Theory Nerds!

[Dr. Drum]

Actually, when I said it all adds up the same what I meant was that whether we label conservatives pushing for tax cut after tax cut disdainful of government or not is ultimately less important than the outcome of their policies, i.e. federal, state and local governments unable to afford basic services – healthcare, education, etc. – and/or running huge deficits and a political landscape where its difficult or impossible to garner enough support for the appropriate levels of taxation to maintain these services. I thought the Amendment One plebiscite in Alabama was an interesting example of where this all leads eventually.

On the fragmenting of the conservative base, I think the nature of any of political coalition – left, right or centre – is that it does come unglued over time. The signs are there for the Republicans. The Miers fallout was one example, James Dobson and the social conservatives extorting a pledge out of Bush to go after a constitutional amendment on gay marriage was another. I really don't think Bush cares much about the issue one way or the other, indeed a friend of his was quoted saying as much in the press a couple of days after he made his speech on the issue. However, to hold on to Dobson he had to give him what he wanted – now.

On the Democrats – hey, you'll get no argument from me.

[phil]

... because the Democrats stand for nothing except "I wish I was a Republican" and the Republicans stand for raw, unbridled evil and greed and ignorance smothered in ballons and ribbons.

(Frank Zappa - on why he wanted to run as a non-partisan presidential candidate)

[chrisfan]

docdrum said:

Actually, when I said it all adds up the same what I meant was that whether we label conservatives pushing for tax cut after tax cut disdainful of government or not is ultimately less important than the outcome of their policies, i.e. federal, state and local governments unable to afford basic services – healthcare, education, etc. – and/or running huge deficits and a political landscape where its difficult or impossible to garner enough support for the appropriate levels of taxation to maintain these services. I thought the Amendment One plebiscite in Alabama was an interesting example of where this all leads eventually.

But those "consequences" are desired. Conservatives don't see it as government's place to provide healthcare and other social services ... so why collect the taxes to pay for them? You can't judge conservatism through each single principle, just as you can't judge liberalism through each single principle. It'd make no sense to judge socialism by saying "the taxes are too high! They don't leave me enough money for my healthcare, child care, and private education" when the intent of the higher taxes is to provide healthcare, child care,and education among other things. You're absolutely right - conservative tax policy does not deliver socialistic government services. But given that's not the goal, what difference does it make?

docdrum said:

On the fragmenting of the conservative base, I think the nature of any of political coalition – left, right or centre – is that it does come unglued over time. The signs are there for the Republicans. The Miers fallout was one example, James Dobson and the social conservatives extorting a pledge out of Bush to go after a constitutional amendment on gay marriage was another. I really don't think Bush cares much about the issue one way or the other, indeed a friend of his was quoted saying as much in the press a couple of days after he made his speech on the issue. However, to hold on to Dobson he had to give him what he wanted – now.

On the Democrats – hey, you'll get no argument from me.

If an article such as the one that started this is meant to sound an alarm alerting us of the death of conservatism and/or the GOP, then applying the same standards equally, I have to ask, where are we heading? Based on the criteria for judging used here, if failure of ideology were analogous to cancer, conservatism is currently a level 1 case. Liberalism in the US, based on the ame standards, is level 3. So where are we heading?

[rockysigman]

I think the point, though, Chrisfan, is that the way in which conservatives persue their ideals shows a disdain for government, or in the least has the result of destroying government.

It's one thing to believe that those services should not be provided by government, but then isn't the proper recourse once in power to officially end those programs? Instead, they underfund them, making them ineffective, but meanwhile still leaving those things on the books as the official responsibility of the government. The result is that those services don't get provided by anyone, public or private.

If conservatives believe that the government should not have been responsible for aid during crises such as Hurricane Katrina, then the proper thing to do would be to remove emergency aid from one of the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security, and allow for enough time before that change takes affect for state and local governments to prepare. Instead, they kept that on the books as an official duty of the federal government, but stacked the office with a bunch of people who were either incompetent or resentful of their own jobs.

The conservative ideal is supposedly small government, not incompetent government, and yet that seems to be the end being persued.

