Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

The deLay faction has become totally ruthless in enforcing total loyalty. Total Warfare. Take No Prisoners.

OK, so if they want to stay Republicans, they must toe the line. What I don't understand is why they stay Republican. What do they stand for? Hatred of gays, worship of blastocysts, payoffs to corporate donors. Not liberty, not fiscal responsibility, not military strength, not limited government.

PS:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/22/16266/9619

Yglesias monthly brings up the point that there should be a break in teh Republican party. It still ignores that it is extremely difficult to happen. DeLay demands loyalty through his control of teh money. From the PACs that he runs or controls to his ability to get jobs for Republicans in lobby offices and law firms. If you cross this group, there is ahigh price involved. You need the charisma and popularity of a McCain to fight against it.

Probably because they don't like Democrats and the package of Democratic policies, and will never like Democrats (some of whom are pretty unpleasant, too). And jumping parties is almost always the kiss of death for political influence in America (Phil Gramm "proving" the rule).

I can tell you from my perch inside the Beltway that this administration plays hardball like no White House that has come before. Cooperate with an author like Paul O'Neill did and find yourself threatened with a criminal investigation. Make disparaging remarks after you leave office and try to get a job or a consulting contract from that point on. Reveal what you think is the truth and find your wife outed as a CIA agent. Make no mistake about it, people who leave the administration and those that have never joined them are afraid of the consequences of being an "adult." Stay quiet or mute and you can continue to reap rewards. Go public with your thoughts and face a very uncertain future.

The Republican Party has worked for decades to control the White House and Congress. Now, they have done so and conservatives are thinking there might well be a hold on such control for many years to come. Imagine how many Republicans dreams might come true with 10 or 20 years of Congressional control and Republican Presidents. To give up on George Bush is to give up on the dream that had finally seemed to be realized. A significant loss by George Bush might even bring a Democratic Senate.

Compromising photos.

There might be adult Republicans out there, but they've nowhere to go, and not just because of Bush dirty tricks. Ted Kennedy broke with Carter, it doomed both of them. There were lots of rumblings among Tories back in the early 1980's about how bad Maggie Thatcher was, but she sat until the world finally collapsed around her. A successful internal coup makes martyrs of the deposed. You don't even want to think of the results of an unsuccessful coup. The bi-partisan House impeachment vote against Nixon is a straw in the wind. How could that kind of consensus happen again?

Uh, Earth to Brad.

Two parties - winner takes all.

Most Republicans are ideologically opposed to most Democrat proposals. Infighting cedes victory to someone you find more ideologically repellant than you find your current party leader incompetent as the face of your ideology.

We live in a politics of consensus around two parties, so people wind up supporting candidates they don't like all that much. You know, the way you can be a dove and support Kerry.

Kerry is better if you have Dem tendencies, but he isn't if you want Bush to act like a 'real' conservative, with small government policies and all. A lot of people choke it down and pull the lever for a guy they don't like and don't respect. This is nothing new in US politics, and it is not party specific.

RE: "...the grownup Republicans are (with the exception of George Shultz and Marty Feldstein, still writing pro-Bush op-eds..."

!!!Hey, wait... Shultz wrote his pro-Bush op-ed for the NYT two weeks ago. Why does he get a pass?

EDITORIAL DESK | August 4, 2004, Wednesday
Op-Chart; A Record of Recovery
By GEORGE P. SHULTZ (NYT) Op-Ed words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 17 , Column 1

August 4, 2004

A Record of Recovery
By GEORGE P. SHULTZ - New York Times

Over the course of last week, we heard a lot from the Democrats about their record of economic achievement. So let's take the advice of a Democrat of yesteryear, Al Smith, the former governor of New York.

His trademark phrase was, ''Let's look at the record.''

These charts show the rate of change in real gross domestic product and in employment from 1990 to last June. The shaded areas show recessions. The vertical lines show when President Bill Clinton took office and when he left. Because the economy has momentum, it's useful to look carefully at the trends in evidence at the time of presidential transitions. When you look at the record, a quick summary is this: President Clinton inherited prosperity; President Clinton bequeathed recession.

