Brain Fertilizer

I don't believe the Contract with America failed; generally only Democrats assert that it failed. The Republicans promised to bring to the floor 10 items within the first 100 days; they kept their word on 9 (term limits being the one they welched on) and actually passed those 9. That's a pretty good record; far from a failure.

As for Bush's conservatism, he leaves me cold in that arena. I don't fault his war spending, because that's what's needed. I fault his desire to spend money like a drunken sailor on social programs in some misguided effport to make nice with Democrats. He needs to cut spending on everything except the war, because the Democrats will always hate him, no matter how much he spends on their issues.

House Republicans did indeed get nine of the ten points in the CWA passed -- but a lot of them were defeated in the Senate despite its also having a Republican majority.

I don't consider that to mean that the CWA failed. I consider that to mean that Senate Republicans are a bunch of wusses. They were in 1995 and they still are today.

I guess "failed" might be too strong of a word. They did get welfare reform passed, even if Bill Clinton takes credit for it.

But the voting populace blamed the GOP for the govt shutdown, not the Clinton Administration for its expansion of govt. And voters punished Newt Gingrich for his leadership with the CWA, didn't they?

Why has libertarianism failed to gain even as much traction as PETA/ELF/The Green Party?

I look at all that and conclude on the available evidence that it is impossible to find a majority of citizens who are committed enough to smaller government that they are willing to forgo their portion of pork.
Rather, people in one state only want reduced pork spending for their neighboring state, but don't want reduced government hand-outs to threaten their job/life.

And so fiscal conservatism dies a painful death, with people insisting they want it while continuing to vote themselves largess, and the Democrat party takes advantage of that.

And voters punished Newt Gingrich for his leadership with the CWA, didn't they?

When? The CWA period was 1995, basically. Republicans suffered in '96 largely because their ticket was headed by one of the most inept presidential campaigns in history (up to that point).

Gingrich's real punishment didn't come unti, 1998. If CWA had anything to do with that, it was that the Republicans hadn't come up with anything new in the intervening four years.

As has often been said (and will be demonstrated this November) you gotta give people a reason to vote for you. And Republicans failed in that after 1994.

As for libertarianism, first, you can't compare small-L libertarianism with organizations like the Greens -- the only apples-apples comparison with a party would be the Libertarian Party -- which has among its official platform planks opposition to pre-emptively prosecuting the GWOT.

Small-L libertarianism may not be getting implemented in policy at the moment, but I think before this whole watershed is over with, the opposition to Republican conservatism will no longer be liberalism or even leftism. Guess what I think it will be?

I wasn't very engaged in politics at the time, so I admit some of my impressions and timing may be off.
But aside from the specifics, I am still left with the impression that Republicans did offer smaller government as something to vote for, and while that issue resonated among a significant minority of voters, it wasn't enough to keep Gingrich in his position.
My main, bottom-line point is there is no obvious mandate for any politician to significantly shrink the size of government. Lots of people say they want that, but when faced with cuts that might harm them personally, they balk. And every cut is opposed by enough of these balkers that we really can't get much done.
Can a new mandate be made? How do we make sure there are enough people demanding a cut in government to make another stand? How do we erase the lingering message of the federal government shutdown that said Americans don't really want smaller government?

But aside from the specifics, I am still left with the impression that Republicans did offer smaller government as something to vote for, and while that issue resonated among a significant minority of voters, it wasn't enough to keep Gingrich in his position.

Promising is never enough to keep someone in their position. As I'm trying to show, the problem is that, four years into Republican control of the Congress, no new initiatives (after CWA) were offered, and therefore no new progress was made toward what was promised.

Furthermore, opposition to smaller government is easy to generate when you have the Clintonian Band of Sycophants presenting a dishonest image of what's going on.

If anything, the recent CBS scandal may be just one more refutation of that whole spin -- as people realize that Big Media can't be trusted, the opportunity presents itself now to offer smaller government once again, and to successfully rebut the arguments against smaller government by reminding people of recent events.

Dammit, Nathan, we don't win by believing the other side's propaganda.

Dammit, Nathan, we don't win by believing the other side's propaganda.

Good point. I'll have to consider more.

I guess I didn't really take it as believing the other side's propaganda as much as trying to spur fiscal conservatives into some sort of rallying cry to allow supporters to flock to our banner. What I've seen around the blogosphere the last several months is mainly a weak threat to "protest vote" against President Bush on the idea that if we are going to have a President who spends like a Democrat, it may as well be a Democrat.
I think that would be a mistake, because the Democrat President would then take it as a mandate to spend even more.
I also think President Bush will show more fiscal conservatism once he is no longer subject to re-election.
Other than that, it is imperative that we find a new way to express our desire for fiscal conservatism...or re-energize it as an issue...or something.

