting bigger by the day. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01rich.html
70 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 1, 2009 at 8:00 am
krove: Yes, I had read it. It’s exactly why I don’t understand why the GOP isn’t taking the time to stop, think and then respond with policies instead of jumping up an down screaming NO. Whatever one may think of the President, he’s no dummy and he enjoys debate. Until the GOP gives him a debate, he’ll get his way and have very high approvals.
71 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 8:11 am
InTheMiddle. First. Bush was not a conservative. That is why I didn’t vote for him in 2000. I did support him in 2004 because of the GWOT and I didn’t like Kerry’s “global test”. Bush was a compassionate conservative which means conservative rhetoric, liberal policies. I was against TARP I. Called my Rep and Senators but they were all panicked by the Mad Max scenario painted by Paulson. Giving bailouts to firms who made bad business decisions is rewarding bad players. Giving money to people who bought homes they couldn’t afford is rewarding bad players. Congress wants to go through the financials of firms to see how the spent their money. Let’s do the same for the individuals for whom we are supposed to help pay their mortgages. Let’s go through their finances. Let’s see whether they have a $2,000 plasma TV. XBox 360 with how many games at $60 a pop. Let’s see exactly how they spent their and so that we can determine whether they are worthy of our help. Maybe they did something to cause their current problem.
72 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 8:26 am
The GOP should be the party of NO. No to reckless spending. No to astronomical deficits and debt. NO to an ever growing and intrusive federal government that will tell you what to drive, how big your house should be, what you should eat, what medical treatments you should have. NO to a socialist utopia which history has shown over and over that it doesn’t work and always ends in tyranny. We are a free people. We get our rights from the Creator not the the government. It really saddens me to see how many natural born Americans are willing to throw out the very principles that made this country unique and great in the name of lower health care costs or climate change. So many are willing to throw out the sanctity of contract law which has given this country an unparalleled advantage over other countries, all because 8% of the people can’t pay their mortgages for whatever reason. I think undoing the essence of this country because a small minority cannot afford their homes, or lose their jobs or can’t afford medical insurance is too high a price to pay. We should be able to address these problems without undoing our country.
73 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:07 am
CHekote: Thanks for sharing. I feel like we finally got a sense of what you really think and why. I don’t agree, and apparently neither does Karl Rove, Gingrich, George Will, etc that screaming SOCIALISM is a viable argument. Frankly, I’m the child of a British Mother and American Father. Both WWII veterans who owned a small business and worked their entire lives in a humble and community productive way. They were clearly not of the investor class meaning they never got involved in the stock market. They kept a humble home, never debted and spent their money on their kids. Without social security and medicare they would have ended unable to live their 85 years. Without Medicaid my father wouldn’t have been able to receive nursing home care he needed. Having spent a great deal of time in Europe visiting family and currently going to visit a cousin with cancer in England, I completely 100% disagree with your assertions that universal healthcare isn’t plausible and a good option and no threat whatsoever to America, as you perceive it. (my cousin is having incredible care with his cancer, from chemo to surgery to support teams – better than I’ve seen here, btw, on the UK NHS).
As the richest nation on earth, unable to provide healthcare as a right and not a priviledge is a sin akin to America’s sad racist history. Frankly, I see your argument as the culmination of a 30 year brainwashing driven by “you can be as rich as Gates” which is, at best, dilussional and at worst, the antithesis of every Christian principle on which America was founded. Forgive me but your fear of a social utopia is ill-founded. The same things were said when social security was instituted. And before you argue that it’s not needed, please let me know how you’d manage the failed 401ks people would be stuck with who are retiring now. Fear of financial insecurity is what’s driving society today. Let me leave you with this. You have nothing to fear but fear itself. Your needs will be met as it’s clear you’re smart and capable. You are but one single voice as am I. I, in no way, share your fear of the future. PS. The argument we seem to be having is on the role of government. eg. if government insists on electric cars and creates a grid that removes our dependence on oil, I’m 100% for it. Government does have a purpose, and a good one. I hope you come back to that belief some day but from everything I’ve read, I doubt you’re open minded to having that inclination.
74 petty boozshwa // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:20 am
Let me elaborate on Middle12’s health care comment. Our party will never – never – fully come back until we excise our phobia about national health insurance. How many readers of this comment thread realize the USA already spends more public money per capita on health care than England’s NHS. That’s in addition to the private sector payroll plans and other various and sundry private plans. The problem is we have an Enron-like “deregulation” of health care that’s been lobbied and massaged into meaning socialism for loses and capitalism for profits. We need more topic threads and comment starters on this health care issue to fully flesh out our arguments.
