Jon Henke's blog

What to make of the rapid-fire revelations that Sarah Palin is...

• ...not running for re-election
• ...resigning her office
• ...getting "out of politics for good"

There's no doubt that Gov. Palin and her family have been through a very difficult year, and I sympathize with a desire to get out of the public spotlight. I hope that is what's happening here, because it's just not plausible that quitting the only significant political accomplishment on her resume would help Sarah Palin in a Presidential run.  It's awfully hard to go from "Alaska is better off if I am not Governor" to "Who wants to elect me President?"

On the other hand, Lefties can spare me their wailing and gnashing of teeth over just how irresponsible it is to quit in the middle of your first term.  Take it up with the President first.

It's hard to know what more to make of this until we get a much better explanation, but the view from here is that you won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore.  Her Presidential prospects are done, and it's hard to see how Republicans will still consider her a potential leader of the movement.

But perhaps that's best.  Republicans need to stop looking for a Leader and start thinking about where they want to go.

Paul Krugman, 2005, saying universal health care would make us more like GM...

Why should we be a country in which hard working people aren't guaranteed health care if they need it? ... But the problem is that ... our economy is starting to look more like Wal-Mart and less like General Motors in the good days. The share of workers who get benefits at all is declining and the quality of the benefits.

Wal-Mart is very profitable. GM filed for bankruptcy.

The annual Personal Democracy Forum was Monday and Tuesday in New York, and it was very good.  As always. You can read more about it at TechPresident.

Naturally, there was a great deal of conversation about the imbalance between the Left and Right online.  The general consensus is that Republicans are behind on the internet, though there is a great deal of debate over how and why.  The least convincing answer was offered by a PDF audience member, and it basically boiled down to "Republicans suck. Democrats are cool.  So we're better at the internet."

Yeah, well, those who forget history...

Democrats race to catch up to GOP online

The Democratic National Committee relaunched its Web site Friday and appointed its first technology adviser in an effort to match the Republican party's success in using the Internet to build its constituency. [...] "We realized that the Republicans were ironically peddling their Stone Age ideas with modern-day technology tools, and we were just not at their level in our dedication to technology," Buck said.Insiders say it's widely acknowledged that the Republican committee has done a better job than the Democrats' committee in creating an online strategy.  The Republican committee "is far and away ahead in securing a large constituent of online activists and does a better job of using the medium to move their message," said Pam Fielding of E-advocates, an Internet advocacy consulting firm based in Washington, D.C.

That was 2002.

What changed?  Again, that's the subject of a great deal of debate, but I would argue that it was two things:

1. Republicans got comfortable.
2. Democrats got entrepreneurial.

In 2016, there's no doubt that the online landscape will be very different.  The Right will be much more effective.  The only question is how they will do it.  The balance of power on the Right will depend, in large part, on who the new entrepreneurs are and how they build the infrastructure.

I tend to agree with Patrick Ruffini that Gov. Sanford should not be obligated to resign for having an affair (as distinct from his disapperance and deception of his staff).  While I think that resignation is a perfectly legitimate, even appropriate, path to take after disgracing oneself, a personal disgrace should not necessarily require resignation from one's job, whether in politics or the private sector.

Indeed, as I pointed out in the comments there, I've been trying to think of a prominent politician who resigned from their elected political office because of an affair (note: McGreevey and Spitzer resigned because of the major ethics/legal violations involved, not the affair), and the only one I can come up with is Rep. Livingston, who resigned his Congressional seat in 1999 after admitting an affair.  I'm sure there are others - probably more at the State/local level - but I can't think of them offhand.

On the other hand, I have to disagree with part of what Max Borders wrote here.

The Right is now reaping what it sowed. By making social conservatism central to its platform, it left no room in the GOP for sinners.

I don't think the backlash against Gov. Sanford has a lot to do with social conservatism.  Social conservatives do not have a unique position on adultery.  Pretty much everybody considers it immoral.  And the social conservative position on gay marriage (which Sanford shared) is not predicated on heterosexual people being uniquely faithful, either.  The appropriate criticism is not so much hypocrisy as it is failure.