[chrisfan]

There is a difference between governing in a vaccum and governing in reality, and some of the things you point out Rocky, are a reflection of reality. In addition, I think you are taking the "small government" idea to a further extreme than most reasonable conservatives do when using Katrina as your example. I for one don't believe that FEMA type aid should be eliminated. But I do believe that when it comes to a need for aid, the question must be asked as to whether it can be better done by the government or by other sources - rather than always looking to the government.

This is not a black or white issue. There are many options between "no government aid" and "exclusively socialist".

But since you brought it up Rocky, and appear to be putting the blame in funding, what expenditure would have alleviated the problems of Katrina?

[rockysigman]

I sort of mixed up two issues there (funding and incompetence). In the case of Katrina, it was incompetence more than a lack of proper spending that bungled things.

[Dr. Drum]

chrisfan said:

You're absolutely right - conservative tax policy does not deliver socialistic government services. But given that's not the goal, what difference does it make?

I'm not talking "socialistic" government services (I presume that means anything that smacks remotely of "welfare state"), I'm talking the whole gamut, including the level of government service required to maintain basic public well-being, law & order, etc. If I'm reading your last couple of posts right, it seems we can agree those are necessary government functions. So where it matters is, for example, when you have a state like Alabama housing a prison population of 28,000 in institutions designed for 12,000, because the tax system is so skewed that the state government is in a perpetual fiscal crisis and can't afford to build additional facilities.

Or, another one from Alabama – when a company like Toyota chooses last year to put a new plant in Ontario instead of there and then cites, as one of its reasons, state educational levels which are so low that the company sometimes has to use "pictorials" to train new employees. (I suspect that the fact that they don't have to pay medical premiums for their workers in Ontario didn't hurt the province's competitive position either.) We're not complaining up here but I think examples like those show the limits of the small government ideal.

[chrisfan]

In many ways, it comes down to a definition of what basic government services are required to maintain basic public well being. In your post above which my response came from, you've listed healthcare as one of those basics. I would not agree with expanding government's responsibility to public well being to go that far. So while we agree on the general idea that providing basic services is a role of government, we still don't agree on just what those services are.

To answer the issue of education that you cite -- the numbers just are not there to make the direct correlation between spending on education and results in education. The problem is far more complex than that. The Washington DC schools have one of (if not the) highest per capita expenditures of any school system in this country, accompanied by some of the lowest results.

There are most certainly fiscal issues facing some states in the US. There are others who are sitting pretty. Is that a result of conservative policies? Spending cuts at the federal level? Or the reality of having 50 states competing against each other for some of the same resources? Alabama is not just competing with Ontario for automotive plants. They're also competing with Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, etc etc etc. States compete for businesses as well as people. Ohio "battles" with New York every year to be the state that contributes more citizen's to Florida's population than any other. There are multiple reasons for the move, including weather. But there are more warm weather states in the country than just Florida -- the high personal tax rates in Ohio and New York, and the lack of a personal income tax in Florida must be appreciated. In many cases (though not all) tax ramifications of residence DO play a role in where citizens choose to live.

So when you look at the issues facing Alabama (or New Jersey, or other states in fiscal disasters) it's not as simple as you appear to be painting it. If it were, then New Jersey and their liberal traditions should be in the black, right?

[kmc]

That's right, Doc. Providing for healthcare is definitely not as big of a deal as making sure gays can't marry.

[Paul]

Haven't read all the post, or the entire artilce at hand, but Chrisfan, you have some excellent views there; I have enjoyed reading over them....Same for you Rocky.

[Dr. Drum]

chrisfan said:

In many ways, it comes down to a definition of what basic government services are required to maintain basic public well being. In your post above which my response came from, you've listed healthcare as one of those basics. I would not agree with expanding government's responsibility to public well being to go that far. So while we agree on the general idea that providing basic services is a role of government, we still don't agree on just what those services are.

Sure, as expected, but even if you're opposed to universal government health insurance, there's always going to be some level of public involvement in the health care system.

On states competing with other states, I actually doubt that states like New Jersey haven't been adversely affected in some way by anti-tax, 'government-as-problem' politics, at least relative to jurisdictions in Canada. I mean the tendency toward that has become part of the political orthodoxy there in something of the same way that pledges run a balanced budget have here. Most, if not all, politicians bend to it to some degree.

[kmc]

In fact, it is almost impossible to run in New Jersey without promising to not hike up taxes or promising to go easy on taxes given the large manufacturing contingency.