75 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:43 am
InTheMiddle. What you describe is European socialism. Those nations are out there for anyone who wishes to live in such a society. America is unique and I will do everything in my power to prevent the loss of the American spirit of freedom and individualism. We have three rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare is not a right. Education is not a right. Housing is not a right. And I rather have a short life and be free of government intrusiveness than to have a long life and work to support the state. It has nothing to do with thinking that I will be Gates. Actually, I could make more money if I worked harder. But I don’t want to. I rather spend my time following politics. It is my choice. I recognize the consequences and I am not out there whining that my friends have better houses and more money than I do. They work longer hours than I do. Certainly, I am not out there demanding that government take their money and pay off my mortgage. One of my friends’ father was diagnosed with stomach cancer while visiting from Bulgaria. She took him to our county hospital and received all the care he needed including an interpreter. No health insurance required. The idea that people can’t get healthcare in this country because they don’t have insurance is a lie. Our healthcare system is fine. Our private system has done the R&D for medication which are currently used all over the world. We have one problem. Premiums. We need to find ways to lower the costs. In England, anyone who has any money opts for private clinics. So they end up paying for two healthcare systems. I don’t see why we have to do this. Again, I am tired of a small minority of people who can’t seem to get their act together dictating the solutions. I couldn’t care less about what Karl Rove or George Will have to say. Karl Rove was responsible for the destruction of the Republican party with his compassionate conservatism agenda. Why would anybody listen to him? Finally, Obama is again out there repeating “I won, I won”, This is so childish. Ungracious.
76 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:47 am
petty. You put the government in charge of healthcare and you will get rationing. Part of our problem is that Medicare distorts the market. Anyway, all these discussions are moot. We have so much unsustainable debt out there that the party is about to end. Right now, we are still the only options for foreign buyers of bonds. As soon as an alternative prevesents itself, we are gone. Done. Over with.
77 jjv // Mar 1, 2009 at 10:42 am
While it is true that the Goldwater debacle can’t be a strategy, without him the Republican Party would not have attained majority status or been worth anything if it had. The problem David is I simply don’t see those Scranton Republicans resisting anything important. Not on Medicare. Certainly not on immigration. Simply ask what do Collins and Snowe resist today? They are supine on immigration and (Democratic) spending especially in healthcare.
The key problem with the myth that you miss is that today conservative structures are in place and Goldwaterism is unnecessary to build them. There is no need to create YAF or put together groups of conservatives in the Western states. The principles of limited government and the rest are not exotic but the boilerplate of one of the Parties now. Goldwater was necessary to make sure we truly had two parties. That is not true now. Just as we can’t go back to Reagan for today’s problems we can not go back to Goldwater either.
Finally, by slowing the growth of domestic spending, given the importance of the “baseline” in Washington, Reagan kept federal power and intrustion lower than it would have been for years and years. Much real wealth has been piled up because of that.
78 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 11:07 am
jjv. Did you get the memo? This site is about tearing down everything conservatives have done. Despite a recent poll that shows that 59% of American believe that government is the problem, conservatives have done everything wrong and need to get on the Obama train or they’ll miss the DC cocktail parties.
79 knoxharrington // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Several comments have alluded to bankruptcy (financially) of the United States – it is hard to argue otherwise. There is going to be a new majority – by necessity – that is isolationist, libertarian and localist. “American Greatness”, neo-conservatism or “large policy” conservatism is a dead letter – not intellectually, just morally, financially and politically. I don’t doubt that many don’t want it to be but it is really a moot point. As we re-arrange the deck chairs just keep in mind who steared the ship into the iceberg.
80 Kaz // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Frum’s recommendation is to wave the white flag, cave on your principles, and become more like Democrats. Chekote is right, the problem with Republicans as they conceded party rule to people who didn’t believe in, nor fought for conservative principles. What legitimacy does one have to decry massive deficits when you proposed and voted for them yourself? How can a party carry the banner of smaller government when they in fact made government larger? What Frum doesn’t understand is the end game is near. The democrat’s economic policies are going to have real consequences, and they won’t be pretty. Likewise, their social policies are going to create a massive fissure between the productive, responsible class and the leeches. This hasn’t been discussed much, but the Santelli rant and subsequent polling about mortgage bailouts are only the beginning. Most Americans will quickly tire of hearing people ask the government for goodies like a new kitchen and a career after McDonald’s
81 Bulldoglover100 // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Thank goodness something other than a bashing article. I agree 100% that we need to understand and learn from the past…..We need to realize that the Limbaughs/Palins will not help our cause. We need intelligent people who have a plan to run for President. Perhaps in 2012 if Obama fails and if he does not then in 2016…..Right now our party is show casing stupidity at it’s finest when the battle cry is that we hope our economy fails and we wind up in the biggest depression this country has even seen…and when Rush the Magic Idiot uses it as a battle cry at CPAC? Our party is doomed….Noticed Cantor stood up to Rush today on ABC by saying he was wrong. Good for him.
