For today’s CNN commentary they found a historian to talk about the size of the federal government. The headline is “GOP’s “small government” talk is hollow” and it’s written by left wing partisan historian Julian E. Zelizer. Why do I say he’s partisan? Well, I know nothing about the guy, but there’s one phrase in the “commentary” that’s revealing.
The right-wing CATO Institute published a report noting that total government spending had grown by 33 percent in President Bush’s first term, lamenting that “President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson.”
Ah, the “right-wing CATO Institute” tells me everything I need to know about the political perspective of Zelizer. While CATO is right leaning it’s mostly a libertarian think tank that was harsh on many of Bush’s policies. Zelizer does a great job explaining why the past eight years were anything but smaller government, but then tries to argue that Americans don’t want it.
Fifty years of American history have shown that even the party that traditionally advocates small government on the campaign trail opts for big government when it gets into power. The rhetoric of small government has helped Republicans attract some support in the past, but it is hard to take such rhetoric seriously given the historical record — and it is a now a question whether this rhetoric is even appealing since many Americans want government to help them cope with the current crisis.
If polls are any indication a majority of Americans are still in favor of a smaller and less intrusive government. The only reason Republicans keep beating this drum is because they have seen the poll numbers. Unfortunately as this article indicates Republicans have been unwilling to pursue less government. There are a few reasons for this, but the Republicans have never had a large enough majority in Congress to implement any real change. It’s also not really clear Bush was ever serious about limited government. Zelizer also throws in this non-sequitur into the piece about Richard Nixon.
All of these presidents, particularly Nixon and Reagan, likewise promoted a muscular vision of presidential power that strengthened the authority of government and introduced concepts, such as the unitary executive, which would become the intellectual underpinning of the Bush administration.
“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” Nixon told David Frost in 1977. Like it or not, strengthening the presidency is one of the most important ways in which the role of government has grown since the nation’s founding.
Other than proving he’s fan of the movie Frost/Nixon Zelizer’s point about a more powerful executive branch is lacking. I won’t even bother going into the details about the context of Nixon’s quote which the shallow masses fail to understand (Yes, Zelizer you’re included). An argument can be made that every president promotes a “muscular vision” of presidential power. In Al Gore’s case even a “muscular vision” of vice presidential power. It seems like a historian could offer a better example than a “political perception” but that’s the state of education in America. For Zelizer a simple belief must be factual. The truth is after Nixon the executive branch isn’t as powerful. After Watergate Congress weakened the power of the executive branch.
Just one side note I find it fascinating that scholarly types like Zelizer would promote the idea that Bush and Reagan presided over an extremely power executive branch. While I understand politicians and partisans are going to make gross exaggerations it’s puzzling that someone who works as a historian would so causally distort history. While Nixon remains the clearest example of abuse of power (mainly due to the Watergate cover-up) historians like Zelizer have glossed over the gross abuse of power that took place during the Johnson administration. Among other things president Johnson used the FBI to monitor the Goldwater campaign during the 1964 election. Johnson was ruthless. Historians rank LBJ as a top ten president despite his abuses of power, war on poverty, and starting a war that ultimately killed over 50,000 Americans. I guess “dismal failure” depends on how you look at things.
I stumbled across a blog entry titled Why The South Bleeds Republican Red looking through Digg. This blog entry is so insulting I find it necessary to take on the rank arrogance of its assertions. Here’s a sample of some of the wild generalizations going on in this “analysis.”
Deep in the Southerner’s psyche is a desire for the past: a romantic, “Gone With The Wind” past, a past where the slaves were happy and knew their place, a past where slave owners were kind and generous – a past that never existed. I was raised in the lower class. We never owned a house and it took ten years to finally pay off our one car. But even I have felt the tug to return to that imagined past.
But ingrained in that false memory is an ugly truth. A return to the way things were means a return to race discrimination. This is the reason not spoken: the fear that people of color will take a position of power. The white Southerners, from plumbers to politicians, are afraid that a black man will take their job, or worse: be their boss.
There you have it. Every southern conservative Republican wants a return to race discrimination. I have lived in the South my entire life (Georgia, NC, and now Florida) and I’m a conservative. The ideas of smaller government and personal liberty do not make me long for the days of racism. I was born in 1979 and have never seen segregation. I’ve lived in an integrated South in college, on baseball teams, and in the Boy Scouts. Blue cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, and the District of Columbia are far more hopeless destinations for minorities than Atlanta, Tampa, and Charlotte.