The 2001 recession was short and shallow, with employment -- always a lagging indicator -- the last part of the economy to rebound. The employment picture has been a little puzzling since the two main surveys -- one asks existing establishments how many people are on their payrolls, and the other asks people in a large sample of households whether they have jobs -- show slightly different patterns. In any case, by now a third piece of the record appears clear: the recession President Clinton left behind has turned into prosperity under George W. Bush.

Thanks, Al Smith, for your good advice.

I am among those Republicans who have concerns about George W. Bush. Heck, I’ve criticized the President right on this very blog regarding his wimpiness on free trade issues. Don’t believe me? All you have to do is Google my earlier comments. However, Brad De Long should ask another question: why did the Democrats pick John Kerry? Joseph Lieberman was the vastly superior candidate. He would have earned my vote! Both Dan Drezner and Glenn Reynolds almost certainly prefer the Connecticut senator. I suspect that so does DeLong. Am I right?

John Kerry is a flip flopping opportunist who will say just about anything to win an election. His lie about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia cannot be ignored. It speaks volumes about Kerry’s low moral values---and unbalanced psychological health. Do you really want this guy deciding life and death matters?

punisher, you misread brad (admittedly, he placed his parenthetical poorly): he's not giving shultz a pass. he's saying that instead of sitting silently and staring at the office walls, shultz and feldstein are still writing pro-bush op-eds.

david, if the dems wanted to nominate a republican, they could have gone straight to mccain. Joe Lieberman is an ineffectual windbag who stands for nothing, which is why he was roundly rejected by the democratic electorate. (Anyhow, the fact that instanitwit would support him is a good enough reason to reject him.)

As for flip-flopping, surely you jest? Surely you aren't trying to waste our time with the "flip-flop" charge when a supreme flip-flopper like george bush is in office. We won't even waste our time on the "low moral values" piffle. If you'd care to examine low moral values, i'd start with a man who hyped up a war threat that has cost hundreds of american lives, thousands of iraqi lives, and billions of dollars, and who then makes jokes about searching for wmds in his office.

The supreme principle of Republicans is class warfare of the rich against the working class. As long as they get their tax cuts, the minimum wage is kept flat, and unions are undermined, there is no atrocity most Republicans will not eagerly support. Just as the old German junker class grumbled about the rude and crude ways of the NSDAP, but supported them anyway against the left, the "grownups" will stick with Busheviks all the way.

David Thomson wrote, "Joseph Lieberman was the vastly superior candidate."

LOL! All Democrats I know say that Lieberman was among their least favorite of the candidates.

"John Kerry is a flip flopping opportunist who will say just about anything to win an election."

That applies much more to Bush than to Kerry.

"His lie about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia cannot be ignored. It speaks volumes about Kerry’s low moral values---and unbalanced psychological health."

Why?

And even if true, how does it compare to lying about a causus belli in order to get us involved in a war that has cost the lives of 900+ US servicement, injured thousands more, and cost $150-200 B?

Brad DeLong wrote, "But there is no reason that they had to be--or have to be--so quiet."

But they're getting their tax cuts, so what do they care?

David, as a Republican you may not be aware of this but Liebermann is nearly universally despised by the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. (Re-examine his poll numbers during his Joe-mentum! race for the nomination.) He had zero chance of getting nominated.

This has a lot to do with the fact that he sides with the Republican position on many issues. Still, you could consider writing him in as your Republican vote this November!

George Bush is the supreme flip-flopper: compassionate in elections, put on the smiley face for the conventions and the brief run-up to November, then govern like the most ferocious of his religious wacko constituents.

The real test is whether moderate Republicans can be persuaded to vote against Bush, or at least stay home. Kerry wins either way.

“David, as a Republican you may not be aware of this but Liebermann is nearly universally despised by the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”

Most interesting. Are you aware that Brad Delong supports nuclear power, free trade, and despises Al Sharpton? Do you think the host of this blog is too Republican? Are you hinting that John Kerry would marginalize DeLong, Robert Rubin, and other pro-growth Democrats?

