Snowe job: health care reform compromise?
Olympia Snowe, RINO of Maine, is engaged in brokering a compromise deal with Obama on health care. The idea is that if she comes on board, other balking moderates will join and the bill will be passed.
This is exactly what happened with the stimulus legislation, and Snowe is detested by most other Republicans for her role in the betrayal.
Snowe’s position is that a public option won’t be in the bill except as a trigger, a threat that if private insurers don’t do what the government requires, a public option will kick in at some future date (see also this). However, there’s some evidence that the public option could kick in sooner, even immediately, since Snowe wrote in July that “This [public] option would be available from day one in any state where ”“ after market and insurance reforms are implemented ”“ affordable, competitive plans still do not exist.”
So it’s clear as mud, as usual. One thing that is clear is that many of the most liberal Democrats won’t like Snowe’s compromise, and the majority of Republicans will hate it too, albeit for very different reasons.
And so the cries mount: “Down with Snowe! Maine Republicans should nominate a real member of the Party instead of a fake one!”
There’s certainly something to be said for doing away with RINOs like Snowe, who give the White House the appearance of bipartisan cover. But understand that getting rid of Snowe would almost undoubtedly result in having a real Democrat instead of a fake one as the Senator from Maine. Maine is most definitely a blue state.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that if Obama and the Democrats manage to offend enough people by 2012—when both Obama and Snowe would be up for re-election—that Republicans couldn’t take over both of their offices. But it’s less likely to happen to Snowe than to Obama. She is extraordinarily popular in Maine; she won in 2006 by 70% over her rival, and her typical winning margins have always been around 2 to 1.
Before you decide that Snowe has got to go, understand that Maine’s political composition is such that a true Republican is highly unlikely to win there, unless a tsunami of conservatism sweeps the country. Right now, the choices are a RINO or a Democrat.
I understand—and to some extent agree with—the argument that if a Republican is going to betray Republican causes as much as Snowe has, it would be better to have the same things done by a Democrat. But the thing is that Snowe hasn’t betrayed all Republican causes. Among the ones she’s supported are: the death penalty, the embargo on Cuba, the invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some tax cuts as an economic stimulus (her record very spotty on this latter issue, however).
Is that enough to make her of some value to the GOP, or should she be challenged—even if the challenge will almost certainly be unsuccessful—to make a point?
Now more than ever Maine needs an industrial strength snowe blower to blow her away.
I understand what you are saying but I totally disagree with you. I think the country and party GOP would be far better without the Rinos because at election time it would be crystal clear which party was responsible for the ills we face. Rinos give enormous shielding to dems, and both Rinos and dems have to be crushed for good! if this means we get a dem from Maine I don’t care. perhaps NM, IA, ND SC AR and others will think much harder about their senatorial choices. I would give the boot to Collins, McCain, Graham, and all the Rinos. Muddy water benefits dems far more than the GOP. Rinos nearly ALWAYS betray conservatives. Blue dogs ALMOST NEVER betray democrats. Democrats know exactly where they are going and get there even with the equivalent of their Snowes. Snowe and the Rinos stop the GOP from being conservative at nearly every chance. Since the political attention span of most of the country is 30 seconds or less (in my opinion) we cannot win a political fight with her and the Rinos muddying the water. If she is as good as we can get I say we write off Maine.
Sam said “Since the political attention span of most of the country is 30 seconds or less (in my opinion) we cannot win a political fight with her and the Rinos muddying the water.”
Excellent, I agree completely.
Rinos continue to allow the camel’s nose to be placed under the tent, and compromises are simply capitulations.
Sam said
I would give the boot to Collins, McCain, Graham, and all the Rinos. Muddy water benefits dems far more than the GOP.
Nonsense. All you so-called “hard core” conservatives out there get together on these websites and assume that just because all the people you know and chat with are “hard core’ conservatives, that its that way with most of the American people, and that you can actually win an election that way.
This is similar to those liberals who are so surrounded by their own kind that they refuse to believe that anyone else thinks the same way. Supposedly this happened in 1972, when certain cloisetered liberals were surpsied that Nixon won in a landslide. It was heard said: “How could that be, when everyone I know voted for McGovern?” Maybe everyone in their little circle maybe… but the nation at large thumped McGovern with 49 state landslide for Nixon in ’72.
