Conservative blind spots
In mid-March, conservatives will gather at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference, a three-day confab dedicated to advancing conservative principles and goals. CPAC is hosting over a hundred events, on a multitude of worthy topics. But does the American Conservative Union, CPAC’s sponsor, believe that health spending is a serious problem? Apparently not: The group isn’t hosting a single event related to health-care policy. Nothing on Obamacare, nothing on Medicare reform, nothing on resisting the expansion of Medicaid in the states, nothing on the increasing unaffordability of health insurance for the middle class. Nothing. …
Health care is not the only area of conservative under-investment. The U.S. Federal Reserve, headed by Ben Bernanke, has built up a $3 trillion balance sheet in the course of subsidizing Washington’s deficit spending. The central bank intends to continue to purchase $85 billion a month in U.S.-government debt and mortgage-backed securities for the foreseeable future.
But this cannot go on forever, at least not without destroying the savings of ordinary Americans and making ordinary goods less affordable. …
These blind spots in today’s conservatism stem from the movement’s historical roots. Bill Buckley and his NR compatriots built modern American conservatism in the 1950s and early ’60s, before the Great Society was enacted. And many of those who now lead the conservative movement came of age during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, when, as Ramesh Ponnuru and Jim Pethokoukis have noted, the public-policy challenges were very different from the ones we are facing today.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The conservative movement is struggling against the Republican Party and others who wish to redefine what “conservative” means. It’s really that damn simple.
gryphon202 on February 27, 2013 at 10:13 AM
You can’t spell RINO without NRO.
sauldalinsky on February 27, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Who doesn’t understand healthcare spending? The argument is how to fix it. I have to say that Obamacare does not appear to be the ticket.
Cindy Munford on February 27, 2013 at 10:24 AM
The solution to the problem involves weakening government. Government must be LESS involved instead of MORE. Who among either major political party is advocating that?
gryphon202 on February 27, 2013 at 10:27 AM
The R party did run Romneycare for president. He had no problem expanding government deeper into the healthcare industry.
astonerii on February 27, 2013 at 10:31 AM
None, and people get mad when we point out that our choices are dumb and dumber.
Cindy Munford on February 27, 2013 at 10:32 AM
There was only one Pat Moynihan in the Democratic Party, and there’s only one Paul Ryan in the Republican Party. Most political junkies (let alone politicians) are not public intellectuals, and anyway public intellectuals can’t compete with talk show bluster, of which (for better or worse) there was far less 30 years ago. And btw, there was only one “Firing Line.”
Seth Halpern on February 27, 2013 at 10:32 AM
That’s my whole point.
I can no longer attribute to stupidity what appears to me to be malice.
gryphon202 on February 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Wait, there’s a Republican quest to reduce the size of government? You could have fooled me.
rbj on February 27, 2013 at 10:38 AM
I concur. But I have always been a hard-ass on these things. I always attributed these things to malice.
Newt Gingrich was not ousted because he had ethical failures, it was that he was out to reduce the size and scope of government, and actually was willing to fight to get it done.
Of course, I guess I do still think the first Bush screwed up because he was a few dozen points shy of average intelligence.
astonerii on February 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM
You know, it might be time to start getting together and solving problems ourselves (to the extent we can) rather than support candidates. I am sure it would be like herding cats and the government would try to interfere but what about families or clubs buy insurance in groups. Is that possible? I just feel like I want to do something other than b!tch since it doesn’t change anything and is no long satisfying.
Cindy Munford on February 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM
I’d kindly disagree. Remember, Bush 41 ran against Reagan in 1980 and the two gentlemen really did severely dislike each other. The offer of the VP spot was really nothing more than an olive branch to heal what Reagan saw as a damaged, split party. If not for Reagan, Bush 41′s odds of ever sitting in the Oval Office would have been quite slim.
gryphon202 on February 27, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Isn’t it weird that skeletons are a drawback when someone tries to lesson power and the chances to profit off the great unwashed?
Cindy Munford on February 27, 2013 at 10:44 AM
I think Avik has it ass-backwards. The question should be, are Republicans reliable partners in the conservative quest to reduce the size of government?
gryphon202 on February 27, 2013 at 10:44 AM
That’s right, a lot of us do seem to get it, it’s the “leaders” “opposition” party that seem oblivious to it.
Marxism is for dummies on February 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Seems as if Donna Brazile is finding out about the effects of ObamaCare…LOL.
d1carter on February 27, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Avik is trying to herd us back onto the GOP plantation. Sort of like what Democrats do when a black person goes off their plantation.
rbj on February 27, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Akin said something stupid, was the most conservative memeber of the house. lynch him!
Chris Christie does something anathema to our core beliefs, has almost nothing in common with conservatism at all. Idolize him!
I think I see it. It does seem weird. It is almost like those who have been appointed and taken leadership positions in our party really do not believe in our mission.
astonerii on February 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM
I remember those days. But what I meant was that Bush Sr and the read my lips pledge reneging, I do not think that was malice, but just the fact that the guy really was just that stupid. I never seen any intelligence in the man. Outside of Democrats, in fact, I cannot think of a single politician I have thought might possess a lower IQ than Bush Sr.
astonerii on February 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Heh.
visions on February 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM
What would Karl Rove do..?
d1carter on February 27, 2013 at 11:13 AM
No good answer she wants to hear.
Cindy Munford on February 27, 2013 at 11:16 AM
I am doing something like this locally and have been for some time in between encouraging Republicans unhappy with the party to re-register as independents.
Doomberg on February 27, 2013 at 11:45 AM