A Trend Not Worth Following
The Politico earlier this week ran a story on the struggle and strife, both monetarily and ideologically, that plague many state GOP parties around the country. Whether they be in the bluest of blue states or the reddest of red, the aftermath of the 2006 mid-terms still loom large over them. Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis was quoted as saying “After twelve years of being in power, you tend to get fat and lazy, and in some cases arrogant with respect to your positions”. Makes me wonder why it took 42 years for that to happen to the Democrats before the 1994 revolution.
Aside from mass political defeat on the state and national levels in 2006 for Republicans the problem stems from the perception and fact that Republicans lost their way ideologically. By the time 2006 rolled around, Social and Fiscal conservatives were up in arms over scandals and fiscal ineptitude. The votes (or lack thereof) for Republicans on the national level sank, not just for congressman and senators, but Republicans lost majorities in legislatures and/or governorships all across the country. Indiana was no different.
So is our state party next on the list of soon to be fractured and broke?
(Read more after the leap)
Let me say that’s hardly the case. After my most recent ILF class, which a portion of it focused on fundraising with speakers from the state party, we can all be assured that the state party has some of the best political fundraisers in the in the business pulling in loads of cash.
The biggest split would be between the parties fiscal and socially conservative wings. Fortunately our state party doesn’t have the problems that occurred nationally. We have fiscally sound Republicans in the House and Senate with a strong fiscal Governor in Mitch Daniels. Belt-tightening is the name of the game with this group, though even they admit it could be better.
Where the breakdown occurs is on social matters. Many Republicans in the state see the party trending fiscally sound, but alienating their socially conservative bretheren. Many will point to Governor Daniels silence on the matter of the marriage amendment. Now I’ll be the first to say that, while I used to be a supporter of such legislation, it rightfully took a back seat to issues of greater importance during this past session. But even when a few fellow bloggers and I were able to sit down with Lt. Governor Skillman, one of the questions that was brought up was what of the perception that social conservatives in Indiana got nothing out of the session that just ended. Scott Fluhr noted that the LG’s response was that “Indiana remains a conservative state regardless of party affiliation, and many of the measures hoped for by social conservatives would have passed handily if they had just been “given a vote”.
That gives that impression that SoCons and Fiscal types can live in harmony…if given the chance to vote on it.
I believe that there is more to the factions between the groups, but the two sides don’t want to speak of it to each other. Can our party be sustained with this kind of pressure building up on each side? The short term answer is yes, because we need each other. The party and by extension the state falls apart without each other. But our state party (and I mean everyone involved, HRCC and the SRCC included) should keep a watchful eye on the national stage and how our presidential election shakes out. SoCons aren’t completely sold on McCain and the National Party should fear they never will be. Gone are the days when everyone just sucks it up and drinks the kool-aid for the sake of “the party” since our nation is at an ideological crossroads. Just witness the Ron Paul revolution and how long it lasted. Or even the appeal of empty rhetoric being spouted by Barack Obama. Be that a right or wrong philosophy, that’s the nature of today’s politics.
So is Indiana next? No, not now. Our “fractured groups” still live in that forced harmony as we look beyond party for the good of the state. We will stand united for victory in 2008 statewide, but be watching out for 2010 and 2012. Things could get pretty interesting.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
In a sense this goes back to the question I posed at the last hoosier access radio recording. What will the republican party look like in 50 years? Will the social ideals still be the same. For example, If you go to a republican women’s convention today and ask those present “how many of you wear slacks or pants on a regular basis?” almost all the hands would go up. Back track 50 years or more ago–same question; more than likely you’s be tarred and feathered just for suggesting such a concept.
I think the same holds true today–My grandfather HATED rock and roll–elvis, etc.. but my parents loved it. I love hard rock, but my parents hate it. And the cycle continues…
March 27th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Right now SoCons do not have a place to go except the Republican Party. I know, Libertarians, some will go to you, but most want to stay with a party that can exert power in elected bodies. The Democrat Party is not a workable option. So they will stay, but they may not be active.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
It will come down to a matter of issues and how social conservatives choose to define themselves.
