A Few Reasons Why Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, and Family Values Isn't Selling Anymore

 

 

In a meeting between House GOP bigwigs and their K Street allies, the question was asked, "how can we message that we're the party of small business owners and we're not defending the rich?" There's no amount of messaging lipstick that will hide that particular pig at this point - as Kevin Drum points out at the link, even the fabled low-information voters know that the GOP is defending the rich from tax hikes.

But it made me think about the bumper-sticker message that the GOP has used effectively since the late 1970s, that they're the party of smaller government, lower taxes, and family values, and why it's not been quite as effective lately.

Smaller government: Ronald Reagan swept into office in 1980 claiming he'd cut large quantities of "waste, fraud, and abuse" from government budgets, and the Gingrich Revolution of 1994, in addition to attacking HillaryCare, ran against spending on things like midnight basketball games.

These attacks made sense to most people: whether or not there was nearly as much "waste, fraud, and abuse" in government as Reagan, his staff, or his supporters believed (there wasn't that much, but there was some), people believed it was there, and didn't want their tax dollars going for it.  And people didn't particularly want their tax dollars going for apparent frivolities such as the legendary midnight basketball games.  (Didn't matter that they may have made sense on closer inspection: most voters don't have time for that closer look.)

1) But now, the GOP's knives are clearly being sharpened for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  People don't just like these programs - they depend on them.  Despite the protestations of the GOP that they're really after those other moochers and takers, people are starting to get the idea that the knives are being sharpened for them this time, not some abstract 'other.'

2) Katrina and Sandy.  Most people want the government to do a fairly small number of things, but it wants those things to be done well.  The GOP is increasingly obvious in its failure to give a good goddamn whether government works - and it's starting to get on people's radar that they'd be just as happy if it didn't.

Lower Taxes: The Republicans used to be for low taxes for everybody.  And while tax cuts for people further down the income ladder may have been cover for giving much bigger tax cuts for those near the top, the folks further down did at least get tax cuts from Reagan and Shrubby.  Now that they've successfully done away with income taxes for nearly half the population, the GOP has publicly changed its tune with its "skin in the game" talk, and clearly wants higher taxes on the lower half of the income distribution even as they want to cut taxes on the rich.  I don't know how deeply this idea has sunk in yet, but unless the GOP changes its tune, it will sink in over time.

Family Values: this has always been mostly about abortion and gays.  But most people are OK with gays now, which ruins that pitch.  And while most Americans have mixed feelings about abortion, the GOP has shot itself in the foot by increasingly opposing contraception as well, which most people are strongly in favor of, and shot itself in the other foot by proposing to do away with rape and incest exceptions to abortion, which most people are also strongly in favor of.

And then there's the underlying reality that the GOP's been running against The Other for just about forever.  It may have worked as long as the GOP was 'just' running against blacks, hippies, government bureaucrats, and college professors, but it keeps on adding groups to the list, such as Hispanics and Muslims.  And while they may not have specifically attacked Asian-Americans, when the attacks on People Who Are Not Like Us get as broad as the GOP has made them, it's not surprising that people who have felt less than completely accepted by white America on account of their race, religion, or other characteristics are feeling that the GOP's hostility is aimed at them as well.

It's not just a demographic battle that the GOP is losing: its Big Ideas are all pretty much played out as well.  And between Bush in Iraq and Obama taking out Osama, it can't even claim to be the party of national security anymore.

Update: Take five, Dave Brubeck.  And thanks for everything.

Comments

[Crissa]

First off, they could support small businesses. The majority - something like 90+% - of small businesses are one person, barely making a median wage. In no way does the Republican no-health-care support these people. In no way do the tax cuts for the rich support these people. In no way do collapsing bridges and cutting off the Post Office (an actual Republican position!) help these businesses.

So I really don't know where they're going now. It just seems like their plans are predicated upon lies.

[Crissa]

...My captcha was a list of numbers sideways...

[oddjob]

OT: Jazz legend Dave Brubeck has died one day short of his 92nd birthday.

