Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Things are getting uglier and uglier over at the National Review. Ever since Kathleen Parker and Christopher Buckley refused to jump on the Palin bandwagon, there's been open warfare coming from their offices. Parker writes in the Washington Post that having to please the religious right is what is afflicting the GOP at the moment:
As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.
She's right, of course. And she's hardly the only one saying it. Jonah Goldberg responds with quite a catty little tirade at NRO:
I don't know what's more grating, the quasi-bigotry that has you calling religious Christians low brows, gorillas and oogedy-boogedy types or the bravery-on-the-cheap as you salute -- in that winsome way -- your own courage for saying what (according to you) needs to be said. Please stop bragging about how courageous you are for weathering a storm of nasty email you invite on yourself by dancing to a liberal tune. You aren't special for getting nasty email, from the right or the left. You aren't a martyr smoking your last cigarette. You're just another columnist, talented and charming to be sure, but just another columnist. You are not Joan of the Op-Ed Page. Perhaps the typical Washington Post reader (or editor) doesn't understand that. But you should, and most conservatives familiar with these issues can see through what you're doing.For the record, I have no problem with arguments about how the GOP has become too religious. I ended my book with pretty much that argument. I opposed Mike Huckabee vociferously because he seemed the quintessential rightwing progressive imbued with a rightwing social gospel. These are all good arguments to make and they have good responses to them. But please drop the nonsense about how the G-O-D people or the Palin people are low brows and beasts. There are low brows and beasts everywhere, on every side of the ideological spectrum. Maybe if you got more ecumenical hate email you'd realize that.
Goldberg is, of course, beating up a straw man. Parker never called the religious right folks "beasts." The reference to gorillas was obviously a reference to the analogy of the "gorilla in the room" that no one wants to talk about -- and Goldberg would be the first one to throw a fit if a liberal claimed he had called some target of criticism a gorilla if he had used the same cultural reference.
But on the substance, she is absolutely right. Yes, the religious right supports a whole range of ideas that are not just "low brow" but downright ignorant, from creationism to stem cell research. And yes, the more the GOP has to kowtow to that constituency on those issues, the more the educated middle moves in the other direction.
This is fun to watch, isn't it?
Politics
Comments
Holy shit. Some of them are finally turning their brains on?
Posted by: Josh | November 21, 2008 9:43 AM
I read her column yesterday and thought she hit it right on the head. The Religious Right co-opted the word "Conservative" and ruined the Republican party. I'm really surprised that Parker is still at the NRO. She doesn't really fit with them anymore. She's actually a smart conservative.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | November 21, 2008 9:47 AM
Anyone who thinks that Jonah Goldberg is a nutcase should consider his mother, Lucianne who claims to have had a tryst with Harry Truman. Not very likely.
Posted by: SLC | November 21, 2008 10:00 AM
You have to just love Goldberg's duck and weave here:
The issue, of course, is that the Republican party has openly and proudly caved into their low brows and beasts. Of course Goldberg knows this, but he is relying on his readership being way too stupid to see past his deceit.
Posted by: william e emba | November 21, 2008 10:08 AM
Nothing would make me happier, than if people such as these kicked the Religious Right and SoCons to the curb. This would result in a split, which would in turn be the birth of an instantly viable 3rd party. But beyond that, it would open the door to more than just a 3rd party but perhaps a 4th or 5th. This is what the founders envisioned from the get-go and not a two party system that puts partisanship above everything else.
And just for the record, the Religious Right did not co-opt the word Conservative, it has always meant traditional values and a moral standard in conjunction with Fiscal responsibility.
Posted by: Joseph | November 21, 2008 10:14 AM
Well it seems like the war is joined for whether we're going to have a real opposition party. That Parker piece was a fun read.
Although I think brooks was right in saying that in the short term the religious morons will win, although maybe Palin herself is too dumb even for them. The election wiped out all the moderates in powerful elected positions and so it's unlikely that anyone in power is going to be listening to Parker and the like.
But if they loose again on the "we're stupid and proud of it" platform 4 years from now there will probably be a change.
Posted by: Coriolis | November 21, 2008 10:23 AM
The question is, why did they turn them off to begin with, and when will they turn them off again?
Posted by: Greg Esres | November 21, 2008 10:26 AM
Ed, the way you worded it makes it sound like you think they support the ignorant idea of stem cell research. I think, to clarify, you mean that they ignorantly OPPOSE stem cell research.
Posted by: Pither | November 21, 2008 10:31 AM
Anyone know the etymology of "oogedy-boogedy"?
Posted by: nal | November 21, 2008 10:44 AM
Ever since Parker's initial "drop Palin" article, I've grown to like her more and more. As a conservative (not socially, but fiscally) I've found the Republican party absolutely disgusting on the majority of the issues, purely because of its pandering to the religious right.
It's important to point out that Parker doesn't say "all Christians." She's actually referring to the oogedy-boogedy eyed subset, or, as I like to call them, all Christians.
Posted by: JStein | November 21, 2008 10:45 AM
Ask any college football fan and you'll get the right answer quick--because winning cures all. So long as the Republicans were holding on to power, most of the party didn't much mind turning their brains off to keep the oogedy-boogedy branch of their party on board and keep the win streak going. Now that the oogedy-boogedy branch can't bring in the elections, the winning glue is no longer holding the coalition together.
Perhaps we'll get to see yet another redefinition of what "conservatism" is. Considering the last one brought us the idea that "conservatism" involved creationism, global warming denial, torture, elimination of estate and capital gains taxes, and Social Security privatization, I'm waiting with baited breath.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 21, 2008 10:50 AM
God, it'll just be too much fun to watch when and if it actually does come to all-out civil war within the Republican party. Somebody bring the popcorn!
And "Oogedy Boogedy" is my new favorite phrase.
