dagblog - Comments for "Birth pains for plowshare conservatives"

I would say absolutely not.

Verified Atheist — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:23:53 +0000

In reply to Here's another question to

I would say absolutely not. We need to have our economic house in order, at least on average, to make it that much easier to weather the difficult times (such as now). Of course, I tend to consider myself a "natural conservative" in that I'm risk averse and don't care much for change unless it's absolutely needed. (Of course, there are many cases where I feel it is absolutely needed, so…)

Here's another question to

Watt Childress — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:59:30 +0000

In reply to Based on voting history or on

Here's another question to ponder.

Does the liberal "show" of less concern for debt, as demonstrated by rhetoric and legislative maneuvering, support progressive values?

Based on voting history or on

Watt Childress — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:55:30 +0000

In reply to Based on voting history,

Based on voting history or on rhetoric?

Good question. My answer is "mostly rhetoric, since Goldwater at least.

People who identify as conservatives have valued their votes on the debt limit in a way that is not purely symbolic, or empty of real conviction. Republicans assigned moral importance to the limit in the 90s as part of their efforts to advocate for balanced budgets under President Clinton.

Yet it is mostly the realm of rhetoric in which modern conservatives can stake claim to greater concern about debt than liberals, many of whom speak of the limit is either a theater prop or a grand illusion. This difference in rhetoric, combined with occasional use of the debt limit as political tool, shows that conservatives care more about the limit than liberals.

Well said, DD. America faces

Watt Childress — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:15:08 +0000

In reply to At one time we had control of

Well said, DD. America faces fundamental problems with our budget priorities. Democrats and Republicans were unwilling to fix those problems when they controlled Washington.

While sitting at my bookstore rocker, working on a response to Ghengis, a browsing customer overhead me say the words "plowshare conservative" to a neighboring merchant who popped in for a visit.

"What's a plowshare conservative," he asked. I explained that I put those words together to describe someone who believes in balanced budgets and sees the only moral path to that balance is through dramatic cuts in war spending.

The customer turned out to be a retired federal employee who worked for the defense department. We had a wonderful conversation, which began with his saying "that dog won't hunt." Meaning, the political momentum for military spending is so great that any coordinated effort to truly reform that spending is unlikely to succeed.

Many vocal conservatives made the assessment, long ago, that the same dog would not hunt with respect to spending on our social safety net. They realized that the momentum for funding public services was so great that any efforts to cut such services were doomed to fail.

Did they give up? No. That clan of vocal conservatives determined the only way to force their regressive spending reforms on Americans was by first forcing the federal government to operate under a balanced budget, without the ability to grab more revenues through taxation or raising the debt limit. They also took the leap of faith that the GOP would fulfill their dreams when Republicans took control of Washington.

It didn't happen. Instead, GOP leadership proved themselves hypocrites with respect to budgetary balance. Those who bought that brand got royally pissed, in the wake of the bailout. I believe we are witnessing the fruits of their angst now with the debate over raising the debt limit.

Historically speaking, Watt

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:39:00 +0000

In reply to Based on voting history,

Historically speaking, Watt is correct. Republicans were once dominated by true fiscal conservatives who pushed for balanced budgets, a division between Democrats and Republicans that dates back to the 19th century.

But the modern conservative movement initiated by Goldwater and others exchanged balanced budgets for small government and low taxes. Debt concerns eventually became a shallow cover or rationalization for lower spending.

Democrats, meanwhile, became more fiscally conservative. As a result, we now have a dynamic that would surprised the politicians of yore--with Clinton proving a far better budget balancer than Reagan or the Bushes and today's Republican Housing rejecting Obama's efforts to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and increasing revenue.

But obviously, the myth of Republican debt-busting remains potent.

Based on voting history,

Verified Atheist — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:33:37 +0000

In reply to Thank you, Ghengis: for

Based on voting history, conservatives appear to care more about debt than liberals.

Based on voting history or on rhetoric? Republicans like to talk about the evils of debt, but when it's their pet projects, the walk is totally different. Republicans will raise spending (on "important" things of course, like wars) while cutting taxes on their wealthy supporters, whereas Democrats usually just raise spending (and a few brave ones will actually try to raise taxes to offset the spending).

Unless, by "conservatives" you mean those whose votes would make them appear to care more about debt, in which case that argument is circular.

Thank you, Ghengis: for

Watt Childress — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:20:45 +0000

In reply to OK, I'll explain. Your post

Thank you, Ghengis: for taking the time to respond at length to my post, for providing this online forum for discussion, and for your civic activism.

Methinks the debt limit debate is spotlighting differences and similarities between conservatives and liberals. Based on voting history, conservatives appear to care more about debt than liberals. Not because either cares less about our country, in my opinion, but because many liberals view federal debt in a more positive light than conservatives. Especially when Democrats are in power.

I'm very interested in how this tendency shapes the cultural context of public policy. On the downside for liberals, I think it may fuel the popular idea that liberals are inherently more lax with respect to budgetary discipline. On the downside for conservatives, I think it may intensify the inner angst that arises from the blatant lack of budgetary discipline demonstrated when Republicans last controlled Washington.

OK, I'll explain. Your post

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:53:47 +0000

In reply to I understand the vote history

OK, I'll explain. Your post challenges various Democratic talking points including the following: Republicans are partisan hypocrites who care more about being in power than taking care of our country.

(For the record, that's not exactly the Democratic talking point. The actual Dem position is that Republicans care more about cutting taxes for the rich than taking care of our country, but whatever.)

In the subsequent paragraphs, you undermine the talking point by arguing that Democrats are also partisan hypocrites. That's not very controversial, and it's a fair generalization of both Democratic and Republican politicians.

But the second bit "who care more about being in power than taking care of our country," is a more serious charge, and it does not apply equally to contemporary Democratic and Republican legislators.

The voting records that you cite may reveal the Dems to be partisan hypocrites, but it does not demonstrate that they care more about power or ideology than taking care of the country. Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling only when their votes would not hurt the country; they knew that the Republican majority would take care of raising the limit and exercised a symbolic protest vote. You can call the votes cowardly, disingenuous, or hypocritical, but they were not dangerous.

What the House Republicans have been threatening, by contrast, is very dangerous because they have the majority. Their votes are not symbolic. If all Republican congresspeople vote against raising the debt ceiling, the bill will fail and the country will be severely damaged.

In other words, there will always be partisan hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, but our Republicans friends have been willing to press the partisan games to a far more damaging degree than either party was was willing to do during most of the 20th century.

At one time we had control of

Richard Day — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:09:12 +0000

In reply to Birth pains for plowshare conservatives

At one time we had control of both houses and could have prevented much of this mess, I suppose.

I just do not see how anything can be 'balanced' while we are at war in two countries--or is it four countries?

I understand the vote history

Watt Childress — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 01:08:00 +0000

In reply to Watt, I'm afraid that you're

I understand the vote history and how it relates to control of Congress and the White House. Can't see how I've misrepresented that history, though it looks like we derive different lessons from it.

Thanks for flagging the Democratic Party's use of the Gephardt Rule in 2007. I'm not a fan of the rule, which to me seems like a procedural dodge of something that is obviously important to citizens. The decision to raise the debt limit should be voted on by both chambers of Congress, in my opinion. I give credit to the Republicans for nixing the rule this go round.

I suppose there are plenty of occasions when the only form of protest that is available to citizens is purely symbolic. That should not mean it doesn't matter, not if we're genuine in our civic activism.