[kathy a.]

with crissa here. there are other small businesses with more people, but not a lot where everybody is making over $200,000. the small business person who is her own IT guy, does the post office runs, waits for too-mall checks, etc. while depending on the spouse's health coverage -- that is not the small business person they care about.

by the way, i am a HUGE fan of USPS, even if i have to stand in line to send packages and envelopes over 13 oz. i adore the flat-rate packages (which are also affordable and reliable for overseas). things get where they need to go, reliably and affordably. the only part of the operation i do not like much is our personal mailman, who misdelivers stuff on our block, and we don't trust him for outgoing mail. by coincidence, my junior dog's hobby is barking at him.

[kathy a.]

bernie sanders blasting boehner and the pack of wolves who are after SS, medicare, medicaid, and benefits for disabled vets, among other things.

more on dave brubeck. what a fabulous life.

[nancy]

So impressive. Now family values means ditching the poor, the old, the disabled, and vets, both disabled and not. Well just to start. These people simply think [do they really?] the con can continue without consequence? Huh? There was an election but they're going to proceed apace, as though none of that mistakenness happened. Magical thinking for all.

These people are certifiable. They think they've something to build on here?

And Kay Bailey Hutchinson, retiring, gets special malakatude for her treaty vote. She's leaving for heaven's sake. Classy touch on the way out.

[kathy a.]

their idea of "family values" has always kinda left a lot of people out. maybe they've just gotten more florid lately? i don't recall major votes to throw disabled persons under the bus, before now.

[Crissa]

Dave Brubeck is one of the few white guys featured in the history of Jazz they had on PBS. Very good show, but it suffered - almost blindly - the same problem that lead to Jazz basically dying: Focusing too much upon the name and horns, not the style and those who picked up the mantle world-wide.

Today, the largest jazz market is... Japan. It has been for about twenty years. And jazz, as defined by aMericans, hasn't added an instrument in sixty, seventy years. Every time you name something, you create potential divisions. Sometimes that means cleaving the disparate parts into such fine categories that they'll never be recognized as related to their forebears.

[Eric Wilde]

Ah, jazz clubs in Tokyo are awesome. Thanks for bringing up the memories, Crissa.

[kathy a.]

i remember going to a club called the blue note when we lived in yokosuka, 1988-9. and when we visited japan again a few years ago, we spent the last night at this lovely little inn on lake tazawako -- cafe+inn that sounds good! (the exclamation point is part of the name. the lake is like a small version of lake tahoe.)

this was totally a jazz inn -- recorded jazz playing in the common areas during the day; photos of greats; a hot tub in the shape of a piano; and a jam session with one of the owners and his friends. it was fabulous.

[Eric Wilde]

My wife's parents live (just outside Tokyo proper) about a block from a little joint that has pickup jazz 5 nights a week. Its about the size of one of those little basement bars in Shinjuku, maybe 10 customers can fit inside when the live music is playing. $30 cover for the whole night of music and an open full bar.

Gadzukes but I love Tokyo!

[oddjob]

Nice column by Michael Tomasky on why Rubio & Ryan's recent speeches only illustrate how ill-prepared the GOP is to face reality.

[Crissa]

It seems Bobby Jindal has come up to try to answer this post!
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/bold-new-republican-party-wants-dothe-same-thing-theyve-wanted-do-goldwater

He's listed exactly the things we did in California that led to our budget woes. Why is it that Republicans are doomed to repeat their mistakes, never taking responsibility for them?

[oddjob]

On why Jim DeMint's departure from the Senate for the Heritage Foundation solves nothing and could make DC politics even worse.

And then there's this:

"Mitch McConnell, in an effort to bluff Democrats, today demanded a straight up or down vote on a measure that would give the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling. According to Huffington Post’s Michael McCauliff, the GOP calculation was that some Dems would vote against it, proving Dem disunity on the debt ceiling.

But then the maneuver backfired, forcing McConnell to filibuster the proposal he’d previously wanted subjected to a straight vote: ...."

:)

[oddjob]

Why is it that Republicans are doomed to repeat their mistakes, never taking responsibility for them?

Because it's a fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism and reality don't mix.

[kathy a.]

HA! i LOVE that piece about mcconnell filibustering his own proposal about the debt ceiling! who could make that up? great theater!

s'long, jim demint -- don't let the door hit ya, and so forth. what is important to me is that he no longer has a vote in the big place.