Posted by: Rob Lll | November 21, 2008 11:02 AM
Posted by: llewelly | November 21, 2008 11:05 AM
There must have been a power surge shorting out irony meters everywhere. How else could Jonah Goldberg, a charter member of the 101st Fighting Keyboards, have dared take on parker for her (accurately enough described) faux-courage in enduring nasty e-mails and internet posts because of what she wrote?
Posted by: CJColucci | November 21, 2008 11:06 AM
Ooogedy Boogedy Christian = Armband Wearing Christian
HTH :)
Posted by: J-Dog | November 21, 2008 11:15 AM
Joseph stated:
While you nailed the rhetoric Joseph, please provide one example of American conservatives in power practicing fiscal responsibility at the federal level. I'm 48 and it certainly has never happened in my lifetime. In fact, if one tracks which ideology is are spendthrifts and which ideology increases the debt/GDP ratio since 1940, they have proven to the be most irresponsible ideology regarding fiscal responsibility.
Here is a graph of the debt created: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
I believe you are confusing their rhetoric with their actual policy actions. And please, do not use a "No True Scotsman" argument on me for President Bush. Bush had a GOP majority Congress most of his tenure accepting his budgets.
Reagan's budgets were tweaked by only by less than a percentage point by a Dem majority Congress so he wasn't forced to deficit spend, those spending plans were his budget with the exception that he greatly overforecast his future tax revenues given that supply side economics only works in ridicuously high tax margin societies.
Reagan's deficits were largely generated by irresponsibly using a untested and ultimately failing economic theory, supply side economics, where his tax cuts led to increased federal debt which crowded out access to credit by private capital investors, leading to higher real interest rates, which led to depressed economic growth, which in turn caused tax receipts to come in lower than his budgets predicted.
Only later in his term after Reagan responded to his initial failures by turning to monetarism with Fed Policy and Kenyesian budgetary principles did he get the financial house to start to be in order. But Reagan's ultimate reform was ignored in 2001 since Reagan version 1980 won Bush the election in 2000 and once again, we saw incredible debt growth due to incredible budgetary misses on tax receipts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 21, 2008 11:24 AM
The GOP strategy apparently is, as illustrated by Goldberg and Mike Huckabee on MSNBC, to ignore that Parker and others are criticizing a subset of Christians, and pretend they are asking all Christians to leave the party.
In other words, their response to being accused of intellectual dishonesty in pandering to stupid people is to give an intellectually dishonest response that will only persuade stupid people. [applause]
Posted by: Science Avenger | November 21, 2008 11:50 AM
In terms of giggle-inducing ability, "the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP" ranks up there with "wide-eyed gollygeeism" that Ed coined a while back. I read it and emitted an involuntary snort that had at least one co-worker looking at me funny.
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 21, 2008 11:53 AM
A primary I reason I decided to leave the GOP this past electoral season was that I think reform of the GOP is impossible in the short term. This debate is not surprising with no clear way out of the fix they've got themselves into.
By 2000, and reinforced in 2004, the GOP ruling class (Bush and Rove), thought they had a perfect marriage when in fact they'd married Satan's whore previous GOP leaders merely slept with enough to keep the votes coming in.
That marriage was best described in Thomas Franks' prescient book, "What's the Matter with Kansas", which described a party run by plutocrats servicing their financial donors while supported with voters who voted against their financial interests as long as they were talked to the way they liked being talked to and thrown a social issue bone occasionally. Hell, the GOP was even willing to give them SCOTUS since conservative justices tend to favor business interests over citizens (supporting the plutocrats) while also forcing minorities to prove a right rather than defending our rights (supporting social conservatives).
What they didn't plan on was that their rank incompetence would get them throw out while "The Hammer" (Tom Delay) drove moderates out of the party, which were supplanted with incompetent social conservatives. They just didn't have the time to effectively gerrymander the districts; if Bush had been competent, we'd have seen a permanent party in power post-2008 given they'd had adequate time to finish their gerrymandering efforts.
Net effect given Bush's failure to perform - the GOP is now primarily a party of social conservatives whose ideology is everything to them. Therefore they will not compromise on their issues and there too few competent leaders left to get enough voters to support them.
If the GOP rejects social conservatism, it becomes a party with virtually no one, certainly not enough to win a majority of voters over. This party is going to be in the wilderness a good long while.
If Obama stays center-left rather than veering hard left, there will not a be viable vaccuum to generate a viable third party, which is what I'd like to see, a party of moderates/libertarians. What I find interesting is that a center-left Obama presidency could yield such a creature if we see union membership continue to decrease and if he runs the economy competently enough, like Clinton did only he has far bigger challenges.
So I say, watch the GOP for the sheer entertainment value, but watch the Dems to see what's in store for a legimate dissenting party if one is able to rise. Either a reformed GOP, a third party, or one dominant party -the Dems.
Things are going to get interesting. I'll make one prediction. Look for the GOP to consider Mike Huckabee to be their leader and get liberal on fiscal issues to attract Hispanic voters. Social conservatives might concede on immigration if they can keep their Christianist desires, along with fighting against abortion and gay rights. I watched Huckabee on Rachel Maddow last night and he's making a move for the GOP to truly become a populist party, not the quarter-one that Nixon/Reagan/Bush 43 crafted.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 21, 2008 11:58 AM
Truth in labeling, or "names matter."
Isn't it time to change the last letter of "GOP?" Why not go the whole route and rename "Republican Party" to "Party of God?"
That last has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 21, 2008 12:17 PM
I always thought of the recent incarnation of the GOP as the Compassionate Conservative Christian Party: CCCP. (Hey, it's they're rhetoric, so why not let them wear the label?)
Posted by: mercurianferret | November 21, 2008 12:22 PM
... and their party color is - already - red...
Posted by: mercurianferret | November 21, 2008 12:24 PM
GOP = God's Own Party?
