Mavis Gets An Answer

In my post below: "We The People" I received a comment from one of my favorite folk who just happens to be somewhat Left of Center. He (and let me repeat that) HE, goes by the nom de commenter Mavis Beacon (yeah, like the typing teaching program). None the less, Mavis is thoughtful, and a good friend and we have exchanged friendly emails just about ever since I began blogging. We met over at Marc Coopers so, between Marc and Mavis, you know I seldom got a word in edgewise (Just kidding Mavis, just kidding). Mavis had a number of both observations and questions and though blogging partner Lawrence Harris provided a good answer, in fact, an excellent answer, it behooves me as host, and as a friend to provide my own take. Besides, he's a friend.

Mavis writes in the comment section:

Good post, GM. I've got some questions, though.

I know Republicans are unhappy because they aren't winning (which is reasonable enough), but I don't really get all the policy frustration. You've gotten a lot of what you wanted the past six years - various tax cuts for the wealthy, a much more conservative court, some modest abortion restrictions, pro-business environmental policy, and an all-consuming war against Islamic fundamentalists and Iraq. That's a lot of stuff on the wish list.

Pork is a problem, but I didn't hear a ton of conservatives complaining while the GOP was running the show (though certainly the porkbusters crew was around). And the immigration issue is a tough one for Republicans but there are always going to be some tough issues. That can't be the sole cause of this disaffection, can it? Also, you didn't get to dismantle Social Security or rewrite the tax code, but those were pretty ambitious items and I can't imagine you'd turn on Republicans for not quite getting those through. I'd think we'd all agree that it's a good thing you can't dramatically change a ton of American institutions too quickly and without widespread support. So where's the beef? What did you want to happen that didn't, or what did they do that made you all so mad?

Mavis, since you are such a good guy as well as a good friend, I felt that you deserved a quicker response, but I have been very busy trying to torpedo the immigration bill. OK, I'm going to re-present your words in blockquotes setting each part or each sentence by itself and follow that with my answer. Now, please understand that you complained about Dadvocate's answer as being talking points, but part of your question is talking points also, so I'll try to do my best to answer you and I hope the answer(s) are complete.

OK, first part:

I know Republicans are unhappy because they aren't winning (which is reasonable enough), but I don't really get all the policy frustration.

It is less, Mavis about winning (the Democrats won fair and square) than about the abandonment of core principles by the congressional republicans in the period of time between around 1997 and 2007. During that decade, A Republican congress, and now a Democrat congress has done exactly the opposite of what they said. I expected it of Democrats, they are known as Tax and Spenders for good reason, and the reason that T&S is a cliche is because at it's base, it is true. The Republicans on the other hand, have been spending like they expect their rich old uncle to die next week and leave them (as Pogo would say) umpty-eleven dollars. You mentioned also that "various tax cuts for the wealthy." Wow, that canard still around. The FACT is that the tax cut was the same across the board and since the poor don't pay taxes, and the wealthy are paying a higher percentage of the tax revenue, I'm not sure where that comes from. Besides, John Kennedy already showed that tax cuts stimulate economic growth for everyone, and that was when the rates on the wealthy were approaching, something lke 65% (more or less, I think) and the tax cut then had an amazing positive effect on the economy. In fact, you can show that each tax cut has spurred economic growth; it is the spending that is the problem. At any rate, part of the problem with Bushco is that there was an agreement he approved of that the cuts would only last 10 years and then automatically expire as opposed to new congressional action to make them expire. Are you ready to have your taxes go significantly up to allow the rich's taxes to go up also? Just asking.

We did get a more conservative court but Bushco even flubbed that, unless you think it was the evil-rove that tried to push Gonzalez and then Meirs on us. Loyalty is great in any administration, but not to the point when one uses the Peter Principle to pay off loyal followers. There were much better selections out there that could have gotten approval (and Alito and Roberts did in fact get substantial approval from the senate on a roll call vote). But conservatives still got a nasty taste in their mouths from Bush's efforts to push Gonzo and then Ms. Harriet on us when they were clearly not qualified. A pro business policy is also a great thing, but can be carried to far as is often the case. For example, agribusiness got a huge boost in the arm from ethanol production, to the detriment of a lot of other food availability and cost (See Victor Davis Hanson's article in IBD and, as Hanson mentions, this may well have national security implications. So, in all, we are not happy with Bushco, but it goes back much farther than the immigration fiasco of the last couple of weeks. As to the "all-consuming war against Islamic fundamentalists and Iraq" there are a number of problems with labeling it as such, but it also goes to some of the dissatisfaction with Bushco. Specifically, though I am in full favor of the war in Iraq, I'd be a fool to deny that there have not been any problems of leadership. There have been many mistakes and stupidities and the conservative dissatisfaction is less about the war, than it is about how the war has been prosecuted. Now, having said that, let me also say that some amazing things have come out of this war including the economic and social help; schools, medical clinics and hospitals, restoration of the marshlands, an economic boom in the Kurdish part of northern Iraq. The Sunni and the Shia are beginning to turn against Al Qaeda and the surge really does seem to be working and before you say higher casualties, of course there will be, we are pursuing AQ and they are fighting back, but losing and getting decimated as well.