[kathy a.]

more on miss mitch and ze latest antics. video is worth watching.

[oddjob]

OT: Genetic analysis confirms that the Roma (sometimes known as "gypsies") originated in northwestern India.

[kathy a.]

showing their stripes again, the house GOP is dithering over re-authorization of the violence against women act.

[kathy a.]

smaller government, family values. the "smaller government" of taking prosecution of violence on women away from reservation authorities, arguing the feds should handle it if someone outside the tribe is the perp. the "family values" of "women should make better decisions." also, a large fainting couch is needed because of teh gayz. am i leaving out anyone who ought to be protected?

[Sir Charles]

Hey guys!

Finally coming up for air here. It's been a meeting and schmooze fest -- not the worst duty since it's Key West -- so I have been totally unavailable.

It seems to me that when your party cannot get behind decent treatment for the disabled and full-throated opposition to domestic violence, then you might conclude you've gone astray somewhere.

Or you might be idiotic enough to think you just have a messaging problem.

[kathy a.]

comments again unexpectedly closed for the latest post.

but this is BIG NEWS: scotus is reviewing both prop. 8 and DOMA. see a little less at wapo.

[kathy a.]

and here is the local article, primarily on prop 8, but i think a good explanation of the postures in which these cases reach scotus.

[nancy]

Key West in December. Well I guess someone has to sacrifice Sir C. Might as well be you.

Meanwhile -- coming soon to a compound near me. A wingnutty gated and planned community, Citadel III . Timeshare investment now for the Survivalist set.

I note that none of these folks seem to be aware that the property is most likely to be situated on tribal land...which means tribal police. Should be interesting. My own private Idaho, updated.

[kathy a.]

gah, nancy -- i read about that earlier. somehow, i do not get the impression that this thing will work out, one way or another. the "self-sustaining" part of the deal seems rather unrealistic.

one of the creepy details (for me) was not just the walls and the focus on gunpower, but having only one way in and out. just a recipe for disaster -- for example, if there is a fire or somebody's truck is blocking the entrance. or, ya know, if someone goes postal within the compound.

on the irony front -- this, from people who worry about Big Brother?

[nancy]

kathy -- The scam is Make your Reservation now via paypal with convenient monthly payments! And BUY our guns, lots of them please, thus assuring the forward progress of the Dream.

Or as one guy put it, all the elements of his 11 year-old self's Dungeons and Dragons World are on full display with especial attractions for the off-the-grid folks, who will supply all of the conveniences of modern suburban life. To themselves. And their Fellow Patriots.

Ah the American West. Independence days just ahead. Water, fire, weather extremes -- no problem with a Cabela's on site. :)

[kathy a.]

yeah, it seems to be as well organized as an 11 year old's imaginary fortress society. i keep thinking of lord of the flies, not the swiss family treehouse.

isn't anybody interested about scotus taking up prop. 8 and DOMA?

[oddjob]

I've been coversing about that over at TPM.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

Re: Key West - In the immortal words of Big Bill Haywood, nothing's too good for the working class.

Is anyone else deeply nervous about the Supreme Court taking this case? I feel like they could be total momentum killers.

[kathy a.]

they pretty much had to take doma, i think -- it is untenable having conflicting rulings on something potentially affecting so many.

prop 8 -- they could have just let that 9th circuit ruling stand, and weddings would have resumed next week. but on the up side, the forces of good and light have excellent lawyers, and a very strong trial record.

i think it is encouraging that both cases are in a pretty strong posture, with the US and CA respectively refusing to defend the laws on grounds of unconstitutionality. but i'm interested in reading more about people's thoughts.

[kathy a.]

here is a good summary of issues from scotusblog. the issues are somewhat complicated, since scotus also asked the parties to address standing -- which might mean they never get to the underlying substantive issues.

in the prop 8 case, i was hoping that the court would determine that these prop 8 supporters did not have standing, which would have left judge walker's execellent opinion intact. what happened instead was, they certified a question to the california supreme court, about standing under state law. the cal supremes ruled that yes, the supporters have standing to proceed when the state refuses to defend.

another piece on scotusblog discusses the range of possible outcomes from this pair of cert grants. i'm going to have to read this a few more times, but it gives a taste of the complexity of these issues.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On the SCOTUS cases, I am not that worried -- if the case is heard and decided by a 9-justice Court, either the current line-up or one after a replacement that became necessary was confirmed. What scares me is if the argument and a confirmation debate occurred at roughly the same time, and the potential for the question turning into a 'litmus test'/political football debate.