Ronald Reagan was right when he said that “Someone who agrees with you 80 per cent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 per cent traitor.” Its no wonder that the politically savy Reagan won office with two landslides, while the admirable, but ideological Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide. Yoiu can be true to your beliefs, but politically savy at the same time. Reagan was, and won.
Snowe’s apparent willingness to be the bridge over this issue makes me think folks in New England like the Massachusetts health plan implemented during Romney’s term. Yet I read that there are big problems already. Is that the case? Neo, can you speak to this?
I think the country and party GOP would be far better without the Rinos because at election time it would be crystal clear which party was responsible for the ills we face. Rinos give enormous shielding to dems, and both Rinos and dems have to be crushed for good! if this means we get a dem from Maine I don’t care.
Every once in awhile we let our anger get the better of our judgement. The trouble is that the country goes down the Progressive bunghole so that some folks can have the self-righteous pleasure of venting their annoyance that some Republicans just will NOT believe what they want them to believe and won’t act the way they think they should.
I would give the boot to Collins, McCain, Graham, and all the Rinos. Muddy water benefits dems far more than the GOP.
Sure — go ahead — give the Whitehouse and the Congress to Obama and the Progressives. Why stop self-destructive behavior with the last election when there are so many elections to come?
Rinos nearly ALWAYS betray conservatives. Blue dogs ALMOST NEVER betray democrats.
Actually, thanks to attitudes as exhibited by the commentor, the Blue Dogs are all that stand between us and an Obamacare takeover of the healthcare system. We had all better hope that the Blue Dogs continue to do what the commentor claims they ALMOST NEVER do or Obama will be pulling the plug on all our grandmas.
Democrats know exactly where they are going and get there even with the equivalent of their Snowes.
Me, I think the Democrats get where they are going with some help from some folks on the Right who keep whining, bitching and spending a lot of time and energy trying to purge the evil RHINOs instead of campaigning enthusiastically for their party’s candidates.
Snowe and the Rinos stop the GOP from being conservative at nearly every chance.
Translation: The evil RINOs refuse to fit my definition of conservatism.
Since the political attention span of most of the country is 30 seconds or less (in my opinion).
Now THERE’S what I call real faith in democracy — a ringing endorsement of America and the Republic for which it stands. It almost makes me want to stand up and sing the national anthem.
we cannot win a political fight with her and the Rinos muddying the water
Of COURSE — why didn’t I see it before — the reason Obama spanked the Republicans like a little baby in the last election was because those evil RINOs were “muddying the water.” Now I know.
If she is as good as we can get I say we write off Maine.
Sure, let’s write off Maine — because Maine is only one state, right? And it’s Snowe’s fault — and the fault of Collins, McCain, Graham, and all the RINOs that the Republicans can’t win an election against a far left candidate and a far left Congress — so let’s write off ALL their states. We may not win an election but at least everyone in the Republican Party will believe exactly as the commentor believes and that’s really what’s important — to have a pure party — not to defeat Obama and the Progressives.
Leslie: It seems that health care reform as practiced already in Massachusetts is neither very popular nor very unpopular, at least according to this poll.
But Snowe’s compromise has little to do with what’s going on in Massachusetts. She has a history of doing this sort of negotiating on many issues; she seems to relish the power it gives her and she sees herself as a bridge between the two sides.
By the way, Maine has its own version of health care reform and a public option, and there have been a huge number of problems with it.
JL, i submit that Reagan’s winning savvy and Goldwater’s losing ideological approach were one and the same. The difference being public moods for belt tightening or a spending spree in a given snapsot of time.
The difference between a Lindsey Graham and a Joe Lieberman is that conservatives tend to have more respect for the latter. At least Joe pisses at us from over the fence and not while sitting in our pool.
The problem with wishy-washy moderates in the Republican Party is that, given the choice between a pale imitation of socialism and the real thing, more voters will vote for the real thing.
If the Republican Party actually stood for something other than “vote for us; we’re not as bad as them”, then voters would have a real choice between competing political philosophies. Who knows? The results may be surprising.
Each and every time we compromise with the Left, without exception, the country moves in a leftward direction. I cannot think of a single instance when compromise with the Left resulted in our moving back towards our Constitutional principles. I am sick of compromising.
Ayn Rand said that “when good compromises with evil, only evil benefits”.