Posted by: GuyIncognito | November 21, 2008 12:55 PM
D. C. Sessions: Why not go the whole route and rename "Republican Party" to "Party of God?"
And in Arabic, that would be Hezbollah.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 21, 2008 1:14 PM
I think that conservatives and liberals do need to redefine themselves and possibly recreate political parties that truly reflect their values. From my perspective both traditional liberals and conservatives have reasonable and honorable philosophies while political parties such as the dems and republicans adopt or reject the values that they feel will get them elected. To be conservative or liberal is to hold certain beliefs and focus on certain approaches to the problems of a complex society. For instance conservatives value economic freedom and social order more while liberals value social freedoms and ecomomic controls more. The party platforms of today (especially the republican party)resemble these original values less as time goes on. I think the time is ripe to discuss the contradictions becoming visible as the coalitions that make up our political parties begin to unravel.
M Duran
Posted by: Mark Duran | November 21, 2008 1:21 PM
Chris Hedges, Randall Balmer, Frank Schaeffer and many others who call themselves "evangelical" have been saying exactly what Parker, et al., are now saying publicly.
Posted by: bonefish | November 21, 2008 1:26 PM
Remember, though, these folks don't recognize themselves as any "subset" of Christians. They are the Christians, period, and there are no others (unless you're counting votes in favor of nativity displays in front of the courthouse).
Posted by: Scott Hanley | November 21, 2008 1:27 PM
Blast it, Chiroptera, you gave it away.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 21, 2008 1:35 PM
The other problem with the right wing is their tendency to be offensively sexist: selecting an ignoramus in high heels and lipstick as vice-presidential candidate in order to draw the female vote is one example, and this idiot's diatribe about a 'charming' female journalist he doesn't approve of is another. I wish I could say he at least has a cute ass, but this does not appear to be the case.
Posted by: Pen | November 21, 2008 1:52 PM
MarkD stated:
MarkD - Respectfully, I believe you are confusing conservative rhetoric with conservative actions. I would argue conservatives do not have a valid argument to govern anything, it's a failed ideology in terms of governing, all it is rhetoric which even they've failed to prove can govern.
In regards to "economic freedom", conservatives espouse that when its convenient rhetorically, but they then for example, overwhelmingly promote increased barriers for immigrants and promote the deportation of millions of working immigrants. Business-friendly moderates in the party and libertarians are ones promoting the economic freedom interests of businesses and workers.
A second example is that conservatives are on-board with big entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and even Medicaid. They even support forcing businesses to co-pay for these programs regardless whether they or their employees choose to participate. When plutocrats like Bush tried to reform Social Security, his party's voting constituents - the conservatives, smacked him down big time, not even a whimper was expelled they crushed him so hard.
A third example is that conservatives have a history of jerry-rigging how businesses write-off capital investments (depreciation expense). They use this tax code to favor one business or industry who funds their campaigns in order to harm a competing business or industry.
A fourth example would be subsidies to certain industries and trade barriers which reduces our economic freedom. For example, in many states it's virtually impossible to purchase wine over the Internet and have it shipped to your house, that's in order to protect wholesaler's within the state, which reduces consumer's freedoms to buy what they want how they want it.
"Social order" - The Democrats have just as extensive history on law enforcement as conservatives. Biden increased police power on drug users, Clinton put more cops in the streets, and the Democrats tend to favor gun control laws that are consistent with what Attorney Generals, Prosecuting Attorneys, and some but not all police organizations lobby for. If you are using "social order" to refer to their policies to deny gays their rights, well, I would argue that's a misapplication of a label since there is no stats in gay-friendly gov't districts that any sort of order is threatened when gays marry.
This is what makes the current state of the GOP so interesting. All that's left are voters incapable of governing with an ideology that is also incapable of governing. The actual moderates and plutocrats who were capable still exist, but have been greatly reduced in numbers and their power's been marginalized to a point it's merely localized (e.g., a governor in a state like CA's Arnold S.).
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 21, 2008 1:52 PM
More importantly, Ed, who do you like in tonight's Michigan-Duke game?
Posted by: tomh | November 21, 2008 2:27 PM
Why is Jonah Goldberg famous?
Because his mother betrayed her friend.
Aside from that, he brings nothing to the table.
Posted by: RickD | November 21, 2008 2:39 PM
ichael Heath. With the utmost respect...I agree with your condemnation of conseravtive actions. However your anaysis of conservative rhetoric versus conservative actions does not match up with my current understanding of American politics. I think that you are conflating conservative rhetoric with republican actions. There are, in my opinion,key ideas that inform conservative beliefs regardless of the fact that the republican party and even some who call themnselves "conservative" have lost sight of. I am hoping, perhaps in vain for the republican party to remember the philosophical foundations of conservatism that informed their party as they tramsformed themselves in the early part of the last century.
Always enjoy your posts
M Duran
Posted by: Mark Duran | November 21, 2008 2:44 PM
Uh, oh. Before you start trying to make distinction akin to "Judean People's Liberation Front" vs "People's Liberation front of Judea" (or the IRA vs. the "REAL" IRA), why not say who you are talking about as the "Real" conservatives (as opposed to the GOP who merely "call" themselves conservative)?
Posted by: Umlud | November 21, 2008 3:20 PM
Umlud:
Barry Goldwater:
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 21, 2008 4:39 PM
Mark rebutted my points with this core point:
This is the "no true Scotsman" argument and I understand it is very popular right now within conservative circles and when the mainstream media defines the GOP. I also understand that my point of view on this matter is not a common one. However, it comes after careful deliberation after being the in the party for 29 years and a heavy dose of history. Heck, there are even books that started getting published claiming that Bush and the DeLay Congress are Republicans who are not really conservatives. Pat Buchanan wrote a couple of them where he claimed the party wasn't supporting conservatism, especially regarding spending, free trade, and foreign interventionism.