As far as the current Court goes -- and given my dubious record for prediction, this one I ain't betting on -- I think that Roberts showed last year he's going to keep the Court from too major a 'self-inflicted wound.' If Kennedy votes against SSM and for DOM, I think Roberts will be bending more arms than the average WWF actor does in his career to make sure the cases just get tossed on standing issues.

Both have that opportunity -- I assume that most of you have checked out the SCOTUSBlog comentary and read Lyle Denniston's article, at least. In both cases, lawyers have been ordered to prepare arguments on whether the case is in fact legitimately before the Court. The 'standing question' has been before the Court on Prop H8 right along, but apparently, to quote Denniston:

In the DOMA case, the Court told lawyers to argue whether either the Obama Administration (that is, the Executive Branch) or the House of Representatives’ Republican leaders were legally before the Court. For the Executive Branch, the Court said, it wanted to consider arguments that the fact that the Administration got what it wanted on DOMA’s Section 3 — it wanted the statute struck down — meant that the Supreme Court simply has no authority “to decide this case.” The Administration last year stopped defending the constitutionality of that provision, and argued that the restriction was unconstitutional. The House’s GOP leaders then took up the defense of DOMA in court. In the Court’s new order, it asked whether the GOP lawmakers have “Article III standing.”

The merits argument in the DOMA case — and that, too, was something the Court agreed to consider — is whether Section 3 of that statute violates the right to legal equality for same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws where they live. If the Court were to rule that the Court lacks jurisdiction, after finding that the Administration is not a proper one to appeal a ruling that it had won, that presumably would end that case. If it were to rule that the House GOP could not be in the case, there would be no defender of DOMA.

There are already several articles on SCOTUSBlog worth reading. Kenji Yoshino shows that there are a lot of ways of 'splitting the difference' on Prop H8, that it isn't a 'fifty state or none' area. Apparently, technically, the Court could argue that the case was rightly decided, but the decision only applies to Alameda and Los Angeles counties. (This would be corrected either by Jerry Brown, or through a further suit, apparently.)

Another essay there is particularly worth reading if you like to hear the best arguments the opposition can bring. That's William Duncan's 'chance to right some wrongs.' Most opposition arguments descend into 'bibbblebabble Jesus snowjob Think of the Children scareshockhorrify incest and interspecies babble snarl 1789 Amen.'

Duncan at least makes good legal arguments, not convincing, but worth considering and answering -- except for his one appeal to 'How should a state of the national government balance claims of those who cannot, in good conscience, accept and act upon the idea that there are no differences between the union of a husband and wife and the union of any two adults?'

But his argment that these decisions are 'subtsantive due process' of the type we have seen too often is at least worth discussing, and I think he scores good points on what is the weakest of our positions, the 'lack of political power demands protection.'

I always thought that gave our opponents a stronger weapon than it gave us. It implied that as soon as Group X showed it could win elections, there could be a challenge as to whether they still needed protection -- and we've started winning the battles in the ballot boxes. (Duncan mentions the victories in the specific ballot initiatives, but Tammy Baldwin means there are more openly gay Senators than there are black ones -- ignoring the three 'glass closet doors.' And with gay mayors -- and we'll probably have our own next election -- and gay legislators everywhere, This no more means we are 'out of the protected class' than did the election of Barack Obama mean that we no longer needed (racial) Civil Rights Laws.)

Duncan is not persuasive, of course, but I'm still going to quote two paragraphs, because I'd like to see good answers to them -- and am not willing to try and propose my own.

Congress has power to define terms used in federal law. The people of California (and of every state) have the power to clarify the meaning of the laws and constitutions of which they are the ultimate authors. The answer to the issue the Court faces in these cases is really that simple. That the exercise of their authority has resulted in a decision unpalatable to some is not a reason to manufacture new legal doctrines to get a different result.
...
[and on the question of standing]

It is also not clear that the original district courts in these cases would have had jurisdiction if there were no actual controversy between the parties – which would seem to be the case if BLAG and the proponents could not participate in the cases.