OK, RINO lovers: Show us examples of RINO compromising with the Dems that yielded legislation acceptable to the cons and neo-cons. McCain-Feingold, perhaps? Comprehensive immig. reform?
rickl says
“Ayn Rand said that “when good compromises with evil, only evil benefits”
I find Ayn Rand very interesting and inventive, but her views are a perfect example of what happens when people become too ideologically rigid.
Ayn Rand opposed Ronald reagan because she felt he was too in league with the religious right. He view of a good Republican was Gerald R. Ford, whom she supported in 1976.
Her views on Reagan:
” At the same time, Miss Rand declared that she was ”profoundly opposed” to Ronald Reagan and his Presidential ambitions. ”Since he denies the right to abortion, he cannot be a defender of any rights,” she wrote. ”Since he has no program and no ideology to offer, his likeliest motive for entering the Presidential race is power lust.’ ”
Your rigid views, like those of Rand, will lead only to narrow candidacies based on narrow worldviews, which can only win a narrow scope of the vote. If she were around today, Rand would no doubt be supporting such political winners as Ron Paul.
Ah, Yes. The self-appointed watchdogs of the Republican Party.
They say they revere Reagan, yet Reagan was an inclusive Republican leader, a leader that welcomed folks into the fold and never spoke in terms of ideological purity.
Reagan saw political parties for what they are: organizations formed to espouse and further broad political goals – NOT ersatz churches, NOT a substitute for family, NOT agents for social change, NOT morality posses, NOT witch hunters.
Reagan never confused social for political, moral for political and never demanded an adherence to a personal philosophy in lieu of a political philosophy.
And above all, Reagan NEVER talked about purging ANYONE from the Republican Party. The neologism, “RINO,” was coined after Reagan had faded from the scene. Reagan himself would never have used the term.
But what else could we expect? These folks probably never read a book about Reagan and don’t know anything at all about what made the Reagan Era so successful for the Republican Party. As far as I can tell they simply regurgitate, usually inaccurately, what they’ve heard their favorite demagogue spew forth — nothing else.
They are fond of misapplying philosophy and the principles of respectable writers like Ayn Rand — whom they wildly misinterpret. Oh yes, Ayn Rand would have thought John McCain was evil and wishy-washy, they pseudo-wisely imply. O the laughable ignorance.
It is their kind that whined about the McCain nomination and ensured with their lack of enthusiasm the Obama/Progressive victory and no doubt will guarantee the same the next election. They have no inkling(nor does it seem they care) how elections are won — or lost.
They are the spoiled, willful children that refuse to play, the Cotton Mathers thirsting for witches to burn, the self-appointed watchdogs of purity. They are Obama’s unwitting, unaware allies, his secret weapon.
According the Objectivism Reference Center, Ayn Rand’s view of Ronald Reagan:
1980 – Rand did not endorse or vote for any candidate. She continued to oppose Reagan and his “mixture of capitalism and religion,” calling him “the representative of the worst kind of conservatism.”
She did support Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Gerald R. Ford.
Her first vote for president:…… FDR, ’cause he opposed prohibition.
See here, at section 5.8: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.8
One correction in my last comment. It should read: “… semi-respectable writers like Ayn Rand …”
I feel like there is one equation here with two unknowns: what does Snowe think she’s doing? What do the Maine voters think they are getting from Snowe and Collins? these aren’t rhetorical questions, and I sure don’t know the answers.
I don’t think that it is axiomatic that any incumbent should enjoy the party’s support, especially if that member doesn’t support the party on key votes. Otherwise, you have no chance of party discipline, and I don’t think that we are well served by having 535 independent political entrepreneurs on Capitol Hill.
How many times do we keep hearing how McCain voted for the first bailout? And Bush signed it? Over and over we hear it.
I suggest the Republican Party follow Grackle’s advice. After all, we don’t want to offend all those moderates out there. You know the ones I am talking about. They get their news from ABC, CBC, NBC and CNN.
While we are at it, lets just rename the Republican Party “The wishy Washy Party” or maybe the “We don’t really pay attention but we vote anyway party”. Or the “Vote for Style over Substance Party.”
CBS not CBC
Okay, lets get rid of the “big tent” GOP. Lets instead follow the examples of rigidly right parties.
Examples of staunchly “right of center” parties:
The Constitution Party.