Mr. DeLong is a Republician, but so was Bill Clinton. Both Democrats in name only.

David, what do your 4:10 remarks have to do with Joe Lieberman? And given that the bulk of Kerry's advisory group on economics is former Rubin-ites, what in the world are you talking about?

"punisher, you misread brad..."

You're right, Howard, thanks for clearing that up.

“David, what do your 4:10 remarks have to do with Joe Lieberman? And given that the bulk of Kerry's advisory group on economics is former Rubin-ites, what in the world are you talking about?”

Yes, but are they being played for fools? Is their “advisory group” truly in the driver’s seat? The John Kerry campaign is cuddling up to both the pro-growth Democrats and the Howard Dean adherents. Somebody is going to be marginalized if Kerry is the next president. Who will it be? There is not enough room in the Democratic Party for both groups. The Republicans pushed Pat Buchanan and his crazies outside the door. When will the Democrats do likewise with the Deaniacs?

I don't much like Joe Lieberman myself, but he has a 78 lifetime ADA rating. To say that he and Bill Clinton and Brad DeLong are "Democrats in name only" is hard to figure.

What kind of conservative is bush. Look at the budget folks. What ever happened to fiscally conservative and socially moderate. At 55 years of age I finally found a party that is more to my leaning and it sure isn't the God speaks to me one that George Bush belongs to. AND I AM A PATRIOT TOO

The problem which you identify is bipartisan.

Actually I use to be bipartisan because I think issues are important. Bush changed all that when he started appointing people for women's health who thinks you pray through menopause and bow down to the hubby. Now I'm just a shrilling democrat.

David Thomson;

Things have changed. The multifarious elements that make up the Democratic party have universally awakened to the fact that they no longer control the levers of power. I believe that congressional democrats in particular had a hard time accepting that they were no longer in charge. Now they have, and so have the rest of us, and as a result, the first priority is taking back the government.

Its been said before, but "Uniter, not a divider" George Bush has done more to unite the Democratic Party than any other person in history. That's why it is just silly to imagine that the Republican bacon is going to be saved by internal Democratic party warfare.

Also, absent the 22nd Amendment, Bill Clinton would have been nominated by acclamation and would carry about 40 states.

JC

You know, in some ways, this kind of relates to something that I saw a few weeks ago, when Brad linked to Daniel Drezner's blog. The person suggested, in a inlogical manner, that moderates not join the Democrats but the Republicans. I find that view to be wrong and appalling now, just like I found it then.

But more generally, this is the sort of thing that is going to sink Bush. Kerry, more or less, has his base secure. Anyone who wasn't going to vote for the Democratic nominee unless he was someone so far to the left that he was like Kucinich would have been out of reach any way. Those who are more open but still have reservations say, "Yes, he's not perfect, but I'm still a Democrat, and besides, look who the other option is." All this, while Bush cannot even get most Republicans to go for him. And no matter how this fustration is manifested - in a vote for Kerry, in staying him, in voting for other races but not the presidential race, or in voting for a third party candidate - it's a gain for Kerry. Good riddance, Senor Bush.

David, i still have no idea what you mean.

Kerry has been very clear about where he stands on economic policy matters: rollback tax cuts on incomes above $200K in order to fund an intelligent expansion of health-care access and solution to critical care that will probably make health care costs lower than they otherwise would have been, helping employers, while increasing the number of people with coverage; restoring the concept of fiscal discipline; jiggering the tax code to provide additional incentives for hiring domestic labor; and probably some marginal toying with trade policy (while not committing anything nearly as heinous as bush's tariffs).

This is basically a rubin/clinton type package, so what's your problem?

And btw, on what basis do you say that the gop has shown buchanan the door? I don't mean pat the person; i mean where is the sign that there is no longer a home in the gop for nativist sentiments? for culture wars? for tariffs?

"...George W. Bush is neither an attractive man nor a competent president nor good in the long run for the Republican Party...."

So?

