Be Prepared For The Spate Of Misdiagnoses
Jonathan Alter Commits Editorial Malpractice
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2006 | Featured Stories — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Jonathan Alter is asked to write about an election which turned out to be a referendum on President Bush, Iraq and corruption and he decides that the election means the end of conservatism. (Read on.)
This is, of course, fatuous nonsense that is easily exposed by, oh say, this. Yes, I know that people are tired of having me point to a study indicating that small-government conservatism is quite popular with the American people. But that is the only way to combat the statements of people like Alter, people who either quite clearly don't get the country's mood, or don't want you to. To argue that segments of the right-of-center movement are dissatisfied is not the same as arguing that the right-of-center movement is now in retreat. A better argument could be made that the Bush Administration's failure to adhere to small-government principles angered the right-of-center movement and caused a temporary electoral setback. But that is not enough for Alter, who quite clearly is more interested in burying a movement that he dislikes than he is in actually reporting on, you know, facts.
Alter gets especially absurd here:
To recover, conservatives plan to return to what they call the "core principles" of small government and lower taxes. But there's a reason they abandoned budget balancing: it's a loser politically. There just aren't many votes in it, and that's why Republicans didn't cut spending. People want the government to deliver for them. Without earmarks--which will now flow to pork-hungry Democrats--and the protection-racket money they got from selling out to lobbyists, Republicans might have lost an additional 20 seats. More than two dozen GOP incumbents won by six points or less and are vulnerable next time.
The lunacy is astonishing. One of the most salient critiques of the Republican leadership in Congress is that it had lost its way from small-government conservatism and libertarianism and had instead embraced pork as a way of solidifying its power. Now, Alter wants us to believe that the reason Republicans lost is that they took too hard a line against pork and earmarks and that they cut the budget too much? I wish:
It's a sad truth that all presidents in recent memory--from Lyndon Johnson on--have boosted inflation-adjusted total spending every term they've served, ranging from a low of 4.2 percent for Bill Clinton in his first four budgets to a high of 35.8 percent for LBJ. Since total spending includes "mandatory" spending on entitlements, it's not the best measure for calculating a particular president's ability or willingness to cut spending.
For that, look to discretionary spending--which is made up of defense and all other non-entitlement spending. When you stick to discretionary spending, a slightly different, but hardly better, picture emerges. Richard Nixon, for instance, cut total discretionary spending 15.2 percent, the first George Bush cut it by 3.2 percent, and Bill Clinton by 8 percent in his first term (all three accomplished this by reducing defense spending). Other than that, it's always been onward and upward. Even Ronald Reagan boosted discretionary spending in both of his terms--by 8.2 percent in the first and 7 percent in the second.
Those figures come by way of the American Enterprise Institute's Veronique de Rugy, who has calculated that George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending in his first term by 35.1 percent. To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ--the Texas legend who created the Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War--only boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What's more, the gap between Bush and LBJ will only grow. De Rugy notes that the final outlays for fiscal year 2005 (the last budget signed in Bush's first term) aren't in yet. As a result, she has to use mid-session review numbers, which are invariably smaller than the final amounts. And, she says, the number for FY2005 "does not take under consideration the numerous supplemental passed this year, and the new spending triggered by the Katrina disaster."
The record--if one actually has the intellectual discipline to look at it and the intellectual honesty to report it accurately--demonstrates quite clearly that the Bush Administration is a budget-busting Administration. Not a parsimonious one. And yet Alter will have us believe that conservatism and small government are on the road to ruin because budgetary stinginess has been faithfully applied under this Administration and such an application has turned off the voters.
Up really is down, nowadays, isn't it? And just out of curiosity, did no one on the Newsweek editorial board even blink when Jonathan Alter told them that he would make the claims he is making in this disastrously bad editorial?
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | The Washington Post gets it wrong — Comments (137) »
Be Prepared For The Spate Of Misdiagnoses 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Alter is one of the most rabid of the deranged Left.
To listen to him opine on the stste of the US and politics is to venture into another dimension. The fact that Alter is considered an 'insightful pundit' capable of discerning Republican voter tendencies by the MSM spotlights how corrupt and intellectualy vacant they have become.
A viscous partisan who often doesn't even bother to conceal his biases, he has no business writing anything that is not clearly identified as "Opinion" (and not worth killing a tree to print it).
Now if you really want to know what I think about him, we'll have to go outside for a moment....
But I just don't know. As Bush said, it was "a thumping." I think it was more than Iraq. I think it was more the corruption. I think it was a whole lot of things all rolled into one, and the economy wasn't the least of it. People say they want a smaller government, but then when you try to fiddle with their social security or their health care or the state of their schools, or even college tuition, well it turns out that they don't.
According to whom? When? What are the specifics here? What adjustments were made to reach that figure, if any? And how?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The whole episode of the "Conservative Voters" is simple - they did not turn out (stayed home - like me)/ Why - well, the glaring information is obvious! You can pretend that is is different, but, it will not be so in the next election.
When will you (the rest of the Republicans) understand that it was both a referendum on corruption and a referendum on the war. You have to at least have a battle plan and a way to win... Te Republican party had neither.
Formally known as deagle.
lifers blamed, the compassionate conservatives blamed, the RINO's blamed, but I haven't heard anyone until now blame small government conservatism for the loss.
