Any readers I may have out there have probably noticed that I have become a follower of David Frum. He ran a recent column on why, given that his views on how to deal with the economic crisis are diametrically opposed to Republican orthodoxy these days, he remains a Republican.* Here I will paraphrase his reasons and my responses.
Republicans are the more nationalistic party and he regards such nationalism (even if "kitschy" at times) as essential to national cohesion. Um, dude, do you pay attention to actual Republican speeches? They don't use nationalism as a force for national cohesion, but for division. They use it to distinguish between authentic real Americans in heartland red states and liberal immitation Americans living in blue states. They equate patriotism with a huge range of cultural cues that intentionally divide and stigmatize. In fact, Frum has harshly criticized this sort of thing in the past.
Lower taxes, less regulation and limited social spending are the right policy in the long run. Well, as Keynes famously said, in the long run we're all dead. If Republicans are serious about immediate fiscal and monetary austerity, the long run recovery may be a lot longer than otherwise. Let's revive the economy in the short run now and worry about the long run later.
He remains a hawk on national security issues. Yeah, I kind of figured that was the main reason he was still a Republican. But really, our current defense expenditures equal the rest of the world combined. How much is too much?
He opposes subsidies to private companies like Solyndra. Maybe the Tea Party has changed everything, but up till now I don't see subsidies as solely a Democratic failing. More like both parties favor subsidies, they merely favor different subsidies. (And the whole thing takes place so deep in the bureaucracy I am not sure how much the party at the top matters).
He opposes affirmative action as harmful to both whites and minorities. I am open to persuasion on this one.
Republicans are the environmental party from Teddy Roosevelt to the senior Bush. You're voting for REPUBLICANS because you're an environmentalist?!? I guess Frum must be convinced Republicans will block and environmental initiative from Democrats, but once in power will have a Nixon goes to China moment. I'm not betting on it. This began with the junior Bush systematically blocking any attempt to fight global warming. By now, much of the Republican party is ideologically and theologically opposed to the notion that there can be any evironmental problems at all.
He hates public sector unions. Again, I am open to persuasion on this one. I agree the role of the public sector should be to deliver services, not patronage jobs. But I am not one of those people who thinks that economic progress can by achieved only by stripping labor of all rights. There must be some room for compromise here.
He's angry at Democrats for being soft on crime from the 1970's to the 1990's. Given that crime rates are continuing to fall, even as the economy tanks and states are being forced by budgetary constraints to release inmates, this seems kind of petulent.
"I believe that the elected Prime Minister of Israel is a better judge of Israel’s national security than the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East affairs. Democratic administrations typically seem guided by the opposite theory." Um, no the question is whether the US should run its foreign policy for the benefit of Israel or for its own interests. Frum is making his view on this point very clear. He may have broken with the Republican party on economic issues, but he is still a neocon. (Commenters on the site were especially harsh in criticizing this one, and rightly so).
He thinks Republicans will come to their senses on the ecnomy once in power, just as Democrats did on the War on Terror. Once again, he is still a neocon who does not regret anything Bush did in the War on Terror. Like so many Bush critics, I regard Obama's continuation of his policies as an act of betrayal, but don't know what to do about it. To what extent Obama's actions were simply manipulating a gullible base, to what extent they were any president's desire to aggrandize his own power, to what extent they were yielding to necessity, and to what extent they were about the difficulty of taking on powerful institutional interests within the national security bureaucracy I do not know, but I am inclined to suspect that last most. I believe it is true that Republicans will run up against the same difficulty in taking on entrenched interests if they come to power. Repealing the 20th Century or returning to the gold standard will mean taking on powerful interests, and I am inclined to think the powerful interests will win. I am also inclined to think that the Republicans will pursue fiscal austerity once in power, if only because plenty of other people, both here and in Europe, also favor it. Whether they will also favor tight money, a "strong" dollar, and financial deregulation I cannot tell.
________________________________________
*Although he does not discuss it, the economy is not the only point of conflict. As a secular Jew, he cannot be happy about the Republican party's strong association with Evangelical Christianity. And he has often criticized the whole culture wars approach, of which religious aspects are only a part.
No comments:
Post a Comment