Two points:

1) No one votes FOR an individual. Everyone either votes AGAINST the Republican Party or AGAINST the Democratic Party.

2) There is no long run.

Follow the money. The biggest backers of the RW think tanks are multibillionaire foundations who are perfectly happy with Mr. Bush. They also fund many of the RW media outlets (Fox, American Spectator, Regnery Books).

The big money is happy with their tax cuts and look to rake in the money as long as Bush is in office.

"Why do they stay Republican?"

When I meet moderate, non-racist, non-fundamentalist, non-homophobic Republicans, hatred of unions and (where applicable) big-city machine politics always seems to be their main reason.

"Just as the old German junker class grumbled about the rude and crude ways of the NSDAP, but supported them anyway against the left, the "grownups" will stick with Busheviks all the way."

Thanks, aenglish.

"Most interesting. Are you aware that Brad Delong supports nuclear power, free trade, and despises Al Sharpton? Do you think the host of this blog is too Republican?"

David, what in the world are you talking about? I don't think anyone reading this blog would consider Brad in the least Republican. More importantly, what does Brad's dislike of Al Sharpton (along with the vast majority of other Democrat's BTW - go check his primary results) have to do with why grown-up republicans can't, or won't, take back their party?

Brad, Brad, Brad - again, why do you persist in thinking adult Republicans will pop out of the Q Continum and save the day? If likes of Drezner can barely conceive of voting against Bush (not that I agree with Drezner, but he's clearly more in touch with reality than the Joementum-loving Thompson), if John McCain plays nice with someone who smeared his service in Vietnam AND smeared his family, if the northeastern moderates have not shown a peep of concern about the way their party is headed, then one must conclude that adult Republicans don't exist. Or, at least, they put their loyalty to Bush above their loyalty to their country. Which is the same thing as not existing, functionally.

You are as tenacious on this as Cheney is on the missing WMD. That's not company I would want to keep.

Brad DeLong writes:
>
> But there is no reason that they had to be--or have to
> be--so quiet.

That's actually not true. I'm more convinced than ever that the one and only thing that Republicans have going for them, the one thing that ever gives them any shot at power, is the rule that one Republican never speaks ill of another. They might back off that one *slightly* in an a presidential primary situation, but even there, I think you will find that Bush senior and junior were the only ones who ever used dirty tricks against a fellow GOP member.

Now the problem currently is that the nominal head of the GOP at the moment is George W. Bush backed by Tom DeLay. This is an anomaly for many reasons, but one that would be exteremely tough to work against even in the best of situations. What grown-up Republicans faced in 2003 was about the worst of situations: Bush and Rove and company had played a yellow press to the max and managed not only to achieve GAINS in the mid-term election but also to get the country into a (then) popular war. In mid-2003, resistance must have seemed completely futile. I think the only thing the grown-ups did get then was Trent Lott out of the leadership, which was impressive because it cost them nothing and wasn't widely seen as a big disloyalty.

The Grown-ups in the GOP must feel like they are in a completely hosed situation now. If Bush loses, they lose not just the presidency but a bunch of judicial appointments and the strong possibility of not having a working majority in the Senate. If Bush wins, the grown-ups face being marginalized completely if they weren't gung ho for Bush in 2004. And, last but not least, if Bush "wins" but loses the popular vote, there's a real (but small) chance of genuine disaster.

Most Republicans are conservative people. In the big picture, a grown-up Conservative might feel that Bush is just a blip on the screen and might hope against hope that he doesn't screw things up so badly that pretty much everything they cherish will go away. The problem with that line of GOP thought, though, is that about 60% of their party is now a bunch of truly scary people, and it's not clear that number will go down even if Bush crashes and burns.

Why do people believe that Kerry is lying about Cambodia? Because Nixon denied condoning illegal incursions? I read on another Blog (Leftcoaster?) the statement of a person who knows 5 people who went into Cambodia when the official line was that we weren't doing that.

Tom DC/VA writes:
>
> if the northeastern moderates have not shown a peep of
> concern about the way their party is headed, then one
> must conclude that adult Republicans don't exist. Or, at
> least, they put their loyalty to Bush above their loyalty to
> their country. Which is the same thing as not existing,
> functionally.

