Back to SoWal Lounge

The conservative movement is dead, long live the conservative movement

30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
2,567 views
In late October 2008, New Yorker staff writer George Packer reported "the complete collapse of the four-decade project that brought conservatism to power in America." Two weeks later, the day after Mr. Obama's election, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne proclaimed "the end of a conservative era" that had begun with the rise of Ronald Reagan.

And in February 2009, New York Times Book Review and Week in Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, writing in The New Republic, declared that "movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead." Mr. Tanenhaus even purported to discern in the new president "the emergence of a president who seems more thoroughly steeped in the principles of Burkean conservatism than any significant thinker or political figure on the right."

Peter Berkowitz: The Death of Conservatism Was Greatly Exaggerated - WSJ.com

Great WSJ piece today by Berkowitz. People wonder about the origins of the tea party, and commentators like Beck. You have to remember just a few short years ago media far and wide had proclaimed the end of the Reagan era. I think the meteoric rise of figures like Beck and the rise of the TP have a lot to do with how people reacted to the idea of a new progressive era in American politics.

I think the reason why liberals claim this is a reaction to a black president is due to their lack of understanding of conservative principals. Berkowtz hits this nail on the head:

Progressives like to believe that conservatism's task is exclusively negative?resisting the centralizing and expansionist tendency of democratic government. And that is a large part of the conservative mission. Progressives see nothing in this but hard-hearted indifference to inequality and misfortune, but that is a misreading.

What conservatism does is ask the question avoided by progressive promises: at what expense? In the aftermath of the global economic crisis of 2008, Western liberal democracies have been increasingly forced to come to grips with their propensity to live beyond their means.

It is always the task for conservatives to insist that money does not grow on trees, that government programs must be paid for, and that promising unaffordable benefits is reckless, unjust and a long-term threat to maintaining free institutions.

But conservatives also combat government expansion and centralization because it can undermine the virtues upon which a free society depends. Big government tends to crowd out self-government?producing sluggish, selfish and small-minded citizens, depriving individuals of opportunities to manage their private lives and discouraging them from cooperating with fellow citizens to govern their neighborhoods, towns, cities and states.

Replies

72
Bob avatar
SoWal Insider
#2
National debt at end of Carter administration 900 billion.......National debt at the end of Reagan administration 2.8 Trillion
Beach Comber
#3
National debt at end of Carter administration 900 billion.......National debt at the end of Reagan administration 2.8 Trillion

Granted I was not even alive at the end of the first Bush administration, but from what I have read about Reagan, he gave up on the national debt early in his first term.

From Dinesh D'Souza's Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader (Pg. 104).

"I did not come here to balance the budget-not at the expense of my tax cutting programs and my defense programs."

He said that in 1981.
Beach Fanatic
#4
National debt at end of Carter administration 900 billion.......National debt at the end of Reagan administration 2.8 Trillion


National debt at the end of Bush 43 administration 10.6 trillion.........National debt after 20 months of Obama administration 13.2 trillion
30ashopper avatar
SoWal InsiderAuthor
#5
National debt at end of Carter administration 900 billion.......National debt at the end of Reagan administration 2.8 Trillion

Economies of scale. Debt can grow, as long as gdp growth is faster. You reduce the size of the debt as a percentage of gdp when this happens. GDP growth under Reagan went from -2% in 1981 to over 7% in 1985.

Raw GDP under Carter, grew from 2.0 trillion, to 2.7 trillion. Under Reagan, it grew from 2.7 to 6. Reagan did that in the midst of the most severe recession since the great depression.

It'll be interesting to see if Obama, with his "grow government, increase taxes, increase debt" policies will be able to top Reagan's excellent economic record.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal InsiderAuthor
#6
30ashopper avatar
SoWal InsiderAuthor
#8
Here's a great chart outlining debt to GDP per President, but also includes House and Senate control makeup.

How you like those differences now?

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reagan should have done better in his second term. Clinton with a republican congress clearly had a great record. Maybe we'll get something similar with Obama after the next election or two?
futurebeachbum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#9
Here's a great chart outlining debt to GDP per President, but also includes House and Senate control makeup.

How you like those differences now?

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What really hits home with me, having been a taxpayer since the Ford days, is how rarely you see the debt quantified against GDP.

Based upon my recollections of how bad things were under Carter, it is really surprising that it was actually the lowest ratio of debt to GDP. Maybe there is a level of government spending that is too low (relative to GDP.)

If you look up US GDP history its apparent that in the post war period it continued to grow until 2008-2010 when it actually declined a bit and flattened out.