In my opinion, there will always be a division on the topic of women’s autonomy/choice and the pro-life movement. I think there will come a point (in fact I think we may be near it) where the two sides of the debate reach a rough plateau of support and flux back and forth within a certain range. The inherent logic of each position is solid and the extremes of each position unacceptable to the broad center of the American population.
But on many other issues of social conservative, the trending is inexorable in a diverse society, with business and social conservative perspectives about the role of religion not only lacking overlap, but often in conflict. Business must and does contend with the diversity of the American population, and seeks harmony among employees, customers, vendors, and managers of diverse races, religions, genders, gender identities, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and ages. Business seeks and relates to government policy that fosters that harmony by allowing none to predominate AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS on matters of conscience.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, in my opinion seek an imposition of generally traditional socially conservative religious values, a pursuit that has always sought a dominant position of conscience over differing perspectives, and seems to me to resent any government or business approach that fails to accord social conservatives that honored position on matters of conscience with which others differ.
I do believe (hope, anyway) that social conservatives in their attempt to leverage government on matters of conscience with which good people may differ are playing the losing hand in America. I do believe that most Americans over time do understand that while religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity and other classifications are things that divide us as a nation, it is only a common commitment to freedom and equality under the law that unites us. It is only in this general resistance to our otherwise common commitment to freedom and equality under the law that social conservatives find their minority status.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Chris, I guess the question is what do they do? It may or may not be a “losing hand”, but the SoCons do tend to be highly motivated and active participants in the political process. The Democrat Party is generally hostile to their ideas.
It seems that you wish that they would just go away, but that does not seem likely, even if they do not have the votes to carry the day.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I would agree…many state GOP parties acted like they were going to win forwver and now they they are out of power they dont seem to know what to do. My state of ohio is a prime example.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Thanks for stopping by Ben! Keep up the good work in Ohio.
The SoCons may not have the votes, but neither to the Fiscal voters, especially in Indiana. Fiscal voters rely on Independents when SoCons don’t show up to vote. That’s pretty much how G-Dub squeaked by in 2000. But when Fiscal voters don’t have the Independents to rely on, much like this year in the presidential race, where else do they have to go? They need the SoCons, just like the SoCons need the Fiscal voters.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I disagree, Josh.
The Republicans need the Business community, but impact of Reagan was not merely on the Republican Party. In policy towards business, the Democratic Party has traveled to the right. Democratic socialist tendencies are hardly even on the map any more, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The grimace virtually on the face of virtually the entire American political spectrum toward Hugo Chavez is evidence of how far we have come. Time was, people like Chavez enjoyed a great deal of support on American campuses. No longer. At least not in any serious way.
America’s leading business and fiscal conservatives are as much Democrats as they are Republicans, recently perhaps even more so. Consider not only Gates and Buffet, but even former Reagan Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volker, inflation hawk, supports Obama.
On the other hand, you are correct that if social conservatives don’t get their bread buttered by the Republican Party, there will be nobody else to butter it. That is the nature of the extreme ends of the socio- political spectrum. The truly socialist have nowhere to go, except perhaps to Ralph Nader and the Greens, because the Democrats have long since stopped buttering socialist bread.
The Republicans moving to the center on social issues is as much an advance for American society as Democrats moving to the center fiscal issues.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Wow. I think you are delusional if you think that the Dems are leaving socialism. The policies being pushed by both Hillary and Obama are pure socialist. The difference is that they are trying to conceal what they are up to. They still (for instance) want socialized health care–they just want it to look like it is not socialized health care because they know that it won’t fly.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
And let’s not forget that Woody Myers, Andre Carson and quite possibly David O. are openly advocating socialized medicine. Hillary even offered “Hillary-Care” back when she was first lady. It was all socialized. And let’s not forget the continual support for funding failing government programs like social security to supply for the now, but screw over the future. If anything the Democrats are embracing socialistic policies now more than ever.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Ditto to what Joel and Josh said
March 28th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Just for entertainment I went over to the Barack Obama website and went to one of his Issue categories–Family. Let’s see what we have:
1. Index the minimum wage to inflation (socialist and incredibly stupid)
2. Require companies to provide sick leave to all workers
3. Require more companies (25 or more employees) to cover leave for all kinds of reasons–care of elderly, etc.
4. Of course, “universal health care” is in this category.
5. Automatically force employers to enroll employees in a retirement plan.
I’ve left off several. Let’s be clear: the Dems are very interested in advancing the cause of socialism.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:36 am
1. No, Joel, the Dems are mass and diverse group, just like the R’s.
2. Universal health care coverage is a concept not limited to Dems and not any more socialist than universal auto insurance. Both Romney and Schwartzenegger have had such plans. The present system cannot continue in which a few of us pay for what everyone either is using today or will use in the future. The present system is closer to socialism than universal coverage.
3. I (like most economists) believe a working tax credit is the way to go to ensure families achieve or remain above poverty level. A low minimum wage indexed for inflation would be a distant second, but indexing for inflation and then leaving it alone is perhaps more desirable than having it pause and jump every few years. Scholars can differ on that… it’s hardly socialist.
4. Whatever lead candidates may say, business certainly has its influence when it comes to passing legislation. If I’m not mistaken, business has been giving more to Democrats lately. Socialism would surely be the government providing sick and all other forms of leave. (Whether through business mandate or government, I do tend to oppose such measures, especially as an employer.)
5. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are pure on matters of free trade.
Calling this stuff socialist more to me reveals either that you are engaging in rhetorical hyperbole or that you don’t have enough historical perspective to understand what socialist is. No significant Democrat to my knowledge is advocating placing the means of production in government hands or eliminating private property. Measures that ensure that a safety net is in place can be debated in their details, but as a broad principle, a safety net is far preferable to conditions becoming so disparate as to produce a revolution and the guillotine.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:49 am
You are correct that the Dems are diverse. I should have said their leadership.
The problem is that the stated end goals of the leading candidates is not just mandates, but Federally run health care. Essentially they want Medicare/Medicaid/S-CHIP etc. extended in some form to everyone. Hillary has pushed that in the past and I have no reason to believe that her desires have changed. But her methodologies to get to that point are different.
There are significant differences between the socialized medicine or even the various mandated insurance coverage proposals than mandated auto insurance. One is that the mandated insurance is coverage on the damage that you cause to someone else, while health insurance is covering yourself. Another is that auto insurance is a requirement of driving a car, which is an optional activity, that is engaged by people on government owned property (i.e. the roads) while living a breathing is not an option, unless you call Dr. Kevorkian. Comparing the two is “rhetorical hyperbole”.
Since wages and certainly the minimum wage are things that feed prices of goods, an indexed minimum wage would actually feed inflation in an upward death spiral. (That is, the increase in the minimum wage causes inflation that causes the minimum wage to increase that causes inflation…..) The continued use of the minimum wage is just another way that the government controls more aspects of its people and generally to the detriment of the economy.
I do not believe that I have ever argued that the Republicans are pure on any matter. But there are elements of conservatism or classic liberalism in the Republican Party that seem to be completely absent in the Democrat Party.
Historically socialism has had various forms (e.g. Democratic Socialism; Communism; Nazism; Italian Fascism) which are all forms of totalitarian governments. I hesitate to use that term because it is more loaded than socialism. But they all have the common idea that the State is what is controlling all aspects of citizen’s life. That is EXACTLY what the Democratic leadership wants. So I will switch my terminology, for you, to Totalitarian rather than socialist.
Please give up the moral superiority crap.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Please give up the moral superiority crap? (I’m much amused.) Have I invaded your turf? I do apologize. In the future I will try to adopt a tone that more clearly differentiates from yours and from others here. I don’t mean to trespass upon the franchise.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:30 am
By the way, Joel, you do make a good point about indexing the minimum wage to inflation, especially because other higher wage scales apparently are indexed to the minimum.
Do you oppose the use of an Earned Income Tax Credit?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am
My ultimate preference would be to reduce government spending (in 2007 all U.S. governments spent $20,000 for every man, woman and child) so that the taxing levels did not require such things.
