Republican moderates hooked their wagon to a falling star

Moderates like David Frum and David Brooks thought they saw a coming transformation of America in 2008, so they dreamed of a Republican Party made up of moderates who could compete for political power in the future. The moderates believed, rightly, that social conservatism was no longer relevant in the political world, that candidates running for office on a platform of establishing moral dominance over a society quickly losing its way in sin and permissiveness would be out of touch with the reality of a society which is actually socially liberal, or, at least, a society that doesn't want morals pushed on them by government. The moderates had other reasons they believed the Republican Party was out of touch: the relationship with Big Business -- the old guard of Country Club Republicans blocking young blood, gay Republicans, women, minorities from full participation -- the image that Republicans ignore the plight of the poor -- the association of Republicans with war and unquestioning patriotism and American exceptionalism which has caused conflicts in the global community -- the fact that Republicans have been viewed as anti-diversity and hostile toward multi-culturalism -- so on and so forth with many legitimate concerns. But, the main problem Republican moderates wanted to solve was the influnce social conservatives have had over the direction of the Party -- moderates wanted to marginalize the social conservatives and all their spokespeople like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck, although they haven't quite figured out how to take Beck, so they just call him a crazy hate-monger.

The moderates soon had another problem -- the Tea Party -- but to the moderates, this was just an outgrowth of social conservativsm, a reactionary movement caused by a black president, changing times, and a fear of diversity and new ideas of governance. Yes, the moderates said, some progressive policies go too far, but we need major changes if we are to deal with out of control healthcare costs, global warming and our dependence on oil, the problem of Wall Street gambling us to the brink of financial collapse -- so Republicans had better stop complaining about "socialists" and birth certificates and bleeding heart liberals and join the government efforts in compromise in order to create a better, more sustainable society which is interdependent with the rest of the world. The moderates warned that Republicans can't afford to sit on the sidelines and just say no. This strategy, the moderates warned, will relegate the Republican Party to minority status for decades, and allow the worst of progressivism to come about. Centrists urged Republican participation in molding the legislation so at least the extreme elements were moderated -- what we would get, hopefully, would be the best of both sides as America is transformed to meet 21st century challenges. Yes, the moderates said, we agree that government has limits, but these are different times, and the emergencies facing our nation can't be ignored or put on hold as partisanship creates obstruction which will be blamed on Republicans and make them look backwards and reactionary, small-minded, clinging to an idealized past of a Christian America that has no relevance in the modern, complicated, cosmopolitan present.

However, the concerns of the moderates regarding social conservatism never quite materialized, and they misread the resistance to progressivism. Although social conservatives are involved in the obstruction of the progressive agenda, the main thrust was a desire to limit government, cut spending and bring about the creation of a free market. The rising stars in the Republican Party have not been moderates, but more libertarian-minded Republicans like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. A large faction of the Tea Party has requested that the movement concentrate on economic matters, not social issues. In the meanwhile we've watched the EU struggle to bail-out member states teetering on collapse because of long term, welfare-state, progressive policies, just like the policies that progressives in America are pushing to implement, and moderates are calling to compromise with. The moderates have been caught between progressive big-spending, social engineering and the movement to limit government, cut spending and implement a free market. But these types of clear distinctions now bother moderates, and Frum is building a No Label movement. This is little more than a desparate act to avoid clarity.

The results of the midterm elections, and Obama's recent compromise on the extension of Bush's tax cuts, speak loudly to a change in direction and the failure of the moderate plan to work hand in hand with the progressives to transform America, relying on the calm and reasonable center. This doesn't mean the Republican Party is on the rise and that there will simply be a switchover in power like we've seen for decades - it means that progressives, liberals, moderates and Big Government Republicans have all misread the American public. We are entering a time in which the pressure will be to disempower the State and liberate market forces. The public is pushing for personal soveriegnty and economic growth -- people are tired of government meddling -- tired of the politically connected becoming richer and more powerful off the backs of workers and producers -- tired of Washington DC political animals telling them what they should think and how they should live their lives -- they are tired of government wasting their money, then finding ever more clever ways to tax them. If any group is making itself irrelevant, it's the Republican moderates. I suggest they worry less about strategy, spin and sophisticated, Machiavellian strategy and more about adopting the principles they've denigrated the last two years.