82 SallyVee // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Excellent article. You are brave and probably will be met with haughty sniffs and verbal abuse for your views. But I predict few on the Right will listen; most will continue the march over the cliff; some (like me) will watch and wait for signs of intelligent life. Maybe New Majority will become a significant influence. I do hope so.
83 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm
jdcarmine . you must be kidding right. Steele e of the quote “Bling Bling, hip hop, you da man, and off the hook” that is really intellectual. And Piyush, he of the Katrina lie, the kenneth the page delivery of speech and the change of faith to suit his politics. If these are the future God help the GOP.
84 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:22 pm
jdcarmine . You must be kidding right. Steele he of the quote “Bling Bling, hip hop, you da man, and off the hook” that is really intellectual. And Piyush, he of the Katrina lie, the kenneth the page delivery of speech and the change of faith to suit his politics. If these are the future God help the GOP.
85 jdcarmine // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Krove demonstrates the point.
86 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Chekote: Explain to me how Fannie and Freddie, all by themselves, could have brought down Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns and AIG, and much of the rest of the U.S. economy. Recall that we had a banking crisis once before–the widespread bankruptcies of savings & loan banks (S&Ls) in the 1980s–but that crisis did NOT bring down these Wall Street brokerage houses and insurance companies too. Why? Because back then, Wall Street was not yet in the banking business. That started when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in the 1990s. In addition, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 removed SEC oversight of credit default swap derivatives, enabling huge numbers of these to be bought and sold as phony “insurance” of securitized mortgages. It was overinvestment in these worthless derivatives that killed AIG. If Glass-Steagall had not been repealed, and the CFMA had not been passed by Congress, then the troubles of Fannie and Freddie might have hurt the banks badly–but it would NOT have rippled across into Wall Street investment houses too. The damage could have been contained, as the damage of the S&L bailout was contained. Instead, this time Wall Street was destroyed too–and with it, the U.S. economy.
87 Izzy Weird // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:46 pm
The compromising of conservative principles is an experiment we have been conducting for about 20 years, and it has failed miserably.
Compromising conservative principles is exactly what GHW Bush did when he signed a huge tax hike and subsequently lost his bid for reelection. Compromising conservative principles is what the GOP did in 2000 when we elected the compassionate conservative GW Bush. Compromising conservative principles is what caused us to lose in 2006 when the GOP congress spent like liberals instead of conservatives. Compromising conservative principles is why we lost in 2008 when the party was stuck with a so-called Maverick candidate who had virtually no support from the conservative GOP base.
McCains earlier lack of support for Bushs tax cuts, his support for the climate change hoax, and his silly proposal of amnesty for illegal aliens made him a poor excuse for a conservative in several important areas.
The continued compromise of conservative principles is exactly what the neo-Socialist left is hoping for.
88 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:47 pm
krove & chekote: We really need to stop this myth that Fannie & Freddie could have brought down a worldwide financial system (tens of trillions of dollars) all by themselves, when Fannie & Freddie only issued 20% of the subprime mortgages in the United States and virtually none in other countries. Nobody with a college education is going to believe that. Private firms (such as Countrywide Financial) were issuing more subprime mortgages than Fannie and Freddie were. And like I said in my previous post, none of that accounts for why Bear Stearns and AIG got into the securitized mortgage game. They got into it because the Glass-Steagall firewall had been removed, and because the SEC’s ability to regulate credit default swaps had also been removed.
89 ottovbvs // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Great re-telling of what happened David….I was actually there and remember most of it while you and most of the posters here have only read about it in books. Actually you could say the elections of Nixon, Carter and Reagan were all in their different ways happenstance…The Vietnam war which he promised to end got Nixon elected…..Watergate and the nice but chewing gum challenged Gerry Ford got Carter elected…..and a combo of the hostage crisis and inflation chickens coming home to roost got Reagan elected. As we study the board at the moment, you’d really need new glasses if you can’t see that Obama’s in control of it. He’s basically, through a combo of his persona and circumstances, got control of around 70% of the spectrum and pushed Republicans to the far right. Of course they are, as you point out, giving him plenty of help. For those of you who watched them yesterday said it all. Dr Cool gives one of his little chats where he tells people he’s going to fight for them against the interests while what I can only describe as a Dickensian caricature( Mr Bumble, Pecksniff, Wackford Squeers?) went on for longer than Castro telling us he wants national failure and btw how wonderful he was. And he was cheered to the echo. The Dems have got it figured out as they are moving strongly to make Limbaugh one of the faces of the GOP alongside Palin, Steele, Bush who is still firmly imprinted on the national retina, McCain and sundry minor players………David, I applaud what you’re doing but it’s quite clear the audience isn’t really interested in the message because they are quite happy with the lineup I’ve just mentioned not to mention a bag of policy positions which are just totally out of kilter with the times. I’ll carry on reading you.
90 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Izzy Weird: We conservatives are going to have to disabuse ourselves of yet another myth: That the GOP lost in 2008 because the GOP base was dissatisfied. According to the exit polls, the GOP base turned out in numbers nearly as high as in 2004. But the Independent vote, now a larger voting bloc than either loyal Dems or loyal Repubs, deserted the GOP in huge numbers. That’s why the GOP lost. So the challenge for the GOP is *NOT* to appeal to hard-core conservatives like you. In the end, you’ll grit your teeth and vote against the Democrats like you always do. The challenge for the GOP is how to win back those Independent voters. And they weren’t as angered by Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” as you are. They were angered by the debacle in Iraq and the collapse of the U.S. economy on Bush’s watch, while the congressional Republicans were looking the other way on both of these issues.
91 Izzy Weird // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I would like to ask anyone here specifically what part of conservatism the GOP should abandon or compromise.
Specifically,. what part of conservatism is totally out of kilter with the times?
A Republican P.C.O.
Redmond, WA
92 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm
ottovbvs, I applaud your honesty and point of view, at last a Conservative who actually gets it. Sinz is close but most of the rest here are deep in denial. Well done, please post much more often.
93 sinz54 // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Izzy Weird: How about flushing the Human Life Amendment from the GOP platform. How many suburban women, how many college women, are going to vote for a party that wants to extend the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to the unborn?
94 krove // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Sinz, i have never concluded that Fanny and Freddy were big players in the meltdown. That is used in order to shift blame to poor people. It takes away the blame from the markets and Bushco. so I understand the reasons for laying the blame at Fanny and Freddy’s door. I also know it does not belong there.
95 ottovbvs // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:17 pm
“Likewise, their social policies are going to create a massive fissure between the productive, responsible class and the leeches.”
This quote from Kaz says just how out of touch with reality we really are. 3.6 million people laid off in the past year and it’s continuiong at the rate of 600,000 a month and they are all leeches……..
96 Izzy Weird // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:20 pm
sinz54, being a libertarian conservative I do not disagree with that. I would however advocate curbing late-term (partial birth) abortions. If the fetus could easily survive outside of the womb, then to kill it is (IMO) infanticide.
97 jjv // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:21 pm
As someone who is about half way between Limbaugh and Frum on the need to change the GOP and conservatism in general I think the posts here about “watering down conservatism” need to be adressed. The reason elected officials who are conservative “water down” policies is because they can’t get 51% without doing so. Ronald Reagan changed course on a number of items and was excorciated for it. I can still hear the great Norman Podhoretz’s blistering attack on him for dealing with Gorby. The question that has to be asked for those of us who think Reaganite principles are right in an ontological sense, is can they be implemented in today’s electorate and if not, what can? I will give an example. I strongly believe that there is no reason to have anti-discrimination laws that apply to anything but race. I simply don’t believe history or any conservative principle supports such laws for anything but race (and Richard Epstein and others don’t even agree with that). This position is a huge political loser. Americans love anti-discrimination laws of all kind. In the District of Columbia it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of “personal appearance.” Is a politician who does not promote the repeal of these economically foolish and unsupportable laws a squishy, backsliding, RINO? I don’t think so. If you want to be an elected offical getting elected is key. The whole conversation here is directed at how generally rightist sorts can get elected to a majority and what they can and should be rightist about to do so.
98 Izzy Weird // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:30 pm
The GOP and the independent vote.
Some polls I have seen indicate that a majority of people in this country hold political beliefs that would be best described as libertarian. Some have estimated that as many as 70% of the population hold what are essentially libertarian beliefs.
I have often been curious about people who claim to be libertarians and yet generally vote for Democrats. When I encounter a thoughtful libertarian of this sort, I often seek to find out why they would ever vote for liberals.
Usually the answer I get runs something like this. They will often agree that Democrats and their propensity for bigger government and higher taxes represent a threat to liberty. And although the history of Socialism shows a disregard for property rights, gun rights, and even free speech, these libertarians see another threat as being far more serious. The threat they perceive is the threat of a Conservative Theocracy, or too much mixing of church and state.