They have no loyalty to him. They do have fear of him (Jeffords excepted). Another way to phrase the problem is:

If Bush wins in November, all traitors will be shot. If Bush loses small in November, would-be traitors can't lead a rebellion if they weren't crazy-supportive of Bush (the only rational explanation I can find for McCain's psychotic-looking behavior). If Bush loses massively in November, there will clearly be a chance to re-make the party, since the splintered remains of the GOP might be wandering in the desert for many years. That's not really the scenario they want, either.

I wouldn't lay a lot of money down on it, but there is a solid chance that Bush will lose massively in November. Iraq is not going well at all, and can probably generate nothing positive between now and November. It can generate big death tolls, renewed rumors of the draft re-starting, and (if Sy Hersch is to be believed) photos and video footage so horrible that even the base would blink. Further, if people have not decided the economy is going great by now, they're unlikely to be convinced by the election, and there are now just so many ways for (particularly) the markets to turf that the economy could become an even bigger negative.

Again, I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but the election where Bush gets only 40% of the vote cannot yet be dismissed as fantasy.

Ahhh.... good... then we can keep it as a sweet dream for now... I'll put out my US flag if GW Bush is defeated!

>a causus belli in order to get us involved
>in a war that has cost the lives of 900+
>US servicemen, injured thousands more,
>and cost $150-200 B?

You mean winning the 2002 mid-term elections wasn't sufficient casus belli?

Jonathan, i basically agree with your 8:07 posting about the fear factor mitigating any attempt at grown-up behavior by non-right-wing republicans, but i don't agree that bush could end up as low as 40%. There was one poll that showed a hypothetical kerry/mccain matchup with bush/cheney that showed kerry/mccain winning 52-39 (don't recall the polling organization), and if we pro-rate the other 9 percent, bush would have 42-43, so i regard that as the absolute rock bottom for bush.

and that's on the assumption that a kerry/mccain ticket would have pulled some republican votes into kerry's camp....

I've always pondered over a little theory I have about geo-political gene-swapping. For example:

It's WW II, the US and Britain go to war against Germany and Japan, and create Israel after the war is over, a direct stab in the back to their Arab allies, (but we'll get to that in WW IV).

Germany goes back to being Hansian, but only a most ultra-democratic one, like the former USA.
Japan accelerates into the future, becoming a super-USA, like our pre-war American industry.
Israel goes on to become a fascist Zionist state like Nazis that created their raisson d'etre, and we in America become a Hitlerian, Orwellian, Shinto Cold War thing behind MacArthur, McCarthy and Eisenhower, the Domino Man.

Freeze frame.

WW III, US and Soviets, former allies, square off and do their own bit of geo-political gene swapping. In the ensuing years, their DNA lines harden, their destruction of treasure grows, until at the end, the Soviets become Slovaks, and emulate American early industry, gang labor and mafiosa, while American government, once just rabidly paranoid in the Hitlerian fashion, becomes brutally organized into a Stalinist Bushito Politburo, our media becomes Pravda, and our countryside begins to look like Stalingrad after the Wehrmacht got through with it.

WW IV, now that we're locked into perpetual war with the Islamic nations, we can expect Islam, just like their secular oil sheik brothers, to emulate an early-American Calvinist life of the 50's, all crew cuts and Sunday church and work your 40 and out, like your father's Oldsmobile.

America, in our final spat of gene-swapping, will emerge radically reactionary, religiously fundamental, ultra right-wing with royal elites ruling over 250,000,000 subjects who practice mercy, alms-giving and humble life of the Koran, or the real Bible, New Testament version.

So that's not all so bad, is it? You have to serve someone, and the ultra-rich have all the money locked up already anyway! Isn't it better that we live humbly and righteously under their bemused and indifferent gaze, than live crack-war sex-addled mercilous days of the disco era?

Does anyone really want to go back to the 1980's?