News Flash: David Frum predicts Republican failure

http://www.frumforum.com/meet-washingtons-new-big-spenders

Already, before the votes are counted, Frum predicts the Republicans will cause higher taxes and more spending, because they won't compromise with Democrats. It's this the type of twisted political reasoning that puts moderates in the crosshairs of those with business sense and principles. By compromising with Democrats on the tax cut extensions by failing to extend the tax cuts on those making over $250,000, Republicans accept the premise that "miilionaires" can afford it and should keep paying more in relation to the "excess" they possess, and that raising taxes on the wealthy will reduce the deficit quicker than allowing "millionaires" to invest the money in the private sector. The claim they haven't been investing is bogus -- they haven't been investing because of the confuson created by statist policies. If Republicans show backbone and stand on principle, investors and companies will have more confidence, thus generating economic growth and new wealth and more revenue for government because more people will be working and more people will be buying products and services.

Frum is a cautious, political type, so he would have no real knowledge or understanding of business and true economic growth, the kind that increases the size and number of pies, not worries about one diminishing pie. Political types don't have any idea what s necessary for economic growth, and that's why they need to get out of the way and lower taxes, not work together on their best compromised, nonpartisan, economic plans. 

David Frum's obsession with protecting statism

http://www.frumforum.com/the-tea-party-minority

David Frum continues to denounce the idea that a large part of the country is becoming anti-statist and presenting a serious challenge to not only progressivism, but modern liberalism which so far has supported progressive policies. Anyone who believes we have to accept the progressive changes and direction cannot possibly be anything but a misguided modern liberal, no matter how moderate or center-right he claims to be.

I believe Frum is a serious person, it's just that his radical centrism is no different than radical progressivism in practice. You either have to be in denial or invested in protecting statism to ignore the national move toward a more limited government, yet Frum is relying on the Eisenhower years to justify why statism can't be fought back. Frum believes the majority of the nation wants the statist policies that have been implemented and are being planned, and that even if the mid-term elections favor conservatives, it's only because that majority will not be interested in voting in the mid-terms, that the minority Tea Party can stir up dust now which will be settled before the national election. However, contrary to Frum's claims, Independents, many who have never been politically active, are being drawn into the process -- this will be evident in the number of voters who come out in 2010 and 2012.

The problem with relating 1948 to 2010 in order to justify the national acceptance of statism is that statism has progressed and its flaws are more evident -- the flaws are evident to the point that the national economic situation is critical. After the Great Depression, the public was still under the spell of statism, they were just tired of FDR. No one in 1948 could imagine the level of spending necessary to support the current government. Another big difference between 1948 and 2010 is the Information Age. More and more people are learning the facts about statism and receiving a refresher course on limited government and a free market. The learning curve has been steep, but the flow of information is something else the public of 1948 could not have dreamed possible.

Government education has been able to indoctrinate the public to statism until now, and as a result of re-education and debt-shock, our statist government is vulnerable, naked as a king.

Yes, David Frum is wrong

http://www.frumforum.com/why-a-gop-landslide-wont-save-the-party

David Frum continues to insist the conservative limited government movement attracts old, rich white people and whites who didn't go to or didn't finish college. I haven't seen anything to show his sources to prove his claims, but it doesn't really matter, support for limited government ideas will come from whatever sources agree that government should be limited.

Statism or limited government is our biggest issue, and it's the issue which will decide the election in 2010 and in 2012. From what I can tell observing the Tea Party, people from all walks of life have joined the movement, many of them independents. The percentage of whites to blacks is probably the same as in the population, which means the limited government movement has about 13% black support. I read a poll about 4 months back showing this to be true, and from observing the crowds, it appears to be correct.

Blacks, mostly, have always voted for Democrats, and young people are more prone to vote Democrat, but I believe that the long recession and extended unemployment will work against these voting trends as young people and African-Americans realize something drastic needs to happen to spur the economy -- and they see that stimulus isn't working, and the healthcare law is widely unpopular. Most likely, there will be many people voting Republican who would never dare admit it in public.

Frum holds on to a discredited idea among centrists, especially the faux-intellectuals who've never shown me any justification for their inflated self-promotion as big thinkers, that Republicans need to become more like moderate Democrats to attract those who've traditionally voted Democrat, but people are leaving the Democrats in droves, so I don't share his concerns. The ideas involved are almost diametrically opposed -- Frum needs to choose which he supports.

The clown-mask of moderation

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/19/ahmadinejad-future-belongs-iran/

Ahmadinejad is just an extreme, ridiculous example of ideology hiding behind the mask of moderation. We see it in varying degrees, from Shariah-supporting Muslims who claim the mantle of peace and tolerace to the David Brooks and Frums of the American political class who hide their statism behind a moderation which simply wants to find the best solutions.

This morning, some pundit was talking about the moderate stance of Barack Obama -- you get my point. The problem is that the Information Age is not into masks, but I suppose it's an interesting charade among those stuck in yesterday's political games.