Max Sawicky thinks it is time to provide a "Republican Hypocrisy Check." Here is the first installation of his checklist.
Posted by DeLong at July 3, 2002 09:44 AM | TrackBackWeblog Entry - 07/03/2002: "REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY CHECK"
REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY CHECK. Let's review the bidding on this, shall we? The topic is "episodes where the Right fails to criticize its own on the same basis it criticizes Democrats in general, and Bill Clinton in particular.
- The Chinese knock-down of a U.S. aircraft over international waters, the subsequent imprisonment of U.S. military personnel, and the return of the plane in cardboard boxes.
- Manipulation of its management of national security for political purposes (the useless alerts, the handling of the 'dirty bomb' arrest, in contrast to criticism of the Clinton Administration in Somalia and the Sudan).
- Wild-ass statements by such deep thinkers as Ann Coulter, Cal Thomas, Jerry Falwell, & Pat Robertson.
- Refusal to surrender records of energy task force meetings (in contrast to demands with regard to the Hillary health care task force).
- Baldfaced lies about deficit policy, not only the 'trifecta' fiasco, but more so with regard to the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses (to the effect that Bush's tax cuts would not impact the surpluses).
- "Raiding" the Social Security Trust Fund. Before Bush, the Republicans were against it because it 'was used for spending' or it would reduce national saving and raise interest rates. After Bush, they discover it's o.k. because it doesn't really affect saving or interest rates.
- The miraculous coincidence of stock dumping by President George W. Bush. Dick Cheney's superintendence of Halliburton's creative accounting. (I have to add that the neglect of Bush's travesty of a business career in the campaign was one of the most egregious failures of the press imaginable.)
- Pork barrel spending. Our pork -- the agriculture bill -- is good for you.
- Protectionism. No explanation required...
You are so much stronger with your own material. This piece you picked up is so weak, I am embarassed to be explaining it, but here goes.
Let me intro with a classic Jonah Goldberg comment: "I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative". By this he means that he believes in a certain set of principles, which, on balance, are better reflected in Republican Party positions. However, there are things about the Republicans with which he disagrees, and he will say so.
Conversely, let's pick a guy like Tom DeLay: unarguably a professional Republican who will support any Republican initiative and criticize any Democratic idea. Like hiring a PR firm, or a lawyer.
Let's further assert that, for symmetry, the Democratic Party can be divided similarly. Maybe James Carville offsets DeLay, and DeLong offsets Goldberg.
So, simple model. What happens when a Democratic idea is under attack: one unit of vitriol from Goldberg plus one from DeLay equals two "vitriols". However, when a Republican belly-flops, we only get one unit of vitriol from Goldberg. Thus "The Right" will always sound twice as loud denouncing Democrats as Republicans, because "The Right" is a combination of folks motivated by ideas and those motivated by party affiliation.
Similarly, I don't think it is hypocritical of Carville not to criticize Cynthia McKinney. It really is not his job - that is why we have Republicans, two party system, advocacy, yadda, yadda, yadda. And in the wild world of silly people to criticize, I don't even expect DeLong to go after her.
This would all be a bit much for Sawicky, who starts out with Republican hypocrisy, and then merges that into hypocrisy of "the Right".
Anyway, as to specifics, I won't go point by point, but let's see:
"Manipulation of its management of national security for political purposes" - boy, I'm glad that the right level of response is so obvious to at least some people.
"Baldfaced lies about deficit policy, not only the 'trifecta' fiasco, but more so with regard to the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses (to the effect that Bush's tax cuts would not impact the surpluses). " I think you are premature on the trifecta.
"Pork barrel spending. Our pork -- the agriculture bill -- is good for you.
Protectionism. No explanation required..."
Sorry, no explanation required? Do you want to explain the notion that the Right hasn't criticized these trade policies? Maybe you haven't been listening. And yes, there will be partisan Republican whose job it is to defend this, and they will. But not criticized?
I hope this helps. Yet I am strangely pessimistic.
Regards,
Posted by: Tom Maguire on July 3, 2002 11:25 AMThe article was a bit off, yes; it shouldn't have been about the lack of self-criticism on the right. There's *plenty* of play in the GOP doing exactly the things for which it criticized Clinton, without tacking on some wierd bit about self-criticism.
The management of terror alerts, refusal to release energy task force meetings, and selective argumentation about the macroeconomic effects of the social security trust fund fit in really well with the paranoid style of conservatives described by Brock in his new book.
Posted by: Jason McCullough on July 3, 2002 12:55 PMLet's add to this:
Bush first proposes his tax cut (ca. Dec 1999) at the peak of the economic boom, and spends the next year denying that this would have any "stimulus" effect, overheating the economy. Then when he takes office in a slumping economy, he sells his tax cut for its "stimulus" effect.
Posted by: Curt on July 3, 2002 02:41 PM