Ultimately, there are no political or ideological lessons to be drawn from Mark Sanford's affair.  There are only human lessons.

I also think Max is wrong on a practical and logical level to conclude from this story that "it is time to purge the Right’s politics of social conservatism".  As a libertarian, I certainly favor the harm principle over the offense principle - that is, I think politics should focus on addressing force and fraud instead of things which are merely unpleasant.

I believe that libertarianism is a very internally consistent way of marrying the personal and political spheres, but I actually don't think it works. Or rather, it's wonderful in theory, but human nature has not adopted that theory for any large, sustained social group in history.

For my part, I've come to believe that libertarianism is a personal moral philosophy, not a political philosophy. It describes how we ought to behave individually, but it does not give us practical advice for how we can resolve social disputes in a political system.

The political system requires accomodation.  Libertarians can either disengage or they can find a way to work within a coalition.  Unprincipled?  Maybe.  But so is everybody.  That's human nature.

But there is one final, very important point: Social conservatism is basically a personal moral philosophy (or tendency), as well.  As Hayek said of conservatism, "It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments."

Social conservatives also need to accomodate libertarians.  That does not mean they must minimize their objections to immorality, but it does mean they are going to have to accept fewer litmus tests and, if trends hold, a somewhat less decisive role within the Right's coalition.

Social conservatives and libertarians do have some common interests.  The Right's coalition has worked best when they have focused on those common interests and left the rest to the social and personal spheres.

Paul Krugman is not concerned about how much universal health care will cost taxpayers.

I’m not that worried about the issue of costs. Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts.

Krugman waves away the matter of cost with "One way or another, the numbers will be brought into line".  However, in a 2005 interview with the Asian Times, Paul Krugman explained what he thinks we need to do...

"We should be getting 28% of GDP [gross domestic product] in revenue. We are only collecting 17%."

2008 tax revenue was 17.7% of GDP.  So, in Paul Krugman's ideal world, we would see a 60%+ increase in taxes.  But Krugman is "not that worried about the issue of costs."

This is what happens under a monopoly.  Consumer concerns about cost and value are called irresponsible, and the only "responsible" option - ever - is to gouge consumers for even more money.

If Democrats want to pass the health care legislation, then let's pass the tax hike necessary to pay for it simultaneously.  Let's bring those numbers into line and see how Americans feel about universal health care then.

Ezra Klein says the health care public plan is very popular in polling, so Senate opposition to it means "the Senate hates democracy" and "is resolutely, aggressively, anti-democratic."

Paul Krugman says poll results show that a majority of Americans prefer deficit reduction to higher government spending, but Krugman says "most people don’t know much about macroeconomics" so "the moral for Obama is, of course, to ignore this poll".

Discuss.

NOTE: Aside from the fact that people tend to accept or dismiss polls results based almost entirely on what they already wanted, I think there are two problems with the idea that popular support equals legitimacy, propriety or even democracy.

1. Stated preference (poll) and revealed preference (how people actually behave when making a choice) differ widely.
2. With no real price mechanism through which people can evaluate the costs and benefits of policy, we end up with simultaneous public support for massive spending and minimal taxation.  Well, who doesn't want something for nothing?

#1 is a political problem that can't really be changed - thus, we have a representative democracy, rather than direct democracy.

#2 is a policy problem that both Republicans and Democrats should be doing more to fix - e.g., indexing tax rates to spending, pigovian taxes, federalism, etc.

Here is a great example of a story that Republicans should be using to regain their credibility, instead of simply bashing Democrats.  The Republican Whip blog (of Eric Cantor) says Democrats are shutting the House GOP out of the process.

In a completely unprecedented fashion, House Democrats have used their power as the majority party to shut out floor amendments from the minority party on spending legislation. Right at the beginning of the debate, House Democrats decided to go to the Rules Committee, to report out a Structured Rule and shut the House GOP out of the process.

So, Republicans (who spent years in the majority strong-arming legislation, bending the rules and shutting out Democrats) are now upset that Democrats are abusing their power.  My sympathy is a bit limited.  However, Democrats spent those same years complaining about the Republican abuses of power, so "Republicans did stuff too!" isn't really an excuse.

