SHOWDOWN 06: The Washington Monthly

October 30, 2006

The Beast Wins...Lost in the speculation of 17 seats or 25 seats or 60 seats or one house or both is the profound nature of the shift about to occur.

Conservatism, in its contemporary sense, is a movement that is only seconds old by historical standards. Today’s conservatives trace their roots to 1964 and the Goldwater campaign, which didn’t, of course, bear fruit until 1980 and the election of Ronald Reagan, who conservatives credit with bringing their movement to the mainstream. It has been teetering between success and failure since Goldwater. The 2006 midterm wipeout could be seen as the blow that brings it down...

Reagan cut taxes, then followed it with an increase in government spending and an increase in taxes, which was followed by a tax hike by Bush the First. Largely due to defections from conservative ranks, Bush was tossed out of office. In 1994 Gingrich and his revolutionary crew did everything they could think of to cut government spending, but found themselves stuck between powerful committee chairs, interest groups, and voters—none of which actually wanted the sacrifices that went with spending cuts. The Starve the Beast philosophy—the idea that the only way to slow the growth of government was to slow its funding stream—began to take hold in conservative circles. It was the last chance for modern conservatism--the last idea. As it goes, so goes the fate of conservatism—unless they’ve got something else they haven’t shared with us yet.

From the beginning, Starve the Beast was a strategy based more on hope and faith than sound reasoning. The bedrock institutional entrenchment of government spending won’t magically go away just because we have a budget deficit. Sure, the argument for spending cuts is strengthened when the government’s in the red, but so is the argument for tax hikes. And then you’re back to square one.

Institutional power has won out over conservative hope. When Bush’s son—a man who seemed much more radically conservative than his father and fashioned himself a Reaganite—was elected, conservatives could be forgiven for thinking their program would finally be enacted, one way or another. Bush starved the beast, but a funny thing happened: The beast grew fatter. It turned out the beast doesn’t feed on cash alone. He’ll eat any type of currency or T-bond you’ve got.

With nearly unchecked control, the conservative movement—finally in power—not only failed to slow spending but rapidly increased it, while at the same time doing a lot of things that really wigged out your typical American voter.

Then, Bush invaded Iraq—not exactly a conservative thing to do. Lyndon Johnson learned the hard way that he couldn’t have both guns and butter, and Vietnam broke the back of liberalism. Bush and his ilk wanted guns and butter, too—they just wanted most of the butter to go to the top one percent. Iraq has ended that dream.

Where the Republican Party goes from here is anybody’s guess. It could easily become a regional party mired in the South, finally achieving the permanent minority status Republicans have always feared.

—Ryan Grim 12:29 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

Comments

"Where the Republican Party goes from here is anybody’s guess. It could easily become a regional party mired in the South, finally achieving the permanent minority status Republicans have always feared."

Republicans had permanent minority status until the 90s, which I'm sure you're aware of. I'm not sure that the fact that the Bush administration wasn't able to or decided not to adhere to traditional conservative principles means that conservatism is dead. Plus, your side hasn't even won yet, and in a year where the news could not be worse for Republicans, they are still probably going to retain control of the Senate. That's a "disaster" I can live with.

"From the beginning, Starve the Beast was a strategy based more on hope and faith than sound reasoning. The bedrock institutional entrenchment of government spending won’t magically go away just because we have a budget deficit. Sure, the argument for spending cuts is strengthened when the government’s in the red, but so is the argument for tax hikes. And then you’re back to square one."

You at least have a chance of spending cuts when the government's in the red. When there are surpluses there's no chance of reduced spending. The point of "starve the beast" is that there will be more pressure to reduce spending when there are deficits.

Posted by: Rockwell on October 30, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Rockwell:

From 2000 to now, the President has been R, the House, R, and the Senate, R, mostly. The budget has been in deficit throughout. Acccording to your theory, there must have been spending cuts. But, there were not, rather, massive spending increases.

"Starve the beast" goes up on the shelf right next to "supply-side tax cuts that pay for themselves" along with other fantasies.

Posted by: John Casey on October 31, 2006 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

Ryan

In your dreams. The Republicans have a far greater grasp of the electoral system than the Democrats, far more organisation, far more motivated foot soldiers (in an organised sense).

Add to that they have a natural lock on corporate money in the American electoral system, a network of dedicated and committed affluent donors, and a US electoral system at all levels that favours the incumbent.

It has taken a disastrous foreign war (something which only happens once in a political generation), a succession of public scandals (and Abrahamoff didn't hurt very many Republicans, it took the resonance of the Foley-Hastert scandal to awake the public-- as they say, sex sells), and a very weak president to weaken the Republican hold on power.

The Demographic shifts within the US (towards the South and the West-central) massively favour Republican electoral chances. I think the Midwest loses something like 12 Congressional seats at the next reapportionment?

A final point: more Americans self identify as Conservatives, than Liberals. And independents lean Conservative when polled (in linguistic/semantic terms if not in policy).

The Republicans are the favoured party of the US presidency, and the way the US constitution works favours 'Red States' in terms of parliamentarians in the House and Senate.

I expect a Republican resurgence. If not in 2008 then in 2010 or 2012. And a party even more dedicated to its key messages: Intelligent Design in schools, right to life etc.

Posted by: Valuethinker on October 31, 2006 at 6:02 AM | PERMALINK

"From 2000 to now, the President has been R, the House, R, and the Senate, R, mostly. The budget has been in deficit throughout. Acccording to your theory, there must have been spending cuts. But, there were not, rather, massive spending increases."

The theory is not that deficits automatically result in tax cuts; I'm saying that in order to reduce taxes and the size of the goverment it's more effective to lower taxes first in order to force spending cuts. Waiting for a budget surplus to cut taxes will rarely work because government is much more likely to spend the surplus than it is to give it back to taxpayers.

I'm no fan of the massive spending increases we've seen over the past six years, which is why the prospect of a Democratic House doesn't scare me as much as it probably should. :)

Posted by: Rockwell on October 31, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK