Strange 2012 Logic
I realize it's silly to be talking about 2012 when the 2008 election hasn't even happened yet, but I saw this post by Christopher Orr at TNR, and I felt I had to respond. Orr writes:
Furthermore, while there are no doubt many racists and nutjobs within the ranks of the Republican base, I doubt there are enough to keep Jindal from winning the nomination or cause major concerns in the general election (are they going to vote for Obama?). Jindal is after all, the popular Governor of a Southern state. And never underestimate the role that mindless partisanship plays in forming attitudes about candidates. Many of the same people who are convinced that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist will readily accept that Jindal is a patriotic God-fearing American. There won't be the same kind of rumor and whisper campaigns about him as there were about Obama.
Finally, while racism definitely exists in the Republican party, the opinion-makers and pundits in the party all like to think of themselves as colorblind (ala Stephen Colbert). Jindal is already a darling of the NRO types and they will support his candidacy enthusiastically. They desperately want their own Republican Obama.
If anything, I think the ugly end to this campaign has greatly increased Jindal's chances. The movers and shakers in the GOP will be eager to turn the page on this chapter and inoculate themselves from the charges--that are sure to persist throughout an Obama first term--that conservative hostility toward Obama is rooted in racism.
One last note before I get a bunch of comments on this. I'm not a big fan of Bobby Jindal. This has nothing to do with any normative assessment of his merits as a politician. I just think he's well positioned to be the GOP nominee come 2012, if he plays his card right (and *if* Obama wins next week!).
[W]hile there are plenty of 2012 GOP presidential aspirants who have reason to be unhappy with the McCain campaign's decisions over the last couple months (and, in particular, the Palin choice), a case could be made that no one's nearish-term prospects have been hurt more than Bobby Jindal's.I couldn't possibly disagree more with this logic. Assuming Obama wins this election, won't the moral of the story be that the GOP's racially loaded strategy didn't work? My sense is that many Republicans feel that the racial dynamics of the race (a black guy versus a white guy) have made the press hesistant to be "tough" on Obama and quick to call fouls on the McCain campaign and its surrogates. Nothing would neutralize such a dynamic and inoculate Republicans from charges of racism faster than nominating a dark-skinned candidate of their own. Indeed, I suspect that Jindal's race would provide him (and his allies) the cover to attack Obama in ways that other candidates could not. That will be awfully tempting to Republicans as they search for someone who can take on an incumbent Obama.
Though rarely explicit (and certainly not exclusive) a large portion of the GOP's closing argument this cycle has been to stoke white, working class fear and suspicion of the Other. The dark-skinned man with the foreign-sounding name may be a Muslim, or a socialist, or a friend of terrorists, or a racial huckster, or a fake U.S. citizen, or some other vague kind of "radical." You may never be sure which he is (maybe all of the above), but in your gut you simply don't "know" him the way you know the other candidates. This is not, to put it mildly, a message likely to benefit Bobby Jindal.
Now, yes, four years is a longer time in politics than it used to be. But I still don't see these toxins leaching out that quickly, particularly from a GOP that will, in all likelihood, continue trying to raise subliminal doubts about Obama's Americanness. Add to this the blunt fact that the GOP probably can't afford to lose racist white voters, especially in the South (you think a Jindal - Obama race wouldn't invite a conservative, white, third-party candidacy?), and I think Jindal's chance of being the nominee in 2012 is, despite his obvious talents, pretty close to nil. The GOP isn't going to be looking for its own Obama; it's going to be looking for an anti-Obama.
Furthermore, while there are no doubt many racists and nutjobs within the ranks of the Republican base, I doubt there are enough to keep Jindal from winning the nomination or cause major concerns in the general election (are they going to vote for Obama?). Jindal is after all, the popular Governor of a Southern state. And never underestimate the role that mindless partisanship plays in forming attitudes about candidates. Many of the same people who are convinced that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist will readily accept that Jindal is a patriotic God-fearing American. There won't be the same kind of rumor and whisper campaigns about him as there were about Obama.
Finally, while racism definitely exists in the Republican party, the opinion-makers and pundits in the party all like to think of themselves as colorblind (ala Stephen Colbert). Jindal is already a darling of the NRO types and they will support his candidacy enthusiastically. They desperately want their own Republican Obama.
If anything, I think the ugly end to this campaign has greatly increased Jindal's chances. The movers and shakers in the GOP will be eager to turn the page on this chapter and inoculate themselves from the charges--that are sure to persist throughout an Obama first term--that conservative hostility toward Obama is rooted in racism.
One last note before I get a bunch of comments on this. I'm not a big fan of Bobby Jindal. This has nothing to do with any normative assessment of his merits as a politician. I just think he's well positioned to be the GOP nominee come 2012, if he plays his card right (and *if* Obama wins next week!).
posted by A.L. at 11:56 AM
27 Comments:
"pundits in the party (like Steven Colbert)"????
That's a joke, right?
I phrased that poorly. I meant Republican pundits like to think of themselves as colorblind, i.e., the way Stephen Colbert always jokes that he can't even see race.
Excellent post - Yes, Jindal's conversion from Hinduism to Catholicism
will be seen as sincere.
For a variety of reasons -
They will see Jindal in
the tradition of Chesterton
and other popular conservative converts, while they always code
liberal intellectuals as non religious, the Hussein name, Rev. Wright,
Plus Jindal's stellar academic career will serve
as a passive aggressiv
racial argument in his favor with the NRO types. This will allow them to
extol the values and trads
of one ethnic group without
having to verbalize their
animosity toward blacks
and others who , in their opinion, receive undeserved affirmative
action.
Assuming Obama wins this election, won't the moral of the story be that the GOP's racially loaded strategy didn't work? My sense is that many Republicans feel that the racial dynamics of the race (a black guy versus a white guy) have made the press hesistant to be "tough" on Obama and quick to call fouls on the McCain campaign and its surrogates. Nothing would neutralize such a dynamic and inoculate Republicans from charges of racism faster than nominating a dark-skinned candidate of their own.
I'm going to assume that A.L. doesn't really know anything about modern conservatives. This post is a liberal's take on how they look at things, through a superficial view, whether its race or color or sexual orientation or whatever, and then project that on to conservatives.
The reality is that conservatives see Jindal, and Obama, as Americans first (except for the loonies trying to say Obama isn't an American citizen). After that comes the politics. Conservatives won't vote for Obama because he is a die-hard lefty, just like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or the myriad other liberal candidates thrown at the American people by the Democratic Party. But they would vote for Bobby Jindal for the same reasons they would vote for McCain (plus, Jindal has better conservative principles than McCain, as does Sarah Palin).
If anything, the only non-conservative whites who would not vote for Obama are liberal Democrats, not conservatives. That says more about liberals and their obsession with race than it says about conservatives.
Die hard lefty? Obama is well to right of FDR and Truman.
Why can't conservatives see that?
What is it about Obama that forces them to see
him as the most left wing ever?
Hmmmm
And remember Obama v. Keyes.
27% still voted for Keyes even though he was a non-native, radical partisan. The important part appeared to be the partisan.
What is it about Obama that forces them to see
him as the most left wing ever?
The Democratic Candidate for President is always the "most liberal" Senator/Governor/whatever in the nation...if you go by whoever releases that data. I have no doubt that if Hilary Clinton had won the nomination, she would have been touted as "the most liberal senator in the U.S." Same for John Edwards. The criteria would have been been weighted to insure that the Democratic Candidate could be saddled with that title.
What is it about Obama that forces them to see
him as the most left wing ever?
That whole "spread the wealth" thing had something to do with it. And he isn't the most left wing politician ever, Obama is the most left wing Presidential candidate ever, and it isn't just on economic policy.
I'd be surprised to see Obama, if President, as someone who is to the right of FDR or Truman. If elected, we'll see.
It's pretty obvious from his comment above that SteveIL doesn't know anything about modern conservatives either.
Oh Lord, I didn't catch the second incredibly stupid remark from SteveIL.
Steve your candidates act like Obama invented 'spreading the wealth' (love the way you use the exact Talking Points - makes it easier) and it's some Big Evil he'll use to screw everyone else. Marxism! Socialism! Otherism!