99 Izzy Weird // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:38 pm
sinz54,
It is not that the conservative base failed to vote for McCain/Palin, Im sure most of us voted for them. But I would bet that many conservatives (like me) did not donate any money, did not ring doorbells, and did not put up as many (or any) McCain/Palin yards signs.
The vast difference in the level of campaign donations between Obama and McCain tells it all. I would have easily donated $1000 to Fred Thompson, and I actually donated that much to George Bush at least once. But I did not donate one penny to John McCain.
I do not think becoming more like liberal Democrats will attract the vast independent majority to the GOP. I do think that Bush took the blame for the economic crisis. I also think that the party most responsible for the crisis just got elected. This is not evidence we should change or compromise our principles. But it is evidence we did not get our message out.
100 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 1, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Izzy: I think you hit the nail on the head. I was someone who likes to vote GOP but stopped doing it when I saw the party being taken over by the Christian right. I’m Jewish and highly resent a party driven strictly by a faux fundamental theology that inteferes with human liberty, eg Terri Schiavo is when I completely abandoned the GOP. Couple with a ‘profit at all costs’ with no balance for the human condition, I’m one of those in the Middle that will take a whole lot of convincing to reconsider the GOP. Yes, I have strong libertarian sensibilities, eg. govt out of bedrooms, personal life not dictated by legislation, limited but smart taxes (I like good roads, airports, etc.). One can be alibertarian and believe government is not evil and does serve a purpose. That seems closer to the Democratic position today than the GOP and thus why so many like me int he middle voted dem the last two cycles. One other thing: it takes, in my elections, 51% of people’s vote to get elected. With a max of 30% considering themselves Conservatives, the Conservative party and people need to figure out a way to talk to those and have policies that are palbable to those that are not ‘true believers.’ Until that happens, at best the GOP will be a marginal party, and now even a broke one.
101 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 1, 2009 at 4:28 pm
jjv: great post but I disagree on one aspect. I think the law has it right protecting on age, race, religion and gender and believe it needs to add sexual orientation too. The law has done a great deal to get us to a more perfect union. I wonder why we never hear the accomplishments of good government from the GOP and conservatives though. It is amazing to me that they so desparately want to control what they most dislike while the Democrats seem to have a genuine appreciation for the power of government and work toward trying to do it better. It feels like the GOP works toward trying to destroy it, well, like the result of the last 8 years seems to reflect.
102 pomeroo // Mar 1, 2009 at 4:44 pm
David Frum’s column gets everything precisely right. But I do want to address an issue raised by InTheMiddle12.
The judge in the Terry Schiavo case made a determination based on knowledge that he did not have. The woman was hopelessly brain-damaged and could not recover. NO ONE, however, had any way of divining wishes that she kept to herself. An adulterous husband with a massive conflict of interest should not be permitted to consign an inconvenient wife to death. Good grief–what sort of mad precedent have we set? If her parents wanted to assume the thankless task of caring for their vegetative daughter, only a monster would presume to stop them.
I am indifferent to the theological overtones. The FACT is that we don’t–we can’t–know what Terry Schiavo would have wanted. The court overreached and the nation was subjected to the gruesome spectacle of a helpless woman being slowly executed.
Bush and his brother were not wrong.
103 ottovbvs // Mar 1, 2009 at 4:52 pm
pomeroo
wrote 2 minutes ago
……Unfortunately, 75% of the country didn’t agree with you. I’d say it was this case(see comment below) along with the Republican corruption scandals that were most important factors in the congressional defeats of ‘06. And now you want to re-litigate the whole thing. It’s your right of course, but it’s totally counterproductive in political terms. It was basically none of the govt’s business which is the sound conservative position which had substantial majority support.
104 senorlechero // Mar 1, 2009 at 5:08 pm
There is a big problem with your logic Frum. You claim that “if Carter had governed more successfully” Reagan may not have beeen elected. You assume that voters would have seen the buffoonish Carter administration differently had some of his policies been more successful? How then do you explain Bush winning in 2002 after 8 years of successful Clinton policies?
Besides, I’ve never heard anyone make the claim you make, that Reagan was only possible because of Goldwater. What most people (outside your beltway that is) believe is that Reagan reflected our values while Carter did not.
Guess what? In 2012 people might have the same choice. It’s only taken a month for Obama to prove those of us right who said “Obama does not share our values”. If the Republicans come up with a candidate who does have our values………Americas values (hard work, pay your own way, lower taxes, smaller govt., no nanny state, the right to bear arms, hunting rights, fishing rights, property rights, free speech rights, religious freedom, the right to life for unborn…except when the mother’s very life is in danger….the right to NOT go to college, a strong military, a secure southern border…you get the idea) that candidate will beat Obama unless the enonomy turns around, unemployment is under 7%, and upper middle class income taxes are not raised.