The EITC is welfare. I consider that unconstitutional on the Federal level. On a state level, I am not opposed to it absolutely, but at the same time I am not sure that it does what the program promotes. I generally do not care for any wealth redistribution efforts.
“Welfare”–and by that I mean the efforts to provide some kind of safety net for those who are unable to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves–is most effectively handled by churches and other charities. It would be easier for them to do so if our governments would reduce their tax burdens by reducing their size. States and localities that feel the need to provide welfare would do better by assisting with the actual goods that are needed (food, clothing, shelter) rather than providing cash.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Hmph. Interesting. So rather than an EITC or other welfare measures that place money or vouchers in hands in order to be spent in a competitive private sector, you would prefer that the state purchase and distribute food and clothing and increase public housing? Actually, I’d say that approach comes closer to socialism than anything I am aware of Democrats advocating. What do you think for clothing? Basic black? Prison-made sneakers? Corn meal mush for dinners ? More cheese?
March 28th, 2008 at 10:52 am
How about MREs?
It doesn’t matter if the government is providing funds or materials, it is the same level of “socialism”.
But don’t miss my main point: the Feds should not be involved in it at all–it is unconstitutional and unproductive.
My second point is that it should be non-government charities providing goods and services.
If we insist on going to the states and localities to provide this “safety net” it should be done in as responsible and minimal way possible. I’ve stood behind folk using food stamps (that needs a new title, in my mind) to buy steak and candy bars–that doesn’t seem like a particularly good way to handle welfare to me.
But my (conservative) assumption is that anything that the government does will be inefficient and fraught with corruption. This is why it should be minimized.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:02 am
The point behind EITC is that there is some mythical “poverty level” and that it is the responsibility of the government (i.e. the people) to bring them up to or above the “poverty level”.
Why?
I’m not saying that the poor or destitute should not be helped. I’m just asking a fundamental question of what is the logical basis for the use of a poverty level and why people should be brought up to that level by the government.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Joel, the very rich I believe generally well understand that they are often a product of a system that they have played to their benefit, indeed a system in which they have been able to wield influence in order to derive greater advantage.
Just look at the folks that got the windfall from the legalization of slots. The state legalized ONLY SO FAR…. so those with the best lobbyists made out like bandits while poorer but no less worthy citizens have to frequent the approved casinos rather than run their own on the corner. Not that I favor gambling, by the way.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Among other things, Joel, it promotes the general welfare, not only the welfare of the indigent, by providing societal stability.
If you want to disinvite the government from exerting stabilizing influence, then why not return society to a pure libertarian ideal of nature. Today with government enforced law it is the advantage of the intelligent… but only until recently. Advantage used to accrue to the strong and the brutal.
In real estate foreclosure in Indianapolis we have a perfect example… not merely of fraud.. but of a great number of ultimately well-heeled people legally inducing the poor to assume debt they didn’t understand or to refinance the homes that were their only property just to extract fees for the transaction.
Societies again and again in the last century have suffered upheaval as the poor and the frustrated finally seize by force what they perceive to have been accrued by cunning. That is the systemic alternative to promoting at least a minimum welfare for some. Revolutionary movements historically have thrown not only the aristocrats against the wall, but the intelligentsia and the bourgeois. I have little doubt that you and I would fare poorly!
March 31st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“the very rich…are often a product of a system that they have played to their benefit…”
That isn’t much of a reason for the establishment of a poverty standard. It is more of a reason for government restraint so that there isn’t a system to game and take advantage of.
It “promotes the general welfare” is a best attempt at a constitutional call for welfare. There are actually some good quotes on this at Free Republic: (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm) that certainly indicate that this term has little to do with what I would call the “specific welfare” programs that we have now. Your term “minimum welfare” is telling that you are referring to specific people rather than the general welfare.
Your argument is basically to placate the “masses” or at least the poor by bribing them with welfare.
I do not want to return to a “pure libertarian ideal of nature.” I just want to read the Constitution and live up to it. For better or worse, it would disallow all of our welfare programs. (And the NSF; and NPR; and National Endowment for the Arts; and ….)
Once again. If you think that we need to insure a “minimum welfare” there is a place to do that–the State House.