This does offer a good excuse to review some Nancy Pelosi quotes from years past, though.

1. “Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor…guaranteeing that the voices of all the people are heard.” - Nancy Pelosi, 2008
2. "House Republicans might have their doubts, but Minority Leader Pelosi says a Democratic majority next year would place a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship — and would offer the Republicans minority rights often denied Democrats now." - National Journal on Nancy Pelosi, 2006
3. "It's not about a defeat, it's about a decision. I certainly would not say that we can't bring things to the floor because we'll lose ... [Republicans] are afraid of ideas. That's why we can't have amendments, substitutes, and all the rest for the most part." - National Journal on Nancy Pelosi, 2006
4. "I'm a big believer in bipartisanship on so many issues. You can't address the entitlement issue, the healthcare issue, and do it in a partisan way. They are too big, they involve too many people, and they involve too much money, private and public money. You've got to do it in a way that has legitimacy." - Nancy Pelosi, 2006

Frankly, the solution is a much more granular, well-defined and transparent process that doesn't allow politicians to do the horse-trading and ad hoc deal-making that corrupts legislation so much.

At this point, both Congressional Republicans and Democrats are pretty unpopular, and the public trend is towards higher "independent" identification.  Forget bashing Democrats; Republicans need to sell the public on Republicans.   "Democrats suck" is not really a selling point for Republicans.

This issue is, again, a place where Republicans could build credibility and set themselves apart from Democrats by working with bipartisan outside groups to develop an objective, fair, accountable and rational process for legislation, abiding by it (to the extent possible) now, and making a public, written and enforceable commitment to adopt it once they regain the majority.

If Republicans are serious about both reforming the party and ensuring good governance, they could do that and do it now.  Campaign rhetoric about "fixing the problems" if they regain the majority are likely to be as empty as those from the Democrats were.

The legislative bribery happening over the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill (mentioned a few days ago) is ramping up. Democrats are pairing politically unpopular items together with the more essential items and outright earmark bribery in order to get the whole thing passed.  And now, the White House is "turning to vulnerable Republicans and telling them he can get the DCCC to "go easy" on them next year if they vote for the Supplemental tomorrow. And Eric Cantor's office is really pissed."

Sources tell me Republicans will make this vote a campaign issue for Democrats in 2010 (details below).

This puts some of the Democrats in a very difficult position (See Red State for more on that), and some of them are gradually deciding to vote no on the legislation. There is bipartisan resistance to this bill, and Jane Hamsher is doing a good job whipping the vote over at Firedoglake.  She has the current whip summary here. 

Most importantly, Hamsher notes that "Blue Dogs are scared about what might happen in conservative districts if they cast that vote for a $100 billion European bank bailout."

I can confirm that.  Earlier today, I asked a senior Republican campaign operative in Washington, DC about this bill,  I was told that, yes, "Republicans will be watching how these Members vote on the War Supplemental", and it "will be a campaign issue" for many Democrats. 

I was given a list of names they're watching closely, as well.  Suffice it to say that Congressional Democrats are going to have to sever the elements of this supplemental and vote on them individually, or else they will be handing their opponents some very potent ammunition for 2010.

A vote is not far off.   Phone calls help.  Red State has a list of legislators you can call.

For Republicans, the words "Ronald Reagan" have become code for "policies and election results I like" (whether or not Reagan-era policies and election results match those of the speaker).  Republicans remember Reagan so fondly because his ideals were powerful, poignant, and his rhetoric was red meat for limited government/national defense Republicans.  Indeed, I suspect we often remember him more for his soaring rhetoric than for the specific details of his governance.

John Harwood's New York Times story, Republicans Rethinking the Reagan Mystique, contains some interesting points.

That’s not to say Republicans disavow Mr. Reagan’s achievements, which include cutting tax rates, presiding over the successful conclusion of the cold war and, as Mr. Obama noted, boosting morale after a period of national self-doubt. [...]