This is a significant difference compared to all previous post-war recessions. All of the prior recessions had a growing GDP to help end them. This time we don't and that implies (to me) that we are going to be in this recession a lot longer as a result.
Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#10
Yes, numbers are just numbers and mean nothing unless they are measured and consistently measured. This is when you can see trends and extract data.
Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#12
Wow! :eek:

Let's hope Obama follows every other Democratic President and puts up some green numbers!

I would like nothing more, however, our GDP has been very low and the President has already skewed his potential......and, the Dems are in full control. :shock: Anything can happen over the next couple of years, though. Let's wait and see.....not let's hope and change. I actually hope for a little bit of pocket change these days.
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#13
I know, but maybe second term? :D
Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#14
I know, but maybe second term? :D

Now, I'm hoping for change. :biggrin:
Just messing with you, scooterbug. But, I don't think he'll be re-elected.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal InsiderAuthor
#15
Wow! :eek:

Let's hope Obama follows every other Democratic President and puts up some green numbers!

His first term numbers will likely be the worst in that whole list. It's all relative to where the debt and gdp start and end on the day they take office and the term ends.
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#16
Now, I'm hoping for change. :biggrin:
Just messing with you, scooterbug. But, I don't think he'll be re-elected.

At this point I don't think he'll WANT to be reelected.

Seriously though - does he have any chance of hitting 15% or lower?
30ashopper avatar
SoWal InsiderAuthor
#17
At this point I don't think he'll WANT to be reelected.

Seriously though - does he have any chance of hitting 15% or lower?

Barring a miracle, it'll be around 30%. That's based on his own budget team's projections. He should consider himself lucky, Bush took on about 10% in the last six months of his last term.
Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#18
At this point I don't think he'll WANT to be reelected.

Seriously though - does he have any chance of hitting 15% or lower?

Barring a miracle, it'll be around 30%. That's based on his own budget team's projections. He should consider himself lucky, Bush took on about 10% in the last six months of his last term.


20% under Bush does seem tough to beat, but I guess if GDP remains low/slow to grow, a higher percentage is inevitable. There are only so many cycles remaining in his term.
futurebeachbum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#19
At this point I don't think he'll WANT to be reelected.

Seriously though - does he have any chance of hitting 15% or lower?

Well, the real payoff for President comes afterwards. Bill Clinton made > $100,000,000.00 since he left office.
Bob avatar
SoWal Insider
#20
National debt at the end of Bush 43 administration 10.6 trillion.........National debt after 20 months of Obama administration 13.2 trillion
who inherited the near depression?
Bob avatar
SoWal Insider
#21
Economies of scale. Debt can grow, as long as gdp growth is faster. You reduce the size of the debt as a percentage of gdp when this happens. GDP growth under Reagan went from -2% in 1981 to over 7% in 1985.

Raw GDP under Carter, grew from 2.0 trillion, to 2.7 trillion. Under Reagan, it grew from 2.7 to 6. Reagan did that in the midst of the most severe recession since the great depression.

It'll be interesting to see if Obama, with his "grow government, increase taxes, increase debt" policies will be able to top Reagan's excellent economic record.
military deficit spending beyond any need....increasing the fleet from 530 ships to 594 with billions in overhauls and weapons retrofits.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal InsiderAuthor
#22
20% under Bush does seem tough to beat, but I guess if GDP remains low/slow to grow, a higher percentage is inevitable. There are only so many cycles remaining in his term.

I'll give Bush a *little* leeway on his 20%. He entered office at the tip of the collapse of a stock bubble and a recession. Then 9/11, homeland security, Afghanistan, which he had no choice in. A war of his own choosing in Iraq, which was a mistake, Katrina, and then the collapse of a massive debt bubble that had been brewing for 25 years, which he and his team failed to see. All in all, a mediocre record, to say the most. But some of it was not his doing.

As for Obama, he got hit with the back side of the credit bubble, which he knew full well about entering office. The jury is still out on how well he and his team are handling it. If he goes two terms, he should be judged on all eight years IMHO. Although I'm not sure the American people will give that chance. We are an impatient bunch.

Edited

30ashopper avatar
SoWal InsiderAuthor
#23
who inherited the near depression?

Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Barack Obama. What's your point?
Beach Fanatic
#24
who inherited the near depression?


Reagan inherited double digit inflation, interest rates and a recession.
Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#25
Y'all, haven't you learned yet that no one likes to hear what the Reps inherited? :biggrin:
LuciferSam avatar
Banned
#26
Reagan inherited double digit inflation, interest rates and a recession.

He also inherited fed chairman Paul volker who was able to fix that situation.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.