Basically everyone (as in the various pundits) wants to kick everyone else out of the tent and claim it for their own-but after doing that, the tent is going to be a rather lonely place.
that is was a combination of several (more than stated) factors. You can not get Conservatives to vote for a corrupt congressman and you and not get the Conservatives to vote for a war that is not acceptable (ie. sustained, but not winnable in the long run). Formally known as deagle.
election and all of a sudden conservatism is dead. If thats how it goes, how did the dems even still exist, since they lost every election (excepting Clinton in 96) since 1994. We lost because conservatives either stayed home, or as in my state of Ohio, voted for a foaming at the mouth liberal like Brown because we were so mad at Dewine and the state party. A return to real conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism is needed and along with this return, we must develop ways to sell small government to the masses who want to vote themselves (through the Dems and presidents like Bush) the largess of the treasury.
that Conservatives stayed home in a normal election! This was an abnormality in that both the President was formalizing a stradegy of "Stay" (with no alternatives) and the lack of honesity of the Representatives (might I say dishonesty and illegal).. They all need to lose...
Formally known as deagle.
I have seen democrats-mostly in comments, although I am sure there are probably a diary are two at Kos or DU-talking about a permanent democratic majority.
I think that is rediculous.
#1 the losses were painful, some definitely deserved, but hardly an endorsement of liberalism (given the number of conservative right of center left dems they elected).
#2 the country isn't bluer, for the most part the majority of people are right of center-they rejected the party, the candidates in some cases, and I think one party control of government.
I think the electorate could just as easily turn on the dems as they did the GOP-although the dems have the advantage of the MSM. I think the house is probably gone for a while, the senate is pretty close-we may be able to get that back. The white house at this point is hard to say.
But it seems that it was about the time that the GOP started talking "permanent majority" that they started falling on their behinds. That is over confidence and frankly a little too much love of the power for the power's sake.
At the very least the dems should carry and pick up in a second election cycle before the words "permanent" start to leave their lips.
you are right on in your analysis.
1. The Republicans atayed home due to both morality problems and war problems (either win or get the hell out).
2. Many of the voters stayed home due to the combination of religious and disenchantment problems. (Republicans lied and exaggerated events to their base).
Either way, a loss to Republicans...
Formally known as deagle.
The first thing Arlen did when appointed to the judiciary in 04 was tell Bush not to put through anyone who Spector did not agree with(aginst aortion on demand , yu know the abortion right in the constitution, What you did not see it? For Arlen it is right next to the gay marriage admendent). Now that he is loosing his chair he is looking for kudos form idiots who forget what a looser the guy is
And yet, in comparison to the new majority, Arlen Specter looks conservative. Which tells you something about the new majority.
See, it's ironic that Arlen Specter looks conservative. That's the point. Do you understand now?
Well, no. Of course you don't.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I think that Redstate is gong nuts...but not today.
Alan is nuts! (if you compare him to the majority of Republicans, heaven help us), so disregard his silly votes. Now if you want to disagree, look to the non-comments (ie. those that are not part of the political correct)... Have fun...
Formally Deegle...
Everytime someone wins they said is the end of this or the end of that. Evertime a hurricane is coming on shore, they have reporters blowing in the wind. Every April 15 they have reporters at the post office showing late filers. Every Christmas Eve they have reporters in malls. The media is so predictable.
"I think the electorate could just as easily turn on the Dems as they did the GOP-although the dems have the advantage of the MSM."
I totally agree. In fact, I think that is why we need a complete 24/7 War Room communication revolution to what I call the Media Misinformation Monster that drives the dialogue of the whole country.
I think that voters who got disgusted with what they thought they had voted for with Repubs felt betrayed on a very moral level. Many of those don't pay close attention and had no idea that they were enabling things they also don't want or believe in. They needed to get politicians attention and, you have to admit, they did.
"But it seems that it was about the time that the GOP started talking "permanent majority" that they started falling on their behinds. That is over confidence and frankly a little too much love of the power for the power's sake."
Right. The bad apples took the good guys down. We profess high standards (the Dems really don't care) so they will beat us to a pulp whenever they can expose corruption/moral failures. Most voters want to elect people who honestly present themselves 24/7. It seems little to ask.
On a personal level, I find this somewhat funny that I need to tell adult politicians the same thing I repeated to my teenagers: "I expect you to be the same the same person at 1:00 in the morning are you are at 1:00 in the afternoon."
(I consistly gave the message. Obviously, I don't think I'd really like an accounting, but today they seem to be appreciating what they rolled their eyes to hearing then.)
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
Corruption and incompetence is bad.
While the FREEZER Democrats had to nominate anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration, pro-War on Terror Democrats all over the place in order to squeak by in the Senate, and grab the House.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Maybe the Buchananites did, but they are hardly conservatives anymore. Our GOTV effort, it turns out, actually beat the Democrats' again, although by a narrower margin than in '04.
The problem was that only 72% of the people we "turned out" ended up voting for US, while 89% of theirs voted for them.
ALSO: it is a proven scientific fact that reading Jonathan Alter kills brain cells, if you have any. Fortunately, most of his regular readers don't.
and the chocolate ration has increased since the democrats took over.