Can you name a single candidate or president or congressperson in history who wasn't involved in or crow about 'spreading the wealth'? What do you think McCain is doing on the stump?? He talks about 'spreading the wealth' like it's a Bad Thing, then turns around and talks about how *he* will spread the wealth and it's a Good Thing.
What incredible hypocrites they are.
Don't forget that Bobby Jindal is an Indian, a model minority in the eyes of money. Arabs are scarier Muslims who blow people up, Indians are hard working people with good food and a funny gods. It is sad, but true.
It's pretty obvious from his comment above that SteveIL doesn't know anything about modern conservatives either.
Sure I do. I am one. And I think someone who is a modern conservative would know one better than a liberal, don't ya think?
By the way, I wasn't using talking points, I was using Obama's own words. That's why I put "spread the wealth" in quotes; Obama's words, not mine, nor anyone else's. Here's the video that has Obama using those words.
He talks about 'spreading the wealth' like it's a Bad Thing, then turns around and talks about how *he* will spread the wealth and it's a Good Thing.
Now who is using talking points now? When has McCain said he would "spread the wealth"?
SteveIL I'm sure you're very nice in person, but you are NOT a conservative. You're what I refer to as a 'wacko' or 'wingnut' (please let me know if there's a more respectful word - I'm serious) who's co-opted the word 'conservative'. They are NOT the same. You are not a conservative, even if you wave their flag.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a difference. Please explain how McCain's 'spreading the wealth' is different than Obama saying "spreading the wealth". I'm sure it's very subtle yet meaningful, but I'm just too dense to get it.
I actually agree with the Christopher Orr. If Obama wins, the arguments that Republicans used against him won't go away. President Obama's every action will be scrutinized by Republicans, looking for any opening with which to paint him as someone in league with the enemy. Once people form an opinion of you, it's pretty hard to change their minds and they see everything you say or do through that prism. If they like you, they're more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt. If they don't like you, they'll be quick to believe anything negative that's said about you. Nominating Jindal will remove the strongest argument that Republicans can use against Obama. Plus, it will be seen as a token pick, the same way Palin's selection is viewed. McCain picked her for gender and managed to drive the Hillary supporters into Obama's camp. Voters will see right through the nomination of Jindal. Insult the even limited intelligence of the American public and they'll turn against you.
SteveIL I'm sure you're very nice in person, but you are NOT a conservative. You're what I refer to as a 'wacko' or 'wingnut' (please let me know if there's a more respectful word - I'm serious) who's co-opted the word 'conservative'.
Please, and I am serious, explain to me how I am not a conservative.
Please explain how McCain's 'spreading the wealth' is different than Obama saying "spreading the wealth". I'm sure it's very subtle yet meaningful, but I'm just too dense to get it.
I'm sure you're not dense. But allow me to explain it as I see it. McCain is not "spreading the wealth" as you put it. He's talking about creating opportunity, providing people with the ability to create jobs, which in and of itself creates more opportunity. This can be done by better regulation and low tax rates for everyone.
Obama, on the other hand, wants a higher tax rate (on an already high progressive tax system) in the mistaken belief that a higher rate brings in more money (Bush's tax rate cuts brought in huge amounts of revenue, but neither he or the Republicans followed that up with spending cuts). And then he wants to expand the government like those in European countries, which has been a disaster (they can't defend themselves; and leave that to the US).
Besides, we've seen "spread the wealth" policies in countries like the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. It did bring economic equality for the masses in those nations; everyone was dirt poor except for those in the governments that ruled those countries. Why do you think Communist China abandoned that policy in many respects? Why do you think most European nations have begun questioning their cradle-to-grave nanny-state policies?
Sure, Steveil is a conservative. Not an intellectual conservative, nor a rational one, and in fact, based on what he just gave us, not even a coherent one, but he is sure convinced that he wants to conserve something.
Steveil,
What was the tax rate for the highest earners under Nixon, Ford, or Reagan? You might look this up and if you find it to be higher than that which Mr. Obama proposes ask yourself, "were those Republican presidents socialists because they allowed our tax system to spread the wealth?" If you answer, yes, than I would agree with you that Obama is also a socialist. I must say, your logic and reasoning are highly flawed and you would do well to study up on some history of taxation rates before peddling this kind of b.s. Also, you might benefit from reading a biography of FDR before making such sweeping statements.
warm regards.
another point: spreading the wealth is what government does...it may sound bad, but we take money (wealth) through taxation and spread it to the military, dept. of education, etc. this benefits all citizens. your dream of a regressive tax system would inevitably lead to the nightmare of further deficits and/or huge spending cuts in valuable services.