Now who might that candidate be? I think I saw a photo of her coming out of a voting booth in Alaska. She was weaing jeans and a Carhart jacket.
105 pomeroo // Mar 1, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Sorry, ottovbvs, you miss the point totally. The country was swayed by the usual leftist propaganda campaign, aided by the chracteristic ineptness of George Bush in explaining his motives. By framing it as another struggle between enlightened, rational progressives and benighted, mouth-breathing fundamentalists, the left conned people like you. Let’s try it again: the court could not possibly determine Terry Schiavo’s wishes, yet it claimed to do just that. For unfathomable reasons, you are satisfied. You suggest, incredibly, that conservatives shouldn’t care when a court orders the execution of a woman who, by unanimous agreement, committed no crime. The public got bogged down in the irrelevant wrangling over whether or not Terry Schiavo had any chance of recovery. If you disagree, then you must be willing to contend that court could, through some form of magic, know her wishes. Please explain.
106 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 5:13 pm
sinz. Who thel has ever said that Fannie and Freddie brought the whole thing down by themselves? But they did securitazed most of the mortgages. Further, anything backed by Fannie and Freddie, i.e. agency paper got an automatic AAA rating giving people the false notion that is was safe. Super safe. That is why those investments were purchased all over the world. Sinz. I want to make you happy so I am going to say that it was those terrible greedy Wall Streeters who got together with Phil Gramm, and probably Rush Limbaugh too, to manipulate regulation in an evil attempt to take over the world. I am sure Halliburton also had something to do with the financial meltdown. Oh yes, I know. They had no bid contracts with Fannie and Freddie to help George Bush finance the Iraq War that was started because GWB wanted to avenge his daddy’s honor. Happy now?
107 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Izzy Weird. 100% correct. We cannot underestimate how much the social issues and religious tone has driven voters away. Especially, the issue of abortion. It is such a turn off for women to hear men pontificating about abortion. The overwhelming majoritiy wants to restrict late term abortions. Instead of wasting time on global warming…errr….. climate change (as if we can stop climate change!) or the Hispanic vote. Time would be better spent addressing the social issues and what we should change in the party platform to get the suburban vote back.
108 ottovbvs // Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Sorry, ottovbvs, you miss the point totally. The country was swayed by the usual leftist propaganda campaign,
….On the contrary I don’t miss the point at all. The country wasn’t swayed by leftist propaganda…the facts were such that a 10 year old could understand them. It was none of the govt’s business and as a consequence of a load of preposterous grandstanding by the Bush’s, DeLay and various others this got hung around the GOP’s neck like an albatross with the electoral outcome I described…Placing the blame on leftist propaganda is essentially a cop out.
109 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 5:55 pm
The Schiavo case – no matter the merits – hurt the GOP. The fact that the federal government was used to get involved in matter of one family contradicted the “limited government” argument. There is no other way to look at it.
110 ottovbvs // Mar 1, 2009 at 5:59 pm
“But they did securitazed most of the mortgages”
….Actually they only securitized about 20% of sub prime and Alt A mortgages where most of the problems are concentrated..80% of these riskier mortgage classes were securitized in the private sector. From 2002 to mid 2007 F/F used to securitize about 50% of all mortgages most of which were prime of course. From mid 2007 as private capital dried up their market share increased and under govt pressure they took up the slack until their share of all mortgages was probably about 80% again mostly prime of course.
111 ottovbvs // Mar 1, 2009 at 6:06 pm
As ps to my previous comment I need to check but I don’t think F/F were actually allowed to securitize sub prime, Alt A, or jumbo loans until something like 2007 when as a I say they started securizing about 20%. Because of the accounting scandals which were real but unrelated to the mortgage crisis, they were under huge pressure from OFHEO their regulator and the Republican congress to shrink their market share. It was only when the housing bubble popped which was in late 2006 that they came under pressure to get back in the game and fill the gap being left by private capital.
112 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 6:14 pm
ottovbvs. If Fannie and Freddy did securitized “risky” loans why did the government take them over?
113 Izzy Weird // Mar 1, 2009 at 6:31 pm
On one hand I do not support the GOP position on abortion, nor do I support the GOP position ony marriage. I have no problem withy marriage, but I must say this issue ranks extremely low among my political priorities.
On the other hand (correct me of I am wrong), a majority of Americans opposes abortion, and opposesy marriage. If this is true I dont see how anyone can argue that these issues do great harm to the GOP in terms of attracting the independent vote.