In ten years from now, most of America will look like central Mexico or Russia's Siberia, poor pueblos, broken roads and hundreds of millions of poor campensanos; while our best haciendas, greatest estates, the best waterfronts and big-city high-rise towers, will have fancy iron bars on their windows, armed guards, limos and their own personal service and livery.

Elites will fly in from all over the world to enjoy our wide open spaces and fertile acreages, pleasure themselves with our easy wo(men) and children, and play at cards in our many casinos.

It's only money!

Is this a great country, or what?

One of those truisms that no one seems to really believe is true is that the age of the nation state is coming to an end. In the abstract, people who think about such things seem to believe this, and most of the pro-globalization crowd regards it as a good thing. Vaclav Havel said he hopes the nations become mere administrative districts.

As this occurs, does it not seem likely to certain groups will become more indifferent to the fate of the nation, especially if well enough situated that it is no skin off their noses? I think this talk of "grownups" misses the point. Yes, there is a lot of childishness in the Bush admin, but there is something deeper going on. A good portion of the US elite is no longer committed to the good of the country - that's why they have such contempt for the ordinary standards of behavior that are, in the long run, necessary to keep the polity functional. Of course, you can only cover for such behavior with flag-waving, but why else would perfectly intelligent Republicans like Cheney and, until recently (i.e., until faced with the threat of a Dem President) Greenspan, be so indifferent to the looming deficits, for example. Why else would Rev. Moon, who calls America Satanic, be one of a figure of sufficient political status to hire former US Presidents as spokespeople? The political movement underfoot is trying to transfer power from the state to the party, in classic totalitarian mode. The party is ultimately not a national entity; the interests it represents are sub-national (specific interest groups) and potentially supra-national. This is all straight out of Hannah Arendt's analysis of totalitarianism.

"It's WW II, the US and Britain go to war against Germany and Japan, and create Israel after the war is over, a direct stab in the back to their Arab allies, (but we'll get to that in WW IV)." - Frank Haberhoff

What Arab allies?

Three crises will face America going forward:
1) Free trade with low wage nations necessitates an adjustment to American wages downward.
2) Failure of public health and the inability to access health care combined with increases in disease fostered by global warming and overprescription of antibiotics, increased housing density (co-residential and extended families in slum-like conditions), new diseases constantly evolving in places like Shanghai.
3) Changes in resource distribution- in terms of changed climates-the wheat belt may move further north, dust storms return to the mid west, California dries out further and in terms of Non-renewable resources: cheap to drill oil is going away, as are cheap to mine minerals and coal.
Not everyone can work for Intel and Microsoft. What will the bulk of Americans be doing for a living in the next 25 years?

David Thomson wrote, " 'David, as a Republican you may not be aware of this but Liebermann is nearly universally despised by the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.'

"Most interesting. Are you aware that Brad Delong supports nuclear power, free trade, and despises Al Sharpton? Do you think the host of this blog is too Republican? Are you hinting that John Kerry would marginalize DeLong, Robert Rubin, and other pro-growth Democrats?"

But you're somehow implying that Brad either supported Lieberman, or has views akin to Lieberman's. Doesn't follow.

Lieberman is to Donkey as McCain is to Elephant. Both are considered the 'adult' members of their parties by the opposition, mostly because they resemble said opposition. We all see adults when we look in the mirror, I suppose.

"Most interesting. Are you aware that Brad Delong supports nuclear power, free trade, and despises Al Sharpton? Do you think the host of this blog is too Republican? Are you hinting that John Kerry would marginalize DeLong, Robert Rubin, and other pro-growth Democrats?"

One major difference is that Professor DeLong is not a social conservative. And I think that if Joe Lieberman wasn't one and also hadn't played the "let's become Republicans or die" card after 9-11, he would be substancially more popular among Democrats.

Slightly OT: I took Joe Lieberman off the grown-up list as soon as he signed on to the Committee on the Present Danger. For a committee designed to look at the present, it ought to take a look at its own past.

lay off the Slovaks, Mr. Habberhoff. But the Latin Americanization of the US is for real in so many ways