Simply put - I would argue that the GOP must look forward at today's issues and how they should best fix them. Looking backward at uniquely conservative ideas and trying to put forth policy proposals for today's issues that fits within what is understood to be uniquely conservative ideology might get them reelected, but I guarantee will cause their policy actions to be a disaster. This is exactly what Bush did and it failed miserably, most of Reagan's failures (what few there were), can also be attributed to this same mindset.
The Republican party has had success in the past, but I can not find those successes came from implementing uniquely conservative ideas, instead they were successful when the party's leadership considered pragmatic, moderate, RealPolitik, or in Reagan's case when it came to negotiations with the USSR on nuclear weapons or Nixon on pollution or China - they adopted liberal ideas.
I think the best perspective out there right now on how to fix the GOP and call it conservative is coming from Andrew Sullivan. The problem is that what Sullivan thinks of as conservatism, informed by his study of Michael Oakeshott and best laid out in his book, "The Conservative Soul", is a form of conservatism that is not what Americans consider conservative, especially today's conservatives.
Consider what conservatism really is and ask yourself, in a global economy, can America really enact:
isolationism or interventionism (an example of another type of conservative defect - inconsistency)
huge tariffs or unfettered free trade (more conflicting behavior),
limited government when our global competitors are bearing the brunt of costs so private industry doesn't - like health care,
religious faith informs policy rather than scientific findings coupled with functional excellence,
etc., etc., etc.
I believe conservatism is dead, it's as dead as LBJ/Humphrey liberalism on domestic policy for the poor. If conservatism successfully comes back under that name in terms of excellent governance, previous practioners will not be able to recognize it. This summer I went back to Barry Goldwater's seminal book, "The Conscience of a Conservative" and could not find one argument regarding conservatism that would work today except those already held by libertarians or liberals.
I don't know a way out for the Republican party given their voter base that would cause me to go back. There is an opportunity for Republicans to be competent again, plenty of ideas that are rejected by Democrats and liberals - but they are not conservative, they are pragmatic.
Mark - if you can match up a uniquely conservative idea that has worked and you believe it could work given today's world, I'd love to see it. I didn't come to my position quickly, it took me years to get this pessimistic regarding conservatism. I am very open to having my notion, and that's all it is, falsified. I want a successful GOP, but I want success to be equated with optimal results and maximum freedom, and I find their ideas wanting.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 21, 2008 5:10 PM
Many years ago in the early sixties our neighbor, a Republican would argue with my farther, a Democrat. At no time did I hear anything in the conversation about social values. On those issues both of them thought much the same and both considered themselves Christian.
Posted by: Hathor | November 21, 2008 6:51 PM
Many years ago in the early sixties our neighbor, a Republican would argue with my farther, a Democrat. At no time did I hear anything in the conversation about social values. On those issues both of them thought much the same and both considered themselves Christian.
Posted by: Hathor | November 21, 2008 6:58 PM
Christ, when doesn't Jonah Goldberg sound catty or bitchy? He's a portly version of Tim Gunn with a Division III lib arts degree.
Oh, and his mom's a hideous bitch too.
Posted by: CHV | November 21, 2008 7:19 PM
Huckabee has two serious obstacles to being the Republican nominee:
1) He must shed the "lovable loser" tag he gained during the last Republican primary. While he did win Iowa and a few southern states on Super Tuesday, the establishment didn't really take him all that seriously as a contender. Remaining in the race long after McCain had the nomination sewn up, didn't help his cause.
2) He has to stop (or greatly tone down) his support for the "Fair Tax". Even if the idea had merit (which I seriously doubt) there is simply no way the USA is going to abolish the progressive income tax system in favor of a flat consumption tax. There is just no groundswell of support or political impetus for such a move apart from a feeble far-right grassroots movement that can't get past first base (that being how to sell a 30% -- perhaps up to 37% -- federal sales tax to the American public). An experiment like that makes reforming the countries healthcare system or achieving energy independence look like a cakewalk.
Huck is fun to watch, but no way he gets the Republican nomination if he can't solve these problems.
Posted by: tacitus | November 21, 2008 7:47 PM
I'm glad a few Republicans(or those who call themselves such), are apparently coming to their senses. The Republican Party has essentially been a prisoner of the religious far right, not just for the last 8 years, but more likely, for the last 25 or so.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | November 21, 2008 8:35 PM
The inherent problem with conservatism is that it inevitably teeters on the brink of reactionary populism, a brink that the Republicans slid down many years ago. I don't think this is something that can be removed from conservative thought; the reactionary tendencies will always exist in portions of the electorate, and conservative politicians will, sooner or later, tap into it to the detriment of society and, ultimately, their party. The reactionary policies of the Republicans have swung too far, and now the party must begin the long, hard slog of prying their party away from the aptly-named "oogedy-boogedy" crowd.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 21, 2008 9:05 PM
@ tacitus:
Hey, it could be worse. Most Republicans, when they got in power for what they thought was forever in 2000, stopped talking about the Flat Tax because they were salivating after a Poll Tax i.e. everybody pays the same dollar amount. 8 more years in control of all three branches and they would have done it.
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 21, 2008 9:20 PM
I am a supporter of the FairTax, which would replace income and wealth taxes including those posed on businesses, with a national consumption tax. I think that is exactly what a rejuvenated GOP should promote. I also would like to see more debate on the FairTax since the falsification efforts against it have been incredibly weak and unpersuasive.
A 1997 survey found that consumption taxes are the optimal tax scheme to promote economic growth.
Selling the public on the FairTax has been, and will continue to be, exceptionally difficult so I'm pessimistic we'll ever even get a fair debate.