114 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Sorry, I mean did not securitized “risky” loans.
115 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target — 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.
For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be “special affordable” loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area’s median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down. Fannie and Freddie also purchased hundreds of billions of subprime securities for their own portfolios to make money and to help satisfy HUD affordable housing goals. Fannie and Freddie were important contributors to the demand for subprime securities.”
CDS and speculation were a large part of the problem. But let’s not minimize the role of Freddie & Fannie just because we don’t want to seen as picking on poor people. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html
116 Chekote // Mar 1, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“a majority of Americans opposes abortion,” That may be so but they opposed having government agents going through people’s medical records even more. I see no problem with the marriage stance.
117 Kaz // Mar 1, 2009 at 7:27 pm
@ottovbvs
“Out of touch”? lol
Why don’t you take a good look at Obama’s spending and tax plans if you want an example of out of touch…out of touch with economic reality.
There’s nothing brave, nothing innovative, nothing brilliant about Obama’s economic proposals. What’s so ballsy about borrowing and spending trillions, spending that makes GW Bush look like a tight wad? What’s so “in touch” with promising taxpayers everything from forcing banks to restructure their mortgages to low cost healthcare? What’s so ballsy about promising to raise taxes only on the top 2%. American’s will eventually learned all of Obama’s promises and goodies will come at a price.
118 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 1, 2009 at 9:57 pm
lechero et al: As I’m reading these posts I’m stunned by the denial of what is happening today. The country is in a complete economic meltdown, people, by the 100s of thousands are losing jobs monthly, people, by the thousands are losing houses monthly, people, by the thousands are filing bankruptcy because of health care costs and yet, there continues to be this amazing denial by the don’t tax the rich conservatives on this thread. What I’m reading is exactly what cost the GOP and the conservatives the entire country. Denial about the reality of their own actions. It was Wall Street that invented the deritatives and worked closely with the GOP to remove regulation that would have monitored all of those bad loans, as noted below, 80% of which were in the private sector, as much as you may wish to scape goat Fannie and Freddie. Yet the same voices go on and on about Obama and how he’s destroying America. That’s not reality. The reality is Bush, the GOP, greedy Wall STreeters and the Christian right is what’s brought us to where we are and until the conservative party and the GOP snap out of it, they’ll be left behind.
The country is looking for solutions to the mess from the policies that are still being spouted here brought. Unbridled capitalism failed, period. And Obama and moderate Republicans and Democrats are trying to figure out how to shift the country in a way to curtail the damage from becoming permanent and a full blown depression. Why that is not clear to many is not surprising considering the level of denial the same group carried around President Bush’s Iraq policies, etc.
119 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 1, 2009 at 10:04 pm
chekote: Yes, all of this is coming at a terrible price. The price we pay for unbridled greed and having innocent people have to pay. I’m angry too. Angry at the greed, corruption and complete fiscal malfeasance that the GOP wrecked on this country. Why aren’t you?
120 pomeroo // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:47 am
Ottovbvs, you don’t seem to process anything I write. One last attempt: A court made a life-and-death determination lacking the necessary information to make it responsibly. As a result, a helpless woman was executed in a grotesque manner. Why can’t you grasp the implications of this sort of judicial overreaching? If the government shouldn’t try to protect us from such outrages, whose job is it?
121 InTheMiddle12 // Mar 2, 2009 at 5:17 am
pomeroo: It is appropriate for a court to make a decision when it was requested to by the husband, who should have had privacy, was challenged by Ms Schiavo’s parents. THe court ruled appropriately, as that is the place where we, as Americans, resolve conflicts, rather than through violence, etc. There was no overreaching at all. The law was upheld. And rightly so, the President’s and Congress intervention was viewed as a very very frightening moment for all of those, including me, that treat my privacy as that, privacy. The government intervention was the largest threat unveiled through Terri Schiavo. And rightly so, the vast majority of Americans rejected the intervention and subsequently the party that brought it as another example of a party that was hijacked by right wing crazies.
122 dhlii // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:59 am
I believe this is an important question we are facing. Why do we want to win in 2010 and 2012 ? Because our values and ideology are both correct and work, or because we want political power.
If we do not believe in our values, then we are pointless as a party.
The Goldwater Myth is irrelevant. The Democrats have not only gambled against historical odds on socialism, but they are preparing to double down on that bet. If they succeed – if they even half succeed, the GOP will be thoroughly discredited for decades. And frankly if they can make socialist nanny government work then conservatism is deservedly dead. If all this is about is which party rules why should anyone care ? Either there is are important ideological differences, either liberal values are unable to deliver good government and a robust economy and conservative ones can or the differences are pointless. I would be happy to support socialist polices – if they worked. If you truly believe that we are now following the wrong path, then
maybe by 2010 and certainly by 2012 this democratic gamble will have failed miserably.