What’s needed instead, said Reihan Salam, co-author of “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream,” is “something new — the anti-Obama, anti-Reagan.” [...] Mr. Salam said he favored a new prototype of Republican leadership that projected humility rather than grandeur, understated competence rather than soaring rhetoric and vision. [...]  

There is also the arrival of a new slate of pressing issues. It has been 20 years since Mr. Reagan’s plea to “tear down that wall” was answered by the fall of Communism. The 70 percent top income tax rate Mr. Reagan called confiscatory now stands at half that level. And the cultural appeals he made to blue-collar voters and evangelicals have lost their immediacy, displaced by economic concerns. Many remember that Mr. Reagan identified government as “the problem.” But today an increasing number of voters look to the government for security and stability.

The problem with the Republican fixation on Ronald Reagan - and Republicans say "Reagan" like Smurfs say smurf - isn't with the ideals of limited government that Reagan espoused in 1980.  The problem is that Republicans never evolved past the 1980's.  The conservative movement that arose in the 60's and 70's reached maturity in the 1980's.  That period became the conservative movement's frame of reference; the experiences, lessons and skills learned up to that point became the Republican Party's hammer, and when all you have is a hammer...

The result is two problems...

• Republicans are still trying to fight the same fights, even though the situation has changed.  It's one thing to mobilize people around tax cuts when you're cutting the top rates from 70% to 28%.  It's a lot harder to persuade people to vote on the difference between 39.6% and 35%.  Republicans are still trying to run against the vulgar great society liberalism of 1979, but (for a variety of reasons) that's just not as relevant to voters.

 

• Republicans are still offering the same solutions.  But over the last few decades, the viable Republican solutions have generally been passed.  Republicans are left advocating "limited government", but they either (a) have no idea how to actually accomplish it (thus, all the kvetching about "spending cuts", yet Republicans can only manage to find a few billion dollars per year), or (b) they're too beholden to interest groups (business money, elderly voters, etc) to stake out a position that would accomplish their goals (lest it endanger campaign funding, a seat in Florida or the mid-terms).

Republicans don't have to abandon Reagan.  Republicans just have to evolve beyond the 1980's.  Unfortunately, the culture, infrastructure and people that reached maturity in the 1980's may now be a barrier to evolution - not because their intentions are malign, but because they are adapted to a strategic and tactical era that has passed.

Paul Krugman makes a very good point about the dominant conservative media being full of "conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric".   That's true (e.g.), and it's a genuine problem for the Right.  I'm not sure the Right has come to terms with just how destructive an echo chamber is - and has been - to perceptions of reality and propriety (and yes, the Left has dived into their own rhetorical sewer, but tu quoque is no excuse). 

However...

The ongoing efforts to conflate the Tiller and Holocaust Museum murderers with the Right, conservatives or Republicans - or to imply that criticism of government is responsible for these murders - is absurd and offensive.  Would the critics change their political views if it turned out that one of the killers was a left wing militant?   No.

What's more, it's not something any of the critics actually believe.  Recall their outrage when Andrew Sullivan suggested that a fringe on the Left would fight against the US.  Of the idea that this fringe on the Left would "ramp up its hatred in the days and months ahead", Duncan Black said, "Sullivan was one of the earliest adopters of the idea that the most appropriate response to September 11 was to figure how to to use it to pit American against American."

We've come full circle.  The Left is growing comfortable with the role of dominant bully.

And contra some on the Left, objections to the DHS Report (both the Left and Right wing reports) were legitimate.  The objection is not that they DHS studied the potential sources of violence, but that they made political generalizations ("the DHS description of these groups seems excessively broad with the potential for mischief").  It was political profiling.

Let's conclude with two central ironies:

• The Left strenuously objects to connecting President Obama to socialists and William Ayers; meanwhile, they want to lump all conservatives in with militant radicals.

 

• Meanwhile, as Doug Mataconis points out, "Conservatives who object to being tied to Von Brunn were eagerly associating Obama with Ayers and Wright."

 UPDATE: Jesse Walker makes excellent points, as well. (via Instapundit)