"in the mistaken belief that a higher rate brings in more money (Bush's tax rate cuts brought in huge amounts of revenue, but neither he or the Republicans followed that up with spending cuts)."
This is incorrect, and based on outmoded assumptions. When Charlie Gibson asked the capital-gains question during the Philly debate, he created a false premise that "reducing capital gains increases revenue."
Capital Gains tax revenue did increase in the short term, but appeared to have dropped in the long-term, in this round of cuts and in previous rounds.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/taking_liberties_in_philadelphia.html
"And then he wants to expand the government like those in European countries, which has been a disaster (they can't defend themselves; and leave that to the US)."
Um, what proof do you have for this? How has it been disastrous? Their health care is constantly rated better than ours, and the socialist Scandanavian countries consistently rank in the top 5 of the Quality of Life surveys.
We do spend a ridiculous amount more on our army than do other countries, but this doesn't mean those countries can't protect themselves.
Furthermore, how prepared is the US if a major attack were to happen? We're overspent and understaffed b/c of the Iraq war. Now we're attacking Syria? Fantastic.
Think about some of your underlying assumptions a bit more, they're factually flawed or more nuanced than you make them out to be, and it's intellectually sloppy.
I have worked in tax since 1981 and I believe that a couple of commenters in this thread do not understand how the tax system works and has worked in practice.
It is sweet of Steve to believe that high-income tax payers necessariy pay high income tax rates - some do to be sure but many many do not. For instance, my wealthiest client has made over $30 million in each of the last three years as a hedge fund manager but has paid only around 16% of his income properly measured in federal income tax. Numerous retired clients with investment income in the $500K to $1 million range pay an effective federal tax rate of less than 10% and occassionaly less than 5%.
Conservatives can make the argument if they wish that raising taxes on individuals like these will harm the economy but it is not appropriate to argue, as Steve does, that the effective tax rates on these individuals are high. Many taxpayers making 100s of times less than the hedge fund manager pay a higher effective tax rate than he does.
Eric said:
What was the tax rate for the highest earners under Nixon, Ford, or Reagan? You might look this up and if you find it to be higher than that which Mr. Obama proposes ask yourself, "were those Republican presidents socialists because they allowed our tax system to spread the wealth?"
Immaterial. Besides, Dems had a majority in Congress under Nixon and Ford, and they weren't going to lower taxes come hell or high water; Reagan had a Dem House to contend with, and he still got taxes lowered. Plus, defense spending was a much higher percentage of the budget then than it is now.
By the way Brian, I've seen the OMB numbers on tax revenues since 2006 (page 33 of the PDF file), while the Bush tax cuts were in place (look at the difference between the 2005 and 2006 numbers). They are over the $2.5 trillion mark, the highest ever; unfortunately, spending was consistently higher than that. I wouldn't take FactCheck.org too seriously.
We do spend a ridiculous amount more on our army than do other countries, but this doesn't mean those countries can't protect themselves.
We spend more, but not ridiculously more than some (I believe France spends nearly 3% of its GDP on defense, a little lower than the U.S.). Defense is roughly 4% of GDP, or about a quarter of the budget. It is dwarfed by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which make up almost half the budget (look in that PDF file for the numbers), and that's just three programs.
another point: spreading the wealth is what government does...
No. Defending the nation and enforcing laws is what any government does, even ours, and has been the case throughout history (real history, not revisionist Marxist, liberal history). That is always the first priority, or the rest of it, even doing the "spread the wealth" thing, is moot.
where should we get the money to defend the nation and enforce the laws? Is it your personal opinion that this is all the country should be doing? I guess the problem here rests on the fact that you have not provided any sense of what you would want to eliminate when we stop spreading the wealth. what type of tax system do you support? How hawkish is your foreign policy? you need to provide some information for my revisionist Marxist mind.