For example, tacticus states the FairTax would increase prices by 30%, potentially 37%. Yes, however, one must remember the goods and services you would be purchasing would see costs go down 17% because businesses would no longer have any employer-contributed employee witholding taxes, corporate income taxes, or capital gains taxes. In addition, consumers would be paying with pre-tax income, they would no longer have any withholding taxes deducted from their pay check, that includes Social Security and Medicare taxes. The FairTax would also send a prebate, which would be a check to every household, that would be the equivalent of the taxes based on living at the poverty level, so the poor would still not be paying taxes and would pay even less for goods and services than previously since they wouldn't be paying the portion of the price a seller builds in for their social security and Medicare withholding a drop in the price of goods and services they purchased would drop by 17%.
The difficulty in selling this idea is the following:
1) People, including most conservatives, like the progressive tax and the FairTax is NOT a progressive tax though the prebate does benefit those at or near the poverty level. People earning, say $75K/year, would be paying a higher percentage of their gross income than people making $400K/yr.
2) Education is imperative, for example, tacticus' incomplete description. One should remember that it's not our tax rate that is important, but our after-tax income. For example, people paying 39.6% on income taxes in the 1990's made more in after-tax income and wealth combined than they did in this decade where their rate is 35%. Why? Because the economy grew more in the 1990s as did their median income through better job opportunities, along with the stock market. So we need to teach people to stop worrying about what their neighbor is paying relative to them and instead focus more on whether a tax scheme will result in more job opportunities for them, along with a better business climate so their savings grow and they get paid more. I state this as someone who rejects supply side economics, thinks the FlatTax is a horrible idea and too punitive on the middle class and poor, and thinks Clinton's more progressive tax scheme is superior to Bush's. The FairTax is a paradigm crusher and needs consideration outside of the paradigm of income taxes and their progressive structure to truly understand its benefits, and yes, its costs.
3) I strongly believe the biggest benefactors from the FairTax will be employees and the middle class. I think they will be skeptical because it appears that it would benefit the rich more; it would take a magazine length article for me to argue this point, my apologizes for being provocative and not supporting my assertion. I sympathasize on people's skepticism given the gross performance of supply side economics and the shrillness of GOP rhetoric that a small bump in the top rate is "socialism" while at the same time the GOP subsidizes the financial industry.
4) The FairTax does favor producers, not consumers. It would make us more of producer economy than a consumer economy, similiar to the 1950s - 1960s, but also the 1990s when certain industries soared. I believe we've swung radically towards consumerism under Bush at the expense of jobs and pay in terms relative to both tangible goods, but also intellectual services.
The FairTax would attract businesses world-wide and bring trillions of off-shore funds avoiding taxes back into America's realm and therefore adding much needed capital to an incredibly weak capital market. Imagine if you were a businessman and could locate in America and pay no income, witholding, or wealth taxes! Your businesses would still pay taxes on what they consume (toilet paper, outsourced accounting services), but none on what it sold or direct materials, including the component of the current price that goes towards suppliers' income, wealth, and employee withholding taxes.
4) While it has some solid support by economists, it needs support from less-extreme right wing people to get considered. Because it's tax receipt/revenue - neutral, it isn't really a right wing / left wing idea by nature except its non-progressive nature. However, it would greatly reduce influence on politicians by businesses (though it won't eradicate it), plus citizens would have much greater transparency into what portion of their income they pay now that actually goes towards taxes. For example, most never consider that they are paying the taxes of the goods and serivces they buy beyond state/local sales taxes plus they're using after-tax money now. Their capital gains and dividends taxes are also taxed with after-tax income. A FairTax will let them know exactly how much they're paying plus the government would have to get voter approval to raise/lower the tax, which I believe greatly increases transparency into taxes and spending plus creates a more engaged electorate who will be vocal about spending priorities.
I highly recommend reading the second FairTax book (fifth book down the page). This review is mine and elaborates on some problems I have with the thesis and furthers my arguments on why I support it though with some qualification: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AI9ZL7F6SS3KO/ref=cm_cr_auth/002-8727792-0491231?_encoding=UTF8
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 21, 2008 10:10 PM
Lurkbot -
"Hey, it could be worse. Most Republicans, when they got in power for what they thought was forever in 2000, stopped talking about the Flat Tax because they were salivating after a Poll Tax i.e. everybody pays the same dollar amount. 8 more years in control of all three branches and they would have done it."
What does this mean exactly?
The amount of taxes paid has widened steadily from 1980 to 2006 according to the IRS, and in no way resembles a "Poll Tax"
See
"The 24th Amendment Ended the Poll Tax"
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/
Posted by: Rich | November 21, 2008 11:15 PM
Micheal Heath: I like you and you are smart. But, Fair Tax = Bullshit.
Posted by: jws | November 21, 2008 11:26 PM
Michael Heath, want to convince people like me more on the merits of the Fair Tax? Start by naming it something neutral; don't tell me it's "fair" tax in its name, that is getting ahead of yourself. We'll see if its fair enough.
And the "People earning, say $75K/year, would be paying a higher percentage of their gross income than people making $400K/yr." is kind of deal-breaker for me and for many people, and for a pretty understandable reason.
Posted by: cm | November 21, 2008 11:59 PM
Michael,
I too am a big supporter of the FairTax. I agree it probably won't be considered by most Americans, who don't even want to take the time to understand thier current system.
Here are some points I'd add to yours:
1. The prebate makes the FairTax very progressive at the low and middle class levels. I'd argue that the prebate be larger than the poverty level mentioned in Linder's legislation, to make it more progressive. This should not hinder overall tax intake very much, since those below the median contribute very little to federal taxes under the income tax system and would not need to in the new system.
2. A huge challenge would be how to switch systems without unintended consequences at time of changover. For example if someone with large wealth went out and bought long lasting assets before the switch, they would avoid a huge amount of taxation.
3. A big plus is the built in incentive for people to save first and buy later. Saving would become easier when taking home the whole paycheck and avoiding dicretionary spending on frivoulous items would be encouraged by the higher price. At the same time the money doesn't disappear (okay assuming banks don't stay crooked forever), it builds up and eventually that person is better able to afford buying items and so contributes tax revenue. Seems to me the high interest credit card middle men would be out of business, which can only be a good thing.
Finally, I'd be open to some idea for taking money from the uber-wealthy and giving it to the poor, as long as it didn't cause a whole new income tax over and above the consumption tax. (Obama wants to do this by complexifying the current byzantine tax system so I oppose it). Maybe have them pay all of the Social Security burden and remove it from low and middle classes?
Posted by: Rich | November 22, 2008 12:03 AM
Joseph: You're wrong. A third party would not be birthed from the Republican's splitting, what would be birthed would be a few decades of Democrat ascendancy until the right, now separated into many possibly extremist sub-parties, got its act together, followed by a to the two party system. When a large disciplined party faces two or more smaller, undisciplined parties, it wins. Particularly when the average citizen agrees with it.
Posted by: Julian | November 22, 2008 12:17 AM
nal- I believe its from a Halloween-themed jazz song. If it has a longer history than that, I don't know it.
Posted by: Julian | November 22, 2008 12:19 AM
Michael Heath: My main concern with the flat tax is that owners would simply pocket the excess; how would this be prevented? Also, a consumption tax can be rather simply avoided by shopping in a different country, something the wealthy are more capable of doing that people making 100k or less a year. As a Texan, I've met more than my fair share of borderers who jump the line to see the benefit of a stronger currency in a less taxed environment; if sales taxes were increased why would this trend not be strengthened?
Then there is the accounting question. Coming out of an era where corporations inflated their value by hiding lose and exaggerating profit, I find myself wonder what would keep them from doing something similar to avoid consumption taxes by under reporting their business? How would we be able to even track wealth? Couldn't people simply deal in cash, under the table, and avoid the tax all together, particularly considering that one of the main selling points of the flat tax is that it would allow the dismantling of the only wealth tracking bureaucracy we have, the IRS? I am also doubtful of the impact it would have on improving employment. Some people sell the consumption tax by saying that, by removing payroll taxes, you remove the incentives which employers have to limit their workers hours. But surely the worst offenders on this issue, Walmart and McDonalds for instance, do this as much, if not more so, to avoid paying health and retirement benefits as they do to avoid payroll taxes; the excessively high barriers to entry for these programs within these companies shows it to be a concern for them.
I admit that the consumption tax is attractive, and on its face it bears that mark of common sense which typically makes good policy, but the more I think about it, the worse it seems.
Posted by: julian | November 22, 2008 12:45 AM
@ Rich:
The Republicans used to be all for the Flat Tax, until the right-wing coup of November 1994. Then they started to smell blood and, especially after what they thought was their permanent seizure of power in 2000, began listening to their Fat Cat owners, who are absolutely enraged by progressive taxation in any form. Even the "Fair Tax" (their new euphemism for the Flat Tax) isn't good enough for them, because they see no reason why they should pay a larger dollar amount in taxes than anyone else, just because their income is so much larger.
If Bush had not ben so staggeringly incompetent, and they could have retained control of all three branches of government for another eight years, you have my personal guarantee that everyone would be assessed exactly the same dollar amount in taxes, and those who couldn't pay would be used as forced labor to build roads, bridges, etc., that would be financed by the Robber Barons and paid back by "User's Fees:" AKA tolls. The Confederate system of governance in a nutshell: No taxation for internal improvements, financed by the rich, built by the poor, paid for in perpetuity by everyone else.
I don't know how or when exactly the Republican party adopted the entire platform of the movement that they were founded to oppose, but it happened. Just look at their strongest areas today and you can see the pattern.
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 22, 2008 1:30 AM
Michael, I won't argue the merits of the "Fair Tax" proposal itself here since I probably haven't read up enough on it to attempt to rebut all your points. The main thrust of my argument is that it's simply too big of a change for the electorate to swallow without some seriously compelling reason that is big enough to swamp the massive doubts there would be over doing what would be one of the greatest attempts of social engineering the world has ever seen.
And the killer is we don't know for sure if it would even work. No other industrialized country (or any?) has attempted anything like the "Fair Tax" system before so the largest economy on the planet would be the very first to experiment with it. In contrast, universal healthcare has been done in many other countries, and we can judge the merits and demerits of the various systems before we do our own (if it comes to that). Energy independence has compelling and urgent impetus behind it because of serious long term national security and global warming concerns. But most people -- even most economists -- have no reason to believe the fair tax is necessary, wise, or even a workable idea on the scale of the whole nation, and that's before the near impossible job of selling it to the voters.
It's simply not the case of needing a better informed public. Unless some unforseen crisis destroys the current tax system (and not even the Great Depression did that) then the "Fair Tax" hasn't got a hope in hell of being implemented. Most Republican politicians realize that supporting the "Fair Tax" would be a fool's errand (not because it wouldn't work, but because it's too big a change, too radical and too risky). Perhaps if an up and coming industrialized nation, like South Africa or Nigeria, implemented a consumption-only tax and it cured many of the ills plaguing their nation, perhaps *then* people would start to take notice and reconsider, but unless that happens, the Fair Tax is a non-starter, and Huckabee would be a fool to run on that issue in 2012.
I agree with you on many issues, Michael, but I doubt the viability of the "Fair Tax" system will ever be one of them.
:)
Posted by: tacitus | November 22, 2008 3:17 AM
For a Fair Tax you can easily have a Fair debate. You just have to redefine the word Fair.
For example, if you think it's fair that the lowest income groups have to pay a greater proportion of their income on basic necessities; food, clothing, housing, education, health-care, then that definition of Fair doesn't match the one in the dictionary.
I think the most effective way of preventing such unFairness continues to be a progressive taxation based on income rather than consumption. Personally, I'd prefer taxing only income and losing all the other forms of taxation (yes, abolish inheritance tax, but an inheritance is income) but most seem to disagree.
Posted by: eddie | November 22, 2008 5:48 AM
I responded to much of the core points of what cm, julian, tacticus, and lurkbot stated in the below and an attaboy for Rich. . .
I don't expect to convince anyone in this forum to support the FairTax. I would like to convince everyone in this forum to at least consider the FairTax, in spite of its leaders being right wing. All of your concerns are addressed in the book I linked to above, the book itself is a rebuttal to concerns.
Someone and I forgot who stated they hated the name, FairTax. I agree! Also, the FairTax movement looks to embed the tax into the price rather than tacking it on after ringing up the price; I disagree as well. I agree it should be added on at the end which is why I didn't argue tacticus' point it's 30% when the FairTax people claim 23% embedded, which is equivalent though less transparent.
cm stated:
I agree that is a problem in selling the concept, but I believe the FairTax is worthy of debate in spite of this hurdle in perception. People like the idea that rates are higher for richer people, especially given that even when we have progressive rates, the guy making $75K today is still paying a higher percentage of income to taxes than the guy making $200K when you consider the hidden taxes they both pay when they purchase goods and services (the current cost component built-into a price to pay a vendors taxes and employer-withholding taxes) plus you add in their state, local, and property taxes.
The GOP shot itself in the foot trying to push for flatter income taxes, which I do not support and supply side economics; both of which harm people that are not rich. This is a primary objection I have with the GOP, they've become the party of the stupid who pander to the rich, leaving a vaccuum for economically savvy ideas worthy of debate since people are justifiably skeptical of their ideas that appear to favor the rich over everyone else. I get that and their skepticism is with good cause.
However, the savvy citizen should not worry so much about what his neighbor pays as much as they should worry about what can increase their income, not just their current income, but future opportunities. I believe the FairTax would create much more economic growth for everyone because I believe businesses would flock here as would off-shore capital (tens of trillions of it), which would increase after-tax income and discretionary income given the the supply of capital would increase measurably relative to the supply of labor - which would tighten, which favors workers and therefore a boon for everyone. Rich's point # 2 is a good one, that is part of being a producer economy instead of the consumer economy we've become.
julian stated:
This is one good reason I'm advocating a debate more than just blindly implementing it. However, we have tax avoidance now and it's in the trillions now every year, and remember, the Federal Budget is only about $4 trillion a year so that's already an enormous number (the budget was $2.7 trillion in 2007 but the bailouts is increasing that number significantly for at least this year and next).
Tax avoidance is going to happen no matter what the system. I would argue that we would see far less tax avoidance with the FairTax than we do now. I would like to see more economic research on this item however to validate that notion. Also, we would see huge benefits:
1) Businesses and capital would flock here given they wouldn't have to pay taxes. People must realize that profitable businesses do not really pay taxes, their taxes are built into their prices. Ultimately, people pay taxes, not businesses. Strip that out though and businesses no longer have to fear paying those taxes in years they're unprofitable, it brings down their costs - which brings down their cost of capital, which increases the incentive for them to make capital investments - which is the biggest money multiplier in an economic engine. Plus it provides a competitive advantage in a global marketplace when they go to export goods and services.
2) Here is another big benefit and one I experienced myself. When companies start out and if successful and growing quickly, they are focused on the core reason they are in business. They work on increasing market share, and growing their business organically by such growth and cutting their core operational costs relative to revenue to grow their bottom line. However, as companies see revenue and profits flatten over time as the market matures, they begin to consider tax avoidance as the best opportunity to increase profit.
The practical effect is this. In the beginning a company's best and brightest financial people, along with some of the business people in the operational side, are pulled aside to focus on tax avoidance. Often this means moving some operations overseas. Here is how this harms economic growth for the country:
First the huge loss in intellectual capital - rather than many of a company's best and brightest focused on market share, they are focused on tax avoidance. That stagnates organic growth which in turn stagnates or even decreases job and pay growth for other employees. I have personally experienced this many times. Remove tax avoidance for companies by removing taxes and they flock to your shores (no taxes), and their best and brightest are focused like a bitch on growing the business or entering new markets, both of which increase the number of jobs.
Tracking tax avoidance on the FairTax for large businesses would be simple. In fact so simple, the Treasury Dept. could do it, no need for the IRS, we could dispense with them except bringing over some of their auditors and compliance enforcers to Treasury.
The bigger issue to monitor and enforce would be cash sellers. However, don't forget we current have a huge underground now of people generating income that don't pay taxes; they would start paying taxes on that income when they go buy goods and services from Wal-Mart or their local car dealer or when they go on vacation.
In summary - tax avoidance schemes still exist, but they will mutate given a change in tax collection. I believe it would be much less but would like my notion validated first as well.
tacticus stated:
The argument for the electorate is that I believe it would increase economic growth which would in turn reduce their taxes relative to their income. It would increase job opportunities and let them decide when they pay taxes since they'd have no more witholding taxes and would pay taxes only when they decided to pay for goods and services.
It would also stimulate more savings as Rich pointed out. In today's world, people pay way more than $100 for an item that's worth $100. First they're paying with after-tax money, then their paying about $17 to pay the supply chain's taxes, and as Rich stated, many people buy on credit which increases the cost another, say $20.
With the FairTax, people are paying with pre-tax dollars and given the incentive to save, might have made, say $20 on their income prior to spending it.
I don't think we're ready for implementation. I think we need an honest national debate. I think we need, including me, more validation on the costs and benefits and an operational plan for switching over as well.
I agree it's a massive change, but I'm a progressive. I think we should always be bold and looking forward. I was skeptical as well, but the more I consider it, the more it seems to bring a lot of benefit to society in general. As an entrepenuer, please realize my taxes would go up since it's really easy for family-owned business owners with capital investments to avoid taxes based on non-cash expenses (depreciation); so I don't argue this for how it will help me in the short-term, it would raise my taxes. I argue for it because if we validate it is what economists claim it is, it should lead to increased income for all of us in this global economy through superior economic growth and a more competitive America.
tacticus - we can't look back. We'll never regain much of the manufacturing we lost since places like China don't just have cheap direct labor, but also well-trained engineers that are also cheaper. We have to look at other ways to attract businesses growth based on benefits we have other countries do not. One is our intellectual capital, I think that doesn't get sufficiently freed up unless you quit taxing it.
I also agree it would be nice to benchmark consumption tax performance by other countries. The FairTax book has some examples of its success in that area, though not enough to put be completely over to the side that we should implement it now. I do support it, but again, believe we need more research and more debate and if it becomes favored, even more debate to insure a successful transition.
Lurkbot - the FairTax is nothing like the flat tax. There is very little intersection between those that support the flat tax and those that support the FairTax and the schematics are night and day. The flat tax is merely what we have now with increased tax collection from poorer people. The flat tax is mostly supported by very rich individuals.
The FairTax is mostly supported by grass roots public policy nerds and some economists. Large established businesses do not tend to favor the FairTax since they own our politicians and are able to maniuplate the tax code to create barriers to entry for competitors and competing industries.
Lurkbot stated:
Not true. I think Bush as President will turn out as the worst president ever, but this is simply not true - Bush is an advocate of progressive taxes. Exhibit A - the President's commission on a tax reform study mandated the Commission only consider progressive tax schemes, here is the order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050107-1.html
The panels results were a flop, ignored by everyone since the constraints put on the panel by Bush guaranteed the status quo. I reject Bush and our current tax system, we can do better.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 22, 2008 7:22 AM
Conservatism is relative. It just means in its purest form (eliminating nut cases) a set of objectives, goals, and implementations that can be recognized as "right" of some median on some standard rule.
The center or median of that rule has been shifting "left" for centuries. That is the natural progression of things, and barring some catastrophic environmental event (e.g, a "back to the stone ages" asteroid impact) the center will racket left as mankind PROGRESSES (there is a reason liberals prefer "progressives" -- it makes you part of the natural PROGRESSION of things!).
Most people are center or left of center on average. The fringes are the 30% hardwired RWA's which are 21% hard right and 9% hard left (OK my calculations but empirically elections bear me out). The remaining 70% of us consists of 30% low information voters and 70% reasoned voters. In a presidential election at 100% EV turnout the GOP as it is is capped at about 42% 21% RWA and 21% low info). At 60% EV turnout the race is up for grabs. That is why GOP loves low turnout (makes their 21% for RWA's very significant).
What you all above are discussing (e.g., tax structures) speak more to technical implementations. Your objectives are essentially progressive; your implementations vary. This is how it should be. May the best implementer of the best implementations win, given objectives that align with a relatively progressive center.
A good 3rd Party candidate who can get in and play the game at the level of the big guys has I'd say a 49% cap - more than enough to win. BUT the field is not even so that will not occur for a time. Just theoretically the EV's are there to support it.
The problem is the "-ism's" -- there never is a good "-ism." Regardless of intent the "-ism" always takes over reason, fairness, and suppresses the opposition. For example, I am a "devout" atheist but I will run like hell from being part of Atheism! If you get my drift. Evil stuff these "-isms."
Good objectives come from honest, rational, intellectually progressive thought; most honest freethinkers (regardless of their TECHNICAL proclivities) can come to agreement on them. Good implementations may vary given various technocrats, but with pros and cons weighed honestly - all options can start out valid; the trick is choosing the best implementation for the time and circumstances. Just like choosing the best candidate.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 22, 2008 8:01 AM
In theory, yes, but for the fundamental things (like a nation's tax system) the prevailing option -- the one that's currently in force, will usually continue to prevail unless it has been shown to be a complete failure. We can switch political parties (in power) every four to eight years, no problem but there are limits to the policy changes they can implement -- and the bigger the changes, the less likely they will be.
That's why, no matter how great the Fair Tax system could be, unless there is a compelling need to abolish the current system, it will remain an academic pipe dream. For a change this big, it's not good enough to say that it will be better, make us more competitive, save us from an economic downturn, etc. because there is no way of knowing for sure that its proponents are correct. It would be a complete disaster if the current tax system was abolished and we found that the FairTax system didn't work as its proponents claimed.
So unless we some day find that the current tax system is collapsing, or that America is on the brink of ruin *and* it can be clearly blamed on the current tax system, then the Fair Tax option will not get a hearing, and I just don't ever see that happening.
Posted by: tacitus | November 22, 2008 3:05 PM
Tacitus - sure - but you are addressing an implementations for taxation; you judge the current one more than acceptable and effective - I BTW agree wholeheartedly.
My point was way more generic - that is: rational honorable people (most of us actually) usually can agree on objectives with reasonable compromise; implementations are means to ends; many competing means can be sorted out (as you did re: tax systems) again honorably and without rancor.
My starting point was that only fringe elements are still arguing about the objectives of this great Nation - an agenda ever more progressive, egalitarian, and enlightened.
Despite the bleating of the media that we are right of center Nation (only true if the one proclaiming such dictates what the "center" is - not what is evident empirically on average) we are increasingly more progressive and secular. Just like a string of cold weather days does negate CLIMATE warming - pockets of very conservative events do not negate the obvious "climate" change through the Centuries since the Enlightenment.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 22, 2008 5:09 PM
WOW - that was "[string of cold days] does [NOT} negate climate warming"
Sorry gang
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 22, 2008 5:13 PM