Even more fundamentally, to allow the lower court decisions in these cases to stand because the public officials charged with defending the law refused to do so would reward feckless and irresponsible behavior. It would give executive branch officials the ability to decide constitutional cases through inaction—a terrible precedent.

[This was written in response to Sir Charles's comment@11:29 PM, don't know if anything has gone up this morning -- and after refreshing, looks like kathy and I read the same pieces.]

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On my last point, btw, this has always been something that bothers me, both with this and the marijuana legalization votes. Obviously I like the results, but do we, as in DOMA, want to give a President -- any President including ones without (D) after their names --the right to unilaterally decide not to enforce a given rule because he views it unconstitutional? (I'm more sympathetic to the idea of a President not declaring something as not to be defended, but simply refusing to have any money budgeted for the agencies to enforce such rules -- but then I remember the trouble that caused when Nixon did the same thing on other laws.)

Similarly with marijuana. Can states vote to 'nullify' a law within their borders, even one as bad as this one -- and one I have broken countless times over 48 years? It's a scary question -- and even the 'order state and local police not to cooperate with the feds' option is dubious, since I wonder what would have happened if a segregationist governor had ordered teachers -- also state employees -- not to cooperate with the Feds then.

I assume there are good answers to these problems, but I'd like to hear them since, of course, my sympathy with the results is obvious.

[kathy a.]

prup -- i would point out that it is actually quite rare for executive branches to decline to defend a law on grounds of unconstitutionality -- which is what happened with both prop. 8 and DOMA.

although the final decisionmakers on constitutional questions are the courts, all officials take oaths to uphold the constitution; so, the state of CA and the justice department were exercising their responsibilities in declining to defend these laws once they concluded they were unconstitutional. i don't see that this obligation really works in the opposite direction -- trying to infringe the rights of individuals -- because provisions like due process and equal protection are designed to protect individuals against the awesome power of the state.

the set of circumstances around marijuana laws is different; and i'll agree it is a sticky problem, because federal law is supreme. we really need a reworking of the federal drug laws -- particularly where marijuana is concerned.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The marijuana problem is stickier because we are signatories to various treaties -- which I'd guess we pushed at the beginning. We and Western Europe and all North America would probably be glad to rewrite them, but the New Social Conservatives of Africa -- and I'd guess the old Soviet Union -- seem to be the ones blocking it.

[kathy a.]

well, you are talking about international treaties; i'm talking about state law vs. federal law on marijuana.

i'll agree that these treaties probably had roots in the US "war on drugs." there is all kinds of sticky wicket surrounding that set of policies -- domestically and internationally.

so, let's just go back to states vs. feds, and look at marijuana only. i personally think that there is a legitimate role in restricting dangerous drugs, and also that we have done pretty badly in a lot of areas around drugs. but all that need not be dealt with at once.

marijuana is fairly broadly understood to not be dangerous in the ways that other drugs are. why not treat it more like alcohol and tobacco, which it more closely resembles than heroin or meth? why not regulate and tax it, and allow states to have their own further restrictions if the states choose?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

kathy: I'm sorry, but, as I learned in arguing this with Maek Kleiman, it is these treaties that prevents Congress from 'rescheduling' marijuana. Now if only the treaty was up for some sort of reauthorization...

[kathy a.]

that just makes no sense to me, prup. not my area of law (drugs or international), but this seems really ass-backward.

i was wondering about sources, and saw that he collaborated on a recent book about marijuana legalization; but certainly "international treaties" does not appear to be the end of the discussion.

[low-tech cyclist]

Prup - remember when GWB unilaterally withdrew us from the ABM treaty?

I still don't get how a President can do that without the consent of Congress, since it took a Congressional vote to ratify the treaty in the first place, but apparently that's the way it works, otherwise the Dems would have surely raised that objection back in 2001. So if Obama was so inclined, the international drug treaties we're signatories to would not present an obstacle.

[kathy a.]

labor organizing in michigan, prompted by the hideous efforts to push through a "right to work" law.