National elections Won:0
Senators:0
Representatives:0
Electoral votes won in 2008: 0
Any elected officials: Somebody or other in Montana, so I’ve heard.
The Libertarian Party
National elections Won:0
Senators:0
Representatives:0
Electoral votes won in 2008: 0
Any elected officials:Many in lower offices. (i.e., Apparently, they really can be elected dogcatcher.).
Good luck, my “hard core” conservative friends. You’ll need it.
I wonder what J.L. and Grackle think of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin. Oh, and Representative Michele Bachmann?
jon baker Says:
I wonder what J.L. and Grackle think of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin. Oh, and Representative Michele Bachmann?
What I think of:
Sarah Palin: I wrote an extensive comment about her here: http://neoneocon.com/2009/07/09/palin-thread-of-the-day/
Glenn Beck: I used to listen to him quite a lot on the radio. Although, imho, he’s become a bit off the wall lately, I still strongly support his effort to support the “tea bag” protest movement. I do think he sometimes lumps all of 20th century “progressivism,” from Teddy Roosevelt to Harry Truman, into one category, which I think is unjustified. But altogether, I think he has much useful info, is a useful opponent of Obamaism, and I would support his First Amendment Rights anyday. Sean Hannity’s better, though.
Michelle Malkin: I like her. Good blogger. Kinda attractive too.
Michele Bachmann: Dont know much about her.
Am I too much beyond the “party line”?
I suggest the Republican Party follow Grackle’s advice. After all, we don’t want to offend all those moderates out there.
Well, the Republican Party needs to get some votes from somewhere. They lost the last election, you know. The Republican Party’s job now should be to convince some of those who voted for Obama to vote Republican. And yes, that would probably mean moderates, dreadful as that might be for some to contemplate. And there are some in the GOP who are trying to do this but the hardliners undercut such efforts, seemingly taking special delight in doing so. It must feel sooo righteous to be an avenging purist.
What gripes me a bit is that the issue is often framed with hyperbolic albeit mundane attempts at irony – we don’t want to offend all those moderates – as if it was a matter of the moderates passing judgement instead of the other way around — as if it was the moderates who were trying to purge the hardliners. Such is the mindset … black is white, up is down and the paranoia often floats to the surface.
The difference between Reagan and the purists is that while Reagan might regret Snowe’s very real need to mollify her liberal voters in Maine Reagan would NEVER want to kick her out of the GOP. He would view her as an entity that could be a useful ally at certain times.
My own view of her position is that if she allows the passage of a healthcare bill for Obama I will deeply regret it because I’ve come to be doubtful of ANY healthcare initiative while Obama and the Progressives are in power but would stop short of wanting her purged from the GOP — much the same as I believe Reagan would feel.
Sound political ideas don’t round up voters. The voters flock to it. Just not before the voters have adequately learned what a farce wishy washy actually is.
I wonder what J.L. and Grackle think of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin. Oh, and Representative Michele Bachmann?
I like Palin a lot. The GOP badly needs charisma and she’s got it. The first time I saw her I was dumbfounded. Here, finally, was someone who could stir the soul, quicken the pulse.
Glenn Beck has too much hysteria for my taste and is prone to silly statements. But I find myself watching him on average every 2 or 3 days and he is getting the message out there. He seems to be toning down his style lately and is making a study of the Czars when no one else is and has helped expose Van Jones.
I think Michelle Malkin is on the wrong side of the immigration issue and is probably helping to alienate the important Latino vote. But people read her and I would not want to purge her from the GOP just because I might disagree with her on a couple of issues. It’s called “toleration” and the hardliners are in bad need of some of it.
I haven’t paid too much attention to Michele Bachmann. She seems to upset the Progressives and the MSM so she must be doing something right.
I am a classic liberal with conservative traits that shades into the Neoconservative part of the political spectrum. I don’t buy into any political group’s issue set. I research each issue and try to come to an opinion without regard to conventional political orientations.
My overriding concern is to stop Obama and the Progressives. I believe the greatest danger to America is the Islamist Jihad. Soon they will have the means to destroy us and I have no doubt they will try.
I still haven’t seen anyone address this point.
And, once again, the country would move inexorably leftward. Will the commenter “deeply regret” that?
Each and every time we compromise with the Left, without exception, the country moves in a leftward direction. I cannot think of a single instance when compromise with the Left resulted in our moving back towards our Constitutional principles. I still haven’t seen anyone address this point.