To get an idea of how ignorant the blog’s assertions are imagine if I tried to argue that all liberals secretly long for an America with Soviet style gulags. In other words, since liberals believe in socialized health care they long for political dissidents to be sent work camps. It’s a straw man argument.
The author also beats the “fear” drum. Which I always find hilarious coming from liberals who seem perpetually worried about Global Warming, health care, and the economy. Fear is a relatively used by both parties to advance their agendas. Obama sold the stimulus plan on the fear that it would help the nation avoid a catastrophe.
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh gave a speech at the annual CPAC event. I only caught the last 15 minutes of his speech but Rush was his normal funny, charming, and intelligent self. Rush has his faults just like everyone else but it’s a little annoying hearing liberals complain about a man they’ve never listened to, and know nothing about. In fact, most people who have never listened to Rush have only seen media hit pieces about the man. After the speech I did a quick Twitter search on Rush and wow, the lefties were up in arms. I guess conservatives should just shut up. Here’s a post from When I Write titled “Memo to Rush Limbaugh: Skoooozy!?” This is the typical shallow name calling post with nothing that could be considered an analysis.
“Rush Limbaugh calls on conservatives to take back nation” or something to that nature… I was in the mall reading it on the Treo, and I damn near did a back flip along with a cartwheel [i'm pretty large], so I’m just trying to get @ how outlandish that sounded coming out of his fat little puckered mouth.
. . .
What does he [Rush Limbaugh] think the last 8 years was? A tea party of moderation? I seriously would like to know how the right wing nuts all of a sudden catch amnesia [sp - I'm on my Treo w/ no spell check, so skoozy if there are any errors] when it comes to shoveling sh@t about how Obama is creating this big gov’t and how they [insert any right wing nutjob here] simply aren’t about that and are against that. It makes all too perfect sense because we see it year after year in politics. One side pretends to be offended and the other pretends to be about something. SAVE IT!
I’m not exactly sure what the second paragraph is about, but it’s worth pointing out that conservatives have had issues with Bush and Republicans the past four years. Bush wasn’t a fiscal conservative. That’s the most annoying aspect of Obama’s change mantra. He’s not changing anything. He’s taking Bush’s spending spree and kicking it up a notch. In 2006 many Democrats ran under the banner of fiscal restraint and won. The same happened in 2008. The Democrats had no intention of implementing transparency and fiscal responsibility. Now that Obama is in the White House it is a partisan political free for all.
As advertised I missed the Obama speech last night. From what I’ve read I didn’t miss much; however, it did catch half of Jindal’s response. There seems to be two extreme reactions to his statement and neither of them really matter. I don’t think he bombed but I didn’t think he sounded very good, especially compared to his appearance on Meet the Press. I don’t think he’s quite ready for the national stage. Plus, following Obama speaking before a joint session of Congress is always going to be a letdown. I’m not sure what people were expecting. Keep in mind he’s only 37 years old. I think that’s the bulk of his problem, he just doesn’t look very presidential. Almost all 37 year old people don’t look presidential; however, I do agree with most of what he had to say.
For twenty years the Republicans positioned themselves as the party of smaller government and fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately they governed as Democrat Lite. The problem the nation faces now is that the alternative is more of the same on a larger level. Make no mistake, this is a dangerous time for the Republic. Until proven otherwise the president isn’t stopping the will of the Congress. As hard as it is to believe the most unpopular Congress in history is now running the country.
Tonight after Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress governor Bobby Jindal is giving the Republican response. Typically the response is pointless and for the most part it will be tonight. Jindal is probably the most brilliant politician to hit the national stage since Bill Clinton. Yes, I just skipped over the current president. Watching Obama speak away from a teleprompter is painful. Clinton and Jindal do not share that same problem. The Washington Post has more on Jindal.
Now, 17 years later, Jindal is governor of Louisiana and the anointed boy wonder of a Republican Party left battered by the 2008 election and hungry for new leadership. Jindal’s audition on the national stage is tonight, when he delivers his party’s response to President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress.
Jindal, 37, was still working last night on the 10-minute speech. Aides said he is writing it himself, although he has received input from party leaders. The fast-talking governor plans to rehearse with a teleprompter today before giving the address live from the governor’s mansion in Baton Rouge.
He’s writing it himself? No one writes their own speeches anymore. Jindal is going to be receiving a lot of talk about running in 2012, but unless Obama crashes and burns I don’t expect to see Jindal run until 2016. The problems in Louisiana are enough to torpedo any national candidacy. If Jindal is successful in reforming Louisiana and reducing corruption he’ll be the likely choice for president in the future.
Recent Comments