When talking with the likes of Steveil, you have to keep a few things in mind. First, anything you point out that contradicts anything Steveil holds dear is "immaterial." Second, any authorities that don't support his viewpoint "shouldn't be taken too seriously".
Third, by cherry-picking your datapoints, and by ignoring the cost of the Iraq War (much of which is off the budget) you can pretend that defense spending is a fraction of what it actually is. For a true estimate, look for a paper by Bilmes and Stiglitz.
By ignoring inflation and using absolute numbers for money, you can pretend that revenue has never been higher. But make sure you use inflation-adjusted numbers for anything you want to go the other way, like spending, so it sounds worse.
It's rarely worth the effort to uncover all the half-truths, cherry-picked datapoints, and to find authoritative data that the closed-mind conservatives will accept, so it's not worth bothering.
I guess the problem here rests on the fact that you have not provided any sense of what you would want to eliminate when we stop spreading the wealth.
Now, this is me, and nobody else. I'm not running for office; but if I were, I would do the following:
Get rid of the Departments of Education, Transportation, Energy, the EPA, HUD, Commerce, Transportation, and merge some of the functions that should remain into the other Departments.
Implement Bush's Social Security Plan (it was a helluva good idea).
Implement McCain's health plan (it actually is cheaper and smarter than Obama's). Have employer-provided health insurance be used for catastrophic care, not the basics (physicals, regular checkups, etc.) which should be handled out of pocket. Implement tort reform to keep shysters (John Edwards) from profiting off of frivolous lawsuits, but still making sure real lawsuits are handled. This would be the first steps into lowering health care costs and allowing more people to be insured. This would allow for a phaseout of Medicare, and possibly Medicaid.
There. I've cut the budget by about $1 trillion. Now I can keep the progressive tax system in place, but lower the rates for everyone. How cool is that?
How hawkish is your foreign policy?
I would use tough diplomacy, but not the phony tough diplomacy Obama talks about. I'm talking the tough diplomacy used by JFK and Reagan. Get the CIA back into the assassination and spying businesses. Upgrade nukes. Maintain large ground and naval force (volunteer).
...and by ignoring the cost of the Iraq War...
And do you know why I ignore the cost of the Iraq war? Because the costs of the Iraq war pale in comparison to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; these three cost more in one year than the entire cost of the Iraq War up to this point, and those three are increasing, while costs for the Iraq War will eventually go down to nothing in a short amount of time (a few years).
c2h50h,
i totally understand what you are saying...i was just kind of trying to get him to think about what spreading the wealth actually means...now i have drawn out his true views and they are an appropriate basis for the asinine things he was saying.
wow. praising the bush social security plan is one i don't hear all too often these days.
Steve,
I'm sure you mean well and I think you are sincere in your beliefs.
But if you think Obama's plans (esp economics) are
remotely as liberal/left
as Truman or FDR, than
I suggest you hit the books.
Or maybe you could read
Truman of FDR's platforms.
My guess is that you are like many of my conservative friends - You see everyone in a black and white photo as sort of conservative and you see blacks differently.
Bush's SS plan was stupid. Btw. It would have undermined the pay as you go formula for Social Sec. That's what made social security so successful
wow. praising the bush social security plan is one i don't hear all too often these days.
Maybe because people didn't take it seriously enough. Social Security, as it is handled today, is unsustainable. Increasing payroll tax rates simply prolongs things but doesn't solve the problem of its eventual insolvency. Cutting benefits will piss people off. Bush's plan was a good compromise as it avoids both problems, and is still optional, providing people a choice to opt-in to the savings plan part of it.
I was born in the same year as Obama, just after the "baby boom". I expect to see next to nothing from Social Security when I retire, and neither will tens of millions of others, even if the payroll tax rate is increased now and further down the road. I don't expect Congress to stop robbing from Social Security to pay for other things, and no amount of revenues from a tax rate hike will fix it (and will be counter-productive anyway).
Conservatives are accused of looking backwards and sticking to tradition and blah, blah, blah. Social Security is a dinosaur whose benefits went extinct years ago. Yet liberals want this to stay in place without any changes to it, except to increase taxes to fund it. Who is stuck in the Dark Ages? It sure isn't conservatives.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home