The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Curious Phrasing, Mr. Appel

Posted on | August 19, 2010 | 12 Comments

“In my experience, liberal think tanks and intellectuals dominate most domestic issues while conservative think tanks and intellectuals dominate foreign policy. . . . Democrats have traditionally held an advantage on domestic issues while Republicans have traditionally held an advantage on foreign policy. The intelligentsia of both parties reflect this divide.”
– Patrick Appel, The Atlantic

The terms here that draw immediate attention are “dominate” and “advantage.” Does Appel mean that the intellectuals whom he designates as dominating are more persuasive or better informed? And what of Democrats’ “traditional advantage” on domestic issues? Did this help Jimmy Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984, or Dukakis in 1988?

More recently, the 2000 election was fought almost entirely on domestic issues and, had it not been for a late-breaking DUI “scandal” against Bush, it’s doubtful Al Gore would have won the popular vote that year. Grant that in the 2002-04 cycles Republicans won primarily on foreign-policy terrain, but don’t forget those “values voters” whose allegiance to the GOP was principally a matter of domestic cultural or social issues. In the 2006-08 cycles, of course, the backlash against Bushism was the major trend, driven in large measure by war-weariness, although John McCain’s economic ineptitude (i.e., his frantic support for the unpopular “Bush bailout”) was ultimately decisive in the 2008 campaign.

All of which is to say that Appel’s talk about partisan domination and advantages on areas of policy doesn’t necessarily match the political record and, perhaps more important, doesn’t tell us who is right.

For example, if it is true that conservatives “dominated” and Republicans “held an advantage” in foreign policy during the 2001-’04 time-frame, then it proved a mixed blessing in the long run, as the failure (or at least, perceived failure) of Bush-era foreign policy was deeply implicated in the GOP “brand damage” problem that now haunts Republicans.

So a policy that is politically popular in the short term may bring disaster in the long term and, I hasten to add, it’s entirely possible a policy may both right and unpopular.

Morever, the interaction between politics and policy is such that policy is never purely a matter of who’s got the best ideas. The wrongheadedness of LBJ’s “Great Society” programs, or of Nixon’s wage-and-price control policies, were pointed out by insightful critics at the time but the advocates of good policy did not have sufficient political influence to prevent enactment of bad policy.

Nowadays, of course, demographic trends (especially a burgeoning Hispanic population) so favor Democrats that their party’s long-cherished policy goals are being enacted not because arguments for those policies have suddenly been recognized as factually superior, but rather because they’ve got the votes.

And this returns us to the earlier colloquy with David Frum, who asserts the supremacy of policy (“governance”) over politics. You can’t govern without a majority, you see, and so without successful Republican politics, talk of Republican policy is . . . just talk.

In their present minority status, then, Republicans are compelled to follow the advice of Jennifer Rubin: “The opposition party must oppose.”

Specific policy proposals are less necessary to Republicans now than is the imperative to constantly explain how the policies of Democrats are wrong and harmful, combined with a pledge to stop and (where possible) reverse those policies if elected.

The essential political idea is this: After more than 18 months of “Yes, We Can,” Americans are ready for a healthy dose of ”Oh, Hell No, You Won’t!”

How that translates into Frum’s “governance” will be determined after Nov. 2 — a bridge to be crossed when (and if) we get there.

Bookmark and Share
Category: Culture, Politics

Comments

  • Rob

    I want to force the question. Can we have an email or calling campaign to get the Rasmussen Poll or the San Francisco Chronicle do a poll on the race? This is what I’m forecasting the poll to look like.

  • Rob

    I want to force the question. Can we have an email or calling campaign to get the Rasmussen Poll or the San Francisco Chronicle do a poll on the race? This is what I’m forecasting the poll to look like.

  • Adobe Walls

    I’d place a lot more stock in the pronouncements of think tanks if there were negative results to the actual speakers/writers when their advice was wrong. For instance I read an article at RCP today wherein Larry Elder asserts that an unnamed Post Columnist has suggested that Paul Krugman replace Christina Romer for the chair of the CEA. I think this would be an excellent idea if and only if after a year, his policies proved to be a failure we were permitted by law to summarily have him shot .

  • Adobe Walls

    I’d place a lot more stock in the pronouncements of think tanks if there were negative results to the actual speakers/writers when their advice was wrong. For instance I read an article at RCP today wherein Larry Elder asserts that an unnamed Post Columnist has suggested that Paul Krugman replace Christina Romer for the chair of the CEA. I think this would be an excellent idea if and only if after a year, his policies proved to be a failure we were permitted by law to summarily have him shot .

  • jefferson101

    Regarding Mr. Appel’s quote, I’d suggest that the primary reason that the liberals tend to “dominate” on domestic issues is because they are a lot more likely to do a better job of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The liberals are better at that than even RINO’s or “Compassionate Conservatives” are.

    Foreign policy doesn’t lend itself to that type of manipulation nearly as well, so conservatives dominate.

  • jefferson101

    Regarding Mr. Appel’s quote, I’d suggest that the primary reason that the liberals tend to “dominate” on domestic issues is because they are a lot more likely to do a better job of pandering to the lowest common denominator. The liberals are better at that than even RINO’s or “Compassionate Conservatives” are.

    Foreign policy doesn’t lend itself to that type of manipulation nearly as well, so conservatives dominate.

  • Rob

    @jefferson101,
    Too true. One party buys vote through welfare and advertising the benefits of the ‘healthcare reform’ law and the other preaches self-discipline and self-governance. It’s hard to be popular when you have a tough message to act on.

  • Rob

    @jefferson101,
    Too true. One party buys vote through welfare and advertising the benefits of the ‘healthcare reform’ law and the other preaches self-discipline and self-governance. It’s hard to be popular when you have a tough message to act on.

  • Jeff

    domestic issues can be demonized and you can paint your opponents as “bad people” … that is all the liberal think tanks ever do …
    that doesn’t work as well with foreign policy …

    all the liberal think tanks spout is theory after theory … they never work with facts just with desired outcomes … they never actually analyze the root problems but instead start with their prefered solutions and try to work back from there …

  • Jeff

    domestic issues can be demonized and you can paint your opponents as “bad people” … that is all the liberal think tanks ever do …
    that doesn’t work as well with foreign policy …

    all the liberal think tanks spout is theory after theory … they never work with facts just with desired outcomes … they never actually analyze the root problems but instead start with their prefered solutions and try to work back from there …

  • Jeff

    real solutions to real problems don’t have a (D) or and (R) after them …

    All too often today we are given a solution before we even know what the problem was …

    Look at the FinReg bill … passed into law before the Commission on the Crisis even published one report …

    The GOP doesn’t need to run on ideas, they need to run on competence in solving problems with real solutions and not half baked theories … look at Chris Christy in NJ …

    Look, if you don’t ID the problem you can never ID the solution … examples: Stimulus, ObamaCare, FinReg …

  • Jeff

    real solutions to real problems don’t have a (D) or and (R) after them …

    All too often today we are given a solution before we even know what the problem was …

    Look at the FinReg bill … passed into law before the Commission on the Crisis even published one report …

    The GOP doesn’t need to run on ideas, they need to run on competence in solving problems with real solutions and not half baked theories … look at Chris Christy in NJ …

    Look, if you don’t ID the problem you can never ID the solution … examples: Stimulus, ObamaCare, FinReg …

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE