« What do you do to stay sane? | Main | Joe the Illegal Plumber »
Best Sentence I Read Today
The Bush administration, having entered office as social conservatives, leaves office as conservative socialists, proprietors of the most sudden large expansion of the state's role in the US economy since mobilisation for the second world war.
Brad DeLong here.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on October 16, 2008 at 03:37 PM | Permalink
Comments
Technically, in 2000 Bush was marketed as a "compassionate conservative" — wink wink conservatism-lite nod nod — which had hard-line conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity grumbling. Definitely not a social conservative when he entered office.
Only in 2004 was Bush marketed as a hard-line social conservative, mainly because of Rove's campaign strategy of "get out the base, and you can ignore the rest."
Posted by: Jeff Garzik at Oct 16, 2008 3:46:16 PM
Anyone who thought Bush and company entered the office as anything other than "right-wing" socialists wasn't paying attention, and has been asleep at the wheel for the past nearly eight years.
Posted by: Crow at Oct 16, 2008 4:08:55 PM
Pretty clear in hindsight that Bush wasn't conservative at any time during his presidency, and he led what was left of the 94 House and Senate over the cliff in an orgy of fiscal malpractice.
I am appalled at the prospect of Democrats being in complete control, but the Republicans brought this upon themselves.
The socialism of today is but a foretaste of what is coming over the next 4-8 years as the government wrestles with the burst credit bubble in utter futility.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Oct 16, 2008 4:18:08 PM
what a brilliant sentence!!!!...the funny thing after all that happened is that McCain is (still) advocating for lower taxes!!!!....how does he think USA is going to pay for the party (Bailout, Irak, Afganistan, etc)? hey!!...deficits matter, sooner o later McCain & Co is going to learn it -would be late when that happens?-
Posted by: emarquina at Oct 16, 2008 4:22:13 PM
I agree that it's a nicely constructed sentence, but I do think the conclusion is a bit too cute. Yes, there was increased spending under Bush, but a good deal of it was a result of the new world after 9/11. The prescription drug benefit was a compromise with Democrats. The lesson, I suppose, is that Republicans will be castigated as heartless if they hold the line on spending, and accused of reckless spending if they compromise with Democrats. Does anyone really think that a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress is likely to spend less ...
Posted by: J.A. Davis at Oct 16, 2008 4:36:08 PM
What was it that Barzun wrote? Something like, "Any modern presidential candidate today can claim without contradiction to be a Conservative Democratic Socialist"
Posted by: JH at Oct 16, 2008 4:37:47 PM
Too true, too true. :-(
Posted by: Jorge Landivar at Oct 16, 2008 4:51:35 PM
"Does anyone really think that a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress is likely to spend less ..."
I think it doesn't matter what you or I think. We're about to find out. Since you asked, though, yes I think less will be spent under an Obama administration. It will certainly be spent differently, but the net will be less.
Posted by: meter at Oct 16, 2008 4:57:41 PM
Progressive bloggers predicted two years ago and more that conservatives would say "Baby Doc" Bush was not a real conservative. It's an article of religious faith that conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. It's a neatly circular argument: if a conservative succeeds, it's because of his conservatism; if he doesn't succeed, it's because he wasn't a real conservative.
Posted by: Johnny Nemo at Oct 16, 2008 5:36:16 PM
with all due respect to BJD, i don't believe he is the origin of that quote. tom gallagher at ISI published it in his daily political outlook piece about two weeks ago. tom said he heard it from a client.
Posted by: bondinvestor at Oct 16, 2008 5:40:29 PM
Johnny Nemo - The same thing has been said by socialists (you call 'em progressives) about socialism's failures. You can't fairly complain when the Right takes a page from the Left's play book.
Best regards.
Posted by: Steven Schmitt at Oct 16, 2008 5:50:48 PM
"socialists (you call 'em progressives)"
What? No I don't. Let's be clear on two points: 1) I'm no socialist, and 2) "I know you are, but what am I" (tu quoque) is not a counter-argument.
Posted by: Johnny Nemo at Oct 16, 2008 5:57:11 PM
I disagree. Socialism requires either direct control by the workers or by the state led by an ostensible workers' party. Neither is at work here. This is just good old-fashioned crony capitalism, and I'm increasingly led to believe that there is no other capitalism.
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Oct 16, 2008 6:02:31 PM
Why is it at Conservatives feel free to deny their responsibility for Bush when they are the ones who voted for him and put him office. Can anyone really make the case that we would have a ten trillion dollar debt if Gore had won in 2000.
Posted by: joan at Oct 16, 2008 7:30:27 PM
Progressive bloggers predicted two years ago and more that conservatives would say "Baby Doc" Bush was not a real conservative. It's an article of religious faith that conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.
Serious conservatives were saying eight years ago that Bush wasn't a conservative and mocking his "compassionate conservatism." The paleocon crowd has (rightfully) never trusted the guy.
It's a neatly circular argument: if a conservative succeeds, it's because of his conservatism; if he doesn't succeed, it's because he wasn't a real conservative.
If Republicans balanced the budget, avoided wars to spread democratic ideals to those who don't want them, and reduced the size and scope of the federal government, and then conservatives argued that the above agenda didn't constitute real conservatism, then I would agree with you. However, Bush tried none of the above, just the opposite.
Leftists, on the other hand, have their own circularity: if we throw money at a problem and get fair results, we must throw even more money at the problem; if we throw money at a problem and get poor results, we must throw even more money at the problem. Education policy would be a classic example.
Posted by: tommy at Oct 16, 2008 7:56:33 PM
The sentence, though witty, IMHO doesn't accurately reflect the last 8 years. Yes, as a libertarian I'm fully opposed to Medicare Plan D but Democrats requested an even larger program - and McCain voted against it by the way, while Obama voted for it. And I'm far more interested in federal debt as a percentage of GDP, than in absolute figures. The libertarian-conservative Heritage Foundation:
In 2008, America's $5.4 trillion public debt represents 38 percent of its $14.3 trillion GDP. Despite all the hand-wringing over increased budget deficits, the 38 percent debt ratio is below the post-World War II average of 43 percent. Consequently, America's debt burden is, in fact, low by historical standards. During World War II, The debt ratio surged from 40 percent to 109 percent, indicating that the nation's debt was larger than its annual GDP. The debt ratio fell back to 45 percent by 1960, and has since remained between 24 percent (in 1974) and 49 percent (in 1994).
There is no mystery to why the debt ratio has dropped so much since World War II: Economic growth has dwarfed the rate of new debt issuance. Since 1946, inflation-adjusted debt has grown by 114 percent, but the economy has grown by 532 percent—nearly five times as rapidly. Just as a family with rising income can afford to buy a more expensive home and accept more mortgage debt, the growing American economy has been able to absorb its new debt.
More recent debt ratio declines were also heavily influenced by economic growth. Since the debt ratio's recent 1994 peak, the public debt has expanded by 5 percent while the economy has grown by 40 percent. This has reduced the debt burden from 49 percent to 38 percent. In fact, the current 38 percent debt ratio is below the ratio at any point during the 1990s. Thus, it is not surprising that recent budget deficits have not devastated the economy. As long as lawmakers promote pro-growth policies, modest debt is manageable.
http://www.heritage.org/RESEARCH/BUDGET/bg2178.cfm
Posted by: Libertarian at Oct 16, 2008 7:57:09 PM
If Dubya had suddenly turned into a Soviet-style socialist he wouldn't have paid fat money for non-voting minority stakes. He would've seized the banks and put the CEOs in prison. Come to think of it, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea...
Posted by: ogmb at Oct 16, 2008 8:03:55 PM
National debt by U.S. presidential terms
Posted by: ogmb at Oct 16, 2008 8:16:20 PM
Indeed, there are plenty of decisions taken by the Bush government that must disturb us classical liberals and libertarian conservatives: Guantanamo (though it was originally created by the Clinton administration!), the Medicare prescription drug benefit, maybe even the Iraq war (though defense spending as a percentage of GDP went only slightly up from 3.5% in 2000 to 3.9% now, so even as a libertarian I recognize that it may be good value for money from a cost-benefit perspective).
But by and large, I'm quite delighted about the last two terms:
1. plenty of free trade agreements like CAFTA, Chile, Peru, and hopefully soon Colombia and South Korea (unless Obama and his Protectionist Party derail it)
2. school choice and school vouchers in Washington DC and even in limited form in No Child Left Behind (many libertarians may decry the expansion of federal power here, but as long as Washington injects elements of choice, competition, accountability, and responsiveness, I'm sort of ok with it)
3. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, two decent Strict Constructionists, who understand that our individual rights preexist government, rather than being grated by an omnipotent, benevolent government (we have just seen in the Heller gun-rights case what a difference a more libertarian court can make!)
4. several reforms of tort, litigation, liability law
5. several substantial tax cuts (though not always accompanied by the necessary spending cuts)
6. personal health savings accounts
7. partial birth abortion ban (yes, as a libertarian I do support the right of every human being to life, liberty, and pursuit to happiness, the right of every child to be born)
8. and the GOP at least started the debate about Social Security privatisation and personal retirement savings accounts which Obama and the Democrats denounced as "Social Darwinism" (I guess we have to hope for Bobby Jindal in 2012 or 2016 to finally follow through on Social Security privatisation).
Conclusion: Far from being "socialists", from a classical liberal perspective this government rather deserves a B- or a C+.
Posted by: hayekian at Oct 16, 2008 8:26:45 PM
Brad DeLong, instead of blaming the current administration for being "socialist", should rather reconsider his endorsement for Barack Obama, who by any account is way more "socialist" than Bush or McCain:
Government is far more likely to grow under Obama than under McCain. Obama voted for the 500 billion energy plan, McCain voted against. Obama voted for Medicare Plan D, McCain voted against. Obama voted for the 300 billion farm bill, McCain voted against. I don't know of any significant spending bill that Obama opposed. He vows to hand out 500 dollar cheques to hundreds of millions of Americans (he calls that "tax cut", but it's a simple hand-out in fact) financed by higher capital gains taxes, and more debt, debt, debt. The current debt ratio is at 38%, below not only the post-World War II average, it is also lower than at any point in the 90s. In 1994, when Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency it was at 49%; than Gingrich and the new majority in congress forced Clinton to cut spending - so the widespread meme that Democrats are more fiscally conservative than Republicans is a myth in my humble opinion. One last point: Today's 5 trillion dollar public debt is much less important than the 43 trillion dollar in unfunded Medicare and Social Security costs over the next 75 years - so I'm inclined to prefer whichever party is more likely to privatise Social Security, and right now that tends to be the GOP.
Posted by: libertarian at Oct 16, 2008 8:39:34 PM
Is a conservative socialist the same as a fascist? The recent events reek of fascism, not socialism...
Posted by: Isaac Crawford at Oct 16, 2008 10:07:35 PM
What would prof. Milton Friedman say about all of this?
Posted by: Happy Camper at Oct 16, 2008 10:33:46 PM
Um, isn't the debt over $10 trillion now?
Posted by: Cliff at Oct 16, 2008 10:52:38 PM
Total outstanding U.S. government debt is indeed over the $10 trillion mark. But 40% of that is intergovernmental holdings; I suppose it could be repudiated at any time. The important part is the debt held by the public, which stands at just over $6 trillion as of yesterday.
Posted by: J at Oct 16, 2008 11:49:23 PM
J:
I assume you mean intragovernmental holdings--if we repudiated debt between governments, the financial chaos we've got now would suddenly look like heaven. But if we repudiated intragovernmental holdings, wouldn't that just require increasing future spending by exactly the same amount? I mean, at some point, we've got Social Security checks to write, and we need money. If we have that in treasury notes, then we sell the treasury notes and use the cash to cover the checks. If they've all been wiped off the books, then we borrow the money to cover the checks by, ultimately, selling treasury notes.
Intuitively (I'm certainly no expert), it looks a lot more honest to consider those committed future expenditures as debt to ourselves than to wipe them off the books.
Posted by: albatross at Oct 17, 2008 12:15:23 AM
