The Death of the Political Moderate?...

In the wake of John McCain’s lambasting this past November 4th, there have been, not astoundingly at all, calls from a disingenuous MSM that “The Republican Party should turn to its more Moderate-wing,” espousing social Liberals and fiscal Conservatives, like Christie Whitman.

But there is no such broad voter appeal for those views. In fact, John McCain was and ran as a Christie Whitman Republican, because HE IS and has ALWAYS BEEN a “Moderate-Republican!”

The political moderates lost badly in the elections of 2008. In fact, there are really very few, if ANY real political moderates. Most people who call themselves “moderates,” are people who don’t have any convictions at all.

How else can the triumph of Proposition 8 in California and similar measures in Missouri and Florida, as well as anti-race based preference Bills passing in two and depending upon the outcome in Colorado, maybe three more states, be explained, in the wake of John McCain’s election-day drubbing?

For Conservatives to take back government, they must (1) appeal to Conservatives with a bold Conservative message designed to both draw in more Conservative voters and alienate more moderate ones and (2) press for real tax reform (the Fair Tax or the Land Value Tax and true fiscal conservatism – trimming down the fed’s bloated bureaucracy.

Since 2006, the bulk of the Democrat’s gains have come from Conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats, which now comprise about a quarter of all Democrats in Congress!

These “Blue Dogs” are Conservatives best friends, even while they might be the GOP’s worst nightmare. Conservatives of both Parties have a very real stake in helping the Blue Dogs take back the Democratic Party.

After all, Liberalism hasn’t offered any “new ideas” in decades and the real ideological fault-line is now between Corporatist (pro-business, fiscally conservative) Republicans and small government, free market Libertarians.

Look at the ideas that Liberals, BOTH Democratic Leftists and so-called Republican “Moderates” support;

(1) A focus on rehabilitation over punishment for violent criminals. Bill Bratton cleaned up NYC by proving that punishing crime instead of excusing it was the answer.

(2) Banning violent self-defense by banning gun ownership for non-felons.

(3) Supporting increased and widespread use of Eminent Domain

(4) Supporting a more “Open Border” policy, one that would put a consistent DOWNWARD pressure on the wage floor.

(5) Supporting tax rates hikes even when they REDUCE tax revenues for “tax fairness.”

None of these are winning ideas.

So why should Conservatives seek to embrace them or THOSE who’ve embraced them?

As much as is the far-Left an anchor around the Democratic Party, the so-called “Moderate-wing” of the GOP serves only to increase that Party’s drag coefficient.

Economic Illiteracy Has Benefitted Keynesian Liberalism

A lack of understanding basic economics has sullied Supply Side policies and benefitted the failed Keynesian policies of Jimmy Carter, still en vogue with man Liberal Democrats today. For that reason, we are in danger of killing the golden goose (low tax, Supply Side policies) that have delivered fifteen straight years of single-digit Misery Indexes!

Today just supporting Free Trade (like Rahm Emanuel and the incoming Obama administration do), welfare reform (like Emanuel and the incoming Obama administration do) can earn you the scorn and derision of misinformed, so-called Liberals, like those at the Daily Kos and MoveOn. In fact, you can’t be a “true Liberal,” in those folk’s eyes, if you don't hate!

Now, I’ve never believed in the idea of "building an economy from the ground up," at least not in terms of seeking to artificially increase the spending power of those in the lower 50% of income earners, by increasing costs/taxes, etc. on those in the top 10% to 20% of income earners.

Lowering the Capital Gains rate, slashing the corporate tax rate and making it easier for small businesses to start up, without the anchor of government hung around their necks, would, in my view, be the best way to "build the economy from the ground up" - by rewarding those with the entrepreneurial drive, the ambition and the ability to start and successfully run small businesses.

One of the ironies is that the current massive economic problem (the current credit crisis) was caused by over-regulation - primarily the turbo-charged CRA. The irony that a severe economic crisis born of over-regulation and TOXIC regulation (the turbo-charged CRA) has been used to move us further down a path of MORE regulation and MORE failed Keynesian policies is as tragic as it is dangerous.

Like I said, I'll let the Misery Index tell the story going forward.

We've been on a Keynesian course since at least 2007 and the fact that the current Bush admin has willingly cooperated with Keynesian Dems like Pelosi and Reid doesn't change the fact that "Keynesianism is a Liberal disease."

The Misery Index for 2007 was 7.45 (there was little impact from the few Keynesian policies passed late that year and the enhanced revenues from the earlier tax cuts covered Bush's other expenses), but it's probably going to top 10% for 2008 (it’s at 9.98 through September of 2008 and it doesn’t seem to be getting better), and there's little reason to believe that Keynesian policies, going forward, won't lead to what they did the last time we employed them - a 16.5 average annual Misery Index over four years.

The people most betrayed by all this have been the Libertarians. Many Libertarians initially embraced the Supply Side/Greenspan-led GOP, with some severe reservations over the socially repressive Christian Right, in the wake of the Carter years delivering the REAL "worst economy since the Great Depression."

Sadly, the Moderate-wing of the GOP has consistently abandoned Supply Side policies. In fact, since Carter, the ONLY administrations to buck the Keynesian trend were both Bush-41 and Bush-43.

Bush Sr. (41) came into office attempting to throw his better, Ronald Reagan under the proverbial bus.

That was right before Bush-41 shit the bed and delivered "the SECOND WORST economy since the Great Depression" - four straight years of double digit Misery Indexes, though much lower than Carter's, at a comparatively measly 10.5 average annual Misery Index over four years.

.
Bush-41 delivered that economy, in part by cooperating with Keynesian dinosaurs like Ted Kennedy to undermine his own "Read my lips," pledge.

Clinton came in as a Centrist Supply Sider, re-appointing Alan Greenspan, upping the H-1B Visa limits TWICE, embracing Free Trade and cooperating (after some early conflict - the government shutdown of '95) with the Gingrich Congress on deep federal budget cuts, welfare reform, a Cap Gains rate cut, etc.

Bush-43 governed with a Supply Side tax policy during his first term (although, even with a GOP Congress, the AMT was never scuttled), with his across the board income tax rate cuts and another Cap gains rate cut, which INCREASED tax revenues in every year since!

Early on, the business scandals (Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Adelphia, Arthur Anderson, etc) forced some Keynesian ham-handed) regulation (Sarbannes-Oxley) and after that the Bush-41 administration spiraled off that early Supply Side track, by piling gobs of social spending (the NCLB and prescription drug boondoggles) on top of the necessary war-time spending (Afghanistan, Iraq and the tens of billions spent on Homeland Security).

Recently, some economists have dangerously argued that some degree of Keynesian over-spending can be maintained, so long as tax revenues are maximized by things like keeping tax rates low, along with keeping commerce at a maximum.

Ironically neither Bush-41, nor Bush-43 much appreciated that, or at least, in G W's case, he seemed to overestimate the power of the increased revenues from those tax cuts. It is highly unlikely that a return to 1970s era policies can deliver anything other than 1970s era results.

For those holding to the Keynesian viewpoint, the Misery Index for 2008, which could be the first to top 10.0 since 1992, SHOULD be cause for some foreboding.