You note:

Pork is a problem, but I didn't hear a ton of conservatives complaining while the GOP was running the show (though certainly the porkbusters crew was around). And the immigration issue is a tough one for Republicans but there are always going to be some tough issues. That can't be the sole cause of this disaffection, can it?

Actually, a whole bunch of us were griping about the increasing pork going back to about 1998 or 1999. Long before I began blogging in '04. If you search my archives, you will find entries on the shamefull spending and support of the pork busters movement as well. Immigration was and is a tough issue, you are correct about that, and one of the reasons that conservatives (and talk radio and the right side of the blogosphere and many, many independently active Americans bombarded Congress with its dissatisfaction and most of congress folded when the powers that be (Bush, Kennedy, McCain, Reid, Boxer etc) honestly believed that they could skirt Senate procedure, slip a bill under the wire, convince illegals and other Hispanics that the Dems were the best thing sliced bread, and of course the Repubs (Lott, Kyle and Graham in particular, and others in general) had to say that they were the best thing since bread. The truth of the matter is that the bill was a bad bill. Both the right and the left blogosphere knew it (albeit for different reasons) and the right took it to the president and the Senate. Then, those worthies began saying that if you didn't like the bill you were racist, you were haters, you didn't know what you were talking about and other crap. Boy, that hit the hot buttons of an awful lot of people and Bush got the brunt of the anger.

So, in essence what I'm saying is that the immigration bill, flawed as it was, was only a single straw, but one that probably broke the camel's back. We (that is conservatives) feel betrayed, not only by Bushco, but by much of the Republican establishment and we are revolting. Does that bode well for the Democrats? Perhaps, but it is also likely to cause a major recruitment effort to elect responsible conservatives and to push to make sure that the Democrats don't get to keep the House or the Senate and that the White House stays in our hands.

Third party time? No, I don't think so, though I could be wrong. If you will check back political posts such as the open letter to Trent Lott and to the Republicans, you will see that the anger has been there for some time, though many of us have continued to support the Repubs over the Democrats because they are A) just as corrupt, if not more so (and to be honest, I think more so) and they are liberal to boot, thus, they think government is the answer to everything. A good example of this is Joe Biden recently talking about the incidence of AIDS in the black community stating that it was the fault of the medical community and us white folk for not pushing education about aids enough in the black community and teaching black youth that wearing a condom doesn't make you less manly. No Senator, the responsibility lies with parents, with the neighborhood, with individuals and the need to instill a sense of personal responsibility. If 16% of the youth are black and they represent 65% of the new cases of AIDS, what does that say about the degeneration of family in the black community - exactly as Daniel Patrick Moynahan said and he was a LIBERAL.

Moving along:

you didn't get to dismantle Social Security

No, we didn't and that is a train wreck that is a commin' down the tracks. Social Security problems started back in the Late 40's and early 50's when it stopped being a stop-gap and started to be the premier way to old age support. Roosevelt did not intend for it to be the sole support of the elderly, he meant it as "additional" savings and if it had stayed that way, it might have made it, but in the mid to late 50's the move towards something like Medicare began and Medicare was funded in the mid 60's. I still remember Hubert H. Humphrey "swear" that it would never cost more than 18 billion dollars. Well, guess he was a little bit wrong wasn't he. Elderly folk vote, and are the most consistent voters there are. As soon as the politicians noted this, they began buying votes with add-ons including Bushco and his Medicare prescription drug benefit. Wait the the bill on that boondoggle comes due. Your kids and my grand kids Mavis, will be working to pay in as much as 60% of their wages just to support Social Security and it's perks if something isn't done. No, Social Security didn't get fixed, in part because of the cowardice of the Repubs and in part because of the cowardly demonization of Repubs by the Dems over Social Security.

Lastly you mention the Tax code and you are once again correct, this is a burr under the saddle of many conservatives, not because it didn't pass, there are too many special interests keeping it alive. From CPA's and Tax Attorneys (sorry Woody) to corporate interest, to homeowners deductions etc. The tax code is so cumbersome that not even IRS experts all give the same, or even accurate advice, yet the pressure is to add to the code, or keep the status quo. That will eventually produce a result of chaos, and it is rapidly headed there now.

So, I guess the answer to where's the beef is all inclusive, overly intrusive government, being lied to by those we elected congressmen and senators, Demos and Repubs alike. (and no, I am not talking about WMD lies - that is another canard)

It is truly an accumulation of things, all of it adding up to being overly governed, and misgoverned and the Democrats are as much at fault as the Republicans, maybe even more so since they promised to clean up the mess and have done nothing except exacerbate it bringing congressional approval rates down to less than half of the Presidents, and he deserves his rate.

Hope that answers your question Mavis, take care and thanks for commenting.

Posted by GM Roper at June 29, 2007 08:04 PM | TrackBack