Increasing aggregate spending through government purchasing (war) while reducing revenues (tax reductions) is hardly fiscal conservatism. And reality is, the discretionary spending slice of the federal government expenditure pie is not really very large. So to reduce spending in any significant way, you really have to target non-discretionary spending and that won't happen.

The Contract With America was brilliant in its conception. And the House delivered but as Kevin said, the Senate didn't follow through. Maybe, just maybe, that was because the Senate was/is comprised of more sane individuals that was/is the House. remember, it was the Republican House's Contract With America, not the Senate's.

Republicans were "punished" in '98 because they got into persecuting a sitting President for his sexual activity disguised as something else. The House impeached, the Senate tried and acquitted, and the public never quite bought what the Republicans were up to. Especially when the Republican persecutors (Gingrich, Hyde, Livingston to name a few) all had scandals of their own.

Gingrich, God bless him, was a change agent. He brought about a Republican majority and his lieutenants then did him in - stabbed him in the back (at least in my opinion). But it was all about politics. About power - getting it and then keeping it.

Remember, once the control of the Congress shifted, what became important to those in power was protecting that power. While some may have good intentions and really want to make change to better the Nation, I argue that most simply want to maintain their power and act accordingly. I think Gingrich wanted change. I think Delay, Armey et al wanted power. There's a difference.

I am becoming to believe that the only way to really get the Country on-track and united is a system of truly competitive congressional districts. Until redistricting is no longer performed to protect incumbents and really competitive districts are created, we will continue with polarized politics.

But hey, what do I know?

...and yet, I agree with you totally on this.

Including the first paragraph. I never tried to insist Bush demonstrated fiscal conservatism or even fiscal responsibility in this term, but I think the last 3 years have been fairly extreme in circumstance. I think we'll see more fiscal conservatism in Bush's second term.

I agree with you on 'competitive districts'. I really wish a good lawyer would bring a lawsuit on the constitutionality of gerrymandering to the right court at the right time....
The other change I think must happen is repealing the 17th Amendment.

Go, Marty! Let's hear more!

Why do you expect more fiscal conservatism? The war will continue and require more resources. The deficit will continue to grow without something happening on the revenue side. The Republican Congress will be loathe to increase revenues, so how do they increase? One could argue that if (as) the economy improves, revenues will increase. And they will, to some extent, but not to the degree needed to offset military spending. Now maybe Dub and the Congress will talk the talk of fiscal restraint, but it is hard to imagine them walking the walk.

As for redistricting -- it is my understanding that the States are pretty much left to their own devices in drawing districts. It is hard to imagine any non-partisan redistricting unless citizens of states take it upon themselves to mandate non-partisan redistricting.

I don't disagree with politics in making up districts, I just think the districts need to be competitive. But I don't know how to accomplish that, you know?

The adjustments won't be "revenue side" at all, I don't think.
About a year ago, I read on a blog somewhere (don't remember where, so I can't link it), that Bush's strategy since after 9/11 was to increase the deficit by cutting taxes and letting spending go unchecked. Everyone likes keeping the money they earn, so if a financial crisis came about regarding the deficit, he'd let everyone get all mad, let the Democrats (for about the first time ever) start complaining about it...and then when it's clear something has to be done, he'll make some huge cuts, like maybe eliminate the Dept of Eduction or something.
It sounds so much like Karl Rove's typical "Br'er Rabbit Briar Patch" strategy, i.e., make 'em beg for what you really want to do anyway, that I was pretty convinced. He didn't have anything like a mandate the first time around, but if he wins this time, he should have a clear one, and since he won't be facing re-election, he can spend political capital freely. That should energize his base well enough to help propel his Republican successor into office to maintain, but if not, it leaves a Democrat successor with a fait accompli and having to spend political capital to try to restore unnecessary spending against a hostile Republican-controlled congress.
And if he doesn't get re-elected (which is seeming less and less likely), it leaves his Democrat successor (in this case it would have been Kerry) facing a huge deficit and having to make the same cuts or enact unpopular tax increases, again against a non-cooperative Republican congress...which would help make sure Kerry is a one-termer (not that Kerry wouldn't Carter things up enough to make that necessary on his own).

That's just the way I think things would go. I'm no political insider or genius or anything. I'm probably wrong 6 ways to Wednesday, and have already been told that by the folks at Q and O Blog, so I can take it again here.

he'll make some huge cuts, like maybe eliminate the Dept of Eduction or something.

But those that are in power in the Congress will lose that power if they did something like that.

And if we assume that those in power are reluctant to give it up, they will act in their self (preservation) interest. So I don't think what you are suggesting would happen.

One can argue that the deficit doesn't really matter. The Federal Government will always be the Federal Government and whatever they borrow will be paid back. After all, the Government can always print more money. :)