The GOP defeats in 2006 and 2008 were not caused by the virtue of liberal policies, but by the failures of the GOP. Reagan’s election may not have been the results of some Goldwater myth, but it was the direct result of the failure of big government liberalism whether in the form
of LBJ, Carter or Nixon. Right now the GOP has a choice. What ideology do we believe works. If we really believe that Obama’s return to socialism is going to work, then the GOP should prepare to do as Clinton did in the 90’s and offer a GOP socialism lite in 2010 or 2012, and hope the public can be sold on socialism republican style. If we believe in the principles of Reagan
(and Thatcher) – the ideological foundation laid by Goldwater. If we really believe that it is was weak adherence to those principles that produced the longest uninterrupted period of prosperity in this countries history, then we need to do EXACTLY what the democrats are doing. Double down on our ideological bet. If we believe in those principles, democrats are intent on demonstrating unequivocally whether the political philosophy of the most liberal wing of their party actually works. Conservatives can do nothing to prevent this. Absent Pres. Obama being photographed in bed literally with Barney Frank, they can do pretty much as they please. The last election cycle was about the incompetence and corruption of eight years of republican rule, as well as an economic disaster that regardless of its exact causes the GOP should have prevented. If we believe in our values, the next cycles are going to be more clearly about ideology than any election cycle in my lifetime. If we are looking for candidates we should not be looking at
regions, but at who is the next Reagan. Who can explain our values with the same eloquence that Reagan had. Unless you believe that socialism works, the leanings of the media will be irrelevant. Pres. Obama is being identified with FDR, but unless everything conservatives believe is false, soon enough he is going to look like Hoover and LBJ.
123 sinz54 // Mar 2, 2009 at 3:34 pm
InTheMiddle12: Unbridled capitalism did not fail. Unbridled capitalism was not what the GOP had been doing for the last 13 or so years. Instead, the GOP had been hard at work at *corporate welfare*: Working with industry lobbyists to craft special legislation aimed at granting special favors to those lobbyists’ industries (presumably those industries that would support Republican candidates). And then labeling the corporate welfare “supply-side economics” (which it wasn’t) or “deregulation” (which it also wasn’t), just to deflect criticism. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act was not “unbridled capitalism.” It was a bill specifically aimed at giving Enron a shot in the arm, by exempting energy futures trading from SEC oversight. That bill was co-sponsored by Phil Gramm. (For Gramm’s work on their behalf, Enron rewarded him by hiring his wife, Wendy Gramm, for their Board of Directors.) Investing in energy futures was what powered Enron to prominence–till the bubble burst. I am a big believer in free markets. But the idea behind a free market is that the MARKET picks winners and losers, not Republican congressmen. Enron would never have become the huge company that it did, had congressmen not passed that particular piece of corporate welfare for it. If it’s necessary for Republican congressmen to craft special legislation aimed at helping a specific industry (or even worse, a specific company), then it’s not “capitalism.” It’s corporate welfare.
124 jjv // Mar 2, 2009 at 3:55 pm
dhlii-that is precisely the view I hold. I would add but one item. Even if the business cycle brings us an upswing it will not be as high as it would be without this burden on the economy. Second, millions of people will be inured to big government and its services thus changing constituencies. It may be extremely difficult to repeal any of this costly intervention whether it succeeds making the U.S. stronger or not.
125 pomeroo // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm
InTheMiddle12, would you please remove your fingers from your ears? Sorry if that sounds rude, but the court determined that it had divined Terry Schiavo’s wishes when, in fact, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO.
The husband lived with another woman. He had, in other words, A MASSIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST that should have disqualified his testimony.
What part of this is difficult for you?
126 Michael INdy // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:59 pm
The fact that Goldwater’s nomination and subsequent campaign helped create a generation of conservatives who in a relatively short time grew from a smallish wing of the Party into the whole Party is no myth. It happened. Nevertheless, the GOP today is a far different animal than the beast that bestrode the land in 1964 and it doesn’t profit anyone to ask whether we should repeat the “triumphant” electoral disaster of ‘64: we can’t. It isn’t 1964 and the GOP isn’t the same. Strip the drama and “myth” busting from Frum’s article and what you’re left with is the simple question: should the GOP stand on principle and fail miserably or, instead, nominate candidates who might win. Can we not stand on principle AND nominate candidates who might win? Is that not an option?
You must log in to post a comment.