Sunday, January 31, 2010

Don't Get Overconfident Because of Scott Brown

In the aftermath of Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, many Republicans are tempted to forget 2008 and blame our recent defeats on a stroke of economic bad luck and/or on John McCain. But it would be short-sighted to miss the opportunity to learn from our recent failures. Scott Brown or no Scott Brown, the Democratic Party still easily controls both houses of Congress and we lost the last Presidential election by a wide margin. Our recent success is something like kicking a field goal at the end of the first half so that we can run into the locker room behind by only three touchdowns! We’ve got a long way to go and we still have some things to fix. The field goal feels good, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. If we do not make changes to our platform or (if you will accept a business metaphor in the same paragraph as a sports metaphor) to our “product,” I believe we will sustain our momentum.

Even a successful party, like a successful team, has to occasionally learn a new play. When parties succeed in a major way, they often instinctively stick with their winning play until it stops succeeding, and then some. The time for the Republican Party to learn a new play is now. The Democratic Party went through a similar experience not long ago and they have emerged much stronger. Let’s look at that.

The Democratic Party had a great run for a while in the post war era. They took control of the House of Representatives in 1955 and held on for more than 20 years. Not only had they won World War II and ended the depression, but by 1970 it was clear that they had also been on the right side of the Civil Rights issue. So the exultant, proud Democratic Party kept banging away on the same themes. Throughout the 1960-1980 period and into the 1980’s, the Democratic Party tried to pass a civil rights bill and a pro-union bill in every legislative session. In the beginning the electorate responded. But in the end, the need for those programs resonated less. “Civil rights,” for instance, evolved from fundamental civil rights to affirmative action, which simply conferred privileges on groups that were voting for Democrats. By the late 70’s, the Democratic Party was doing the same thing it had done for a while but times were a changing and there were new problems to solve. The Party was no longer in step with the people. Carter lost 15 seats in mid-term election of Carter’s first (and only) term and in 1980 he started a major Democratic Presidential losing streak.

The Democratic Presidential losing streak did not end until a reformer with a new paradigm-shifting perspective was nominated; I am of course referring to Bill Clinton in 1992. But until the very end there were old timers who still believed that the key to the Democratic Party’s national success was more civil rights and more pro-union legislation. There are some who remain today, which is the nature of paradigms.

Bill Clinton, by modernizing the platform of the Party, saved it and helped it grow. The Democratic Party needed him, even though some felt he had let them down by embracing welfare reform in his first State of the Union Address and by signing The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Three members of the Clinton Administration resigned in protest when Clinton signed the Welfare bill but it made the Democratic Party much stronger and more attuned to the people. Clinton got an albatross off the Democratic Party's back. It could again lay claim to being a responsible governing party.

The Republican Party has its special play that has worked well (at least on the Presidential level) at least since Ronald Reagan. Abortion, gun rights, Christianity, low taxes, a strong defense, free trade, law and order and fiscal conservatism have been the key planks. I would argue, and have argued, that three issues need to be re-examined to maximize our future success: abortion, fiscal conservatism and free trade. This is a good time to make a change and get a few albatrosses off our backs.

Abortion
Abortion as a political issue is a loser. It is mere theater. It does more to excite democrats and drive off moderates than it does to excite Republicans; it is mere theater because the odds of the federal government moving away from Roe v. Wade or seriously moving off the three month rule articulated in that decision are zero. So abortion is a great way to volunteer for defeat. See my complete analysis of the issue here.

Inconsistent Fiscal Conservatism
It’s not that I think fiscal conservatism is bad; it’s that we need to become more credible on this issue. Financially, Republican candidates always say we want lower taxes, higher military spending and balanced budgets. This position I believe has come to lack credibility. What always happens is that we cut taxes, raise military spending and fail to cut domestic spending. Then deficits rise. Reagan and Bush II let the deficits rise. Bush I raised taxes. None of our recent presidents succeeded in doing what we like to say we want to do. When we controlled Congress it didn’t happen either. So our credibility on this issue is not strong, and to some extent I think McCain paid the price for this. After the Bush tax cuts (and deficits), I just don’t think people were interested in hearing someone with the same line on taxes and deficits.

Here’s how government economics work in a nutshell. Military spending goes up every year faster than the rate of US economic growth. Social Security and medical spending go up every year faster than the rate of US economic growth. The rest of the budget is the tail of the dog. So almost by definition the government’s percent of GDP goes up over time. Therefore, either taxes have to go up every year or the deficit does. It’s as simple as that!

Taxes can’t go to 100%, and taxes are a disincentive to work and grow the economy. So we are right to want to hold taxes low. But I think where we need to improve our credibility is in defining the areas where we intend to save money. What will it be? Military spending or Social Security/Medicare? That is too big a question to answer here, but for now I will just say that it is credible to say that we are going to cut taxes and cut Medicare and reduce military spending but is not credible to say that we are going to cut taxes and cut nothing.

Free Trade
My next post will be on free trade but I would argue that right now our position is one of free trade absolutism and that this is blind to the realities of international trade that are morphing and distorting our economy in potentially dangerous ways. This issue is not the #1 determinant of votes, but it is ultimately very important for the economy. More in my next post.

No comments:

Post a Comment