The “point” is probably based on false premises: that to welcome moderates into the GOP, as Reagan did, is to “compromise with the Left.” I think probably the assumption about what is Left and what constitutes the Right is also flawed. And those unnamed “Constitutional principles” are probably very arguable.
Being a classic liberal with some conservative traits I don’t believe “leftward” directions are necessarily detrimental. I think what comprises good conservative principles are limited government, a strong defense and free markets. These I support.
Social conservatism, which has come to dominate the GOP after Reagan’s era, leaves me cold personally and I believe it is also slowly but surely marginalizing the conservative movement.
Me, earlier: My own view of her position is that if she allows the passage of a healthcare bill for Obama I will deeply regret it because I’ve come to be doubtful of ANY healthcare initiative while Obama and the Progressives are in power but would stop short of wanting her purged from the GOP — much the same as I believe Reagan would feel.
And, once again, the country would move inexorably leftward. Will the commentor “deeply regret” that?
I have already said I would rather there NOT be any healthcare bill passed at this time and have given my reasons why. But there is very little of the “inexorable” in politics. Politics is a field of battle where fortunes ebb and flow and the combatants constantly change. The Whig Party was once considered “inexorable.” The Soviet Union was once considered “inexorable,” even by the brightest minds in the world’s intelligence agencies.
rickl Says:
“And, once again, the country would move inexorably leftward.
And giving up Snowe’s seat to a Democrat will move the country even further left. Whereas keeping Snowe’s seat will mean thats one more vote for certain crucial Republican policies once the GOP regains control of the Senate.
Incidentally, why exactly are John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Olymipa Snowe, three VERY different senators, with three VERY different voting records, all being lumped together as being RINOs. I suggest checking the respective voting records of all three (check the American Conservative Union), and you’ll see that, while Snowe is really more a moderate, both McCain and Graham have respectably conservative voting records… and even the latter two are not the same.
It just seems that somewhere along the line, someone started naming certain people RINOs, and threw in anybody who was on Rush Limbaugh’s bad side that week. For example, why is pro-life, anti-gay rights, pro-strong defense John McCain a RINO, but Pro-choice, Pro-gay rights Rudy Giuliani never so mentioned. (Or should we throw them both overboard?? Who exactly would remain in the party, anyway?? )
Two more recommendations for RINO status:
1. Mitt Romney: Because he put into place Massachusette’s health care system, was pro-choice, and pro-gay rights as governor of Massachusettes. But “flip-flopped” when he ran for prez. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402805.html
2. Mike Huckabee: Supported comprehensive immigration reform, and raised taxes as governor. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jan/02/huckabees-liberal-problem/ Rush didn’t like him either.
3. Ronald Reagan: Supported first effort at immigration amnesty in the ’80s; signed into law liberal abortion law in California as governor; former FDR-Truman liberal from Hollywood.
RINO Heretics everywhere!!
I don’t think that it is axiomatic that any incumbent should enjoy the party’s support, especially if that member doesn’t support the party on key votes. Otherwise, you have no chance of party discipline, and I don’t think that we are well served by having 535 independent political entrepreneurs on Capitol Hill.
Rigid party-line votes are not the norm; in most instances there are nearly always some in both parties that deviate, without sanction from the leadership, from the party-line.
The recent case of every Republican in the House voting against the Stimulus Bill made headlines partly because it was such an exception. Party leaders usually understand when a particular member has to mollify supporters back in their home districts — or has some other reason for a particular vote deviating from the party-line.
The norm is that leadership counts on support most of the time — not all the time. For instance, Senators Cornyn and Hutchison are both Republicans from the same state but have not voted the same in some instances yet neither of them are in any trouble with Senate leadership.
So leaping from a few votes against party-lines, as is normally the case, to worrying about “535 independent political entrepreneurs,” is unwarranted. “Party discipline” is necessarily and ordinarily much more lax than the commentor implies.
J.L.:
What crucial Republican policies has Snowe voted for?
I’ve never liked Romney or Huckabee. They’re both big-government Republicans, as was G.W. Bush. I’m against big government.
Reagan was generally a good President, but we can clearly see now that his amnesty was an unmitigated disaster. I’ve never been a Reagan worshipper.
If you read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”, you can see the extent that Progressivism has utterly infested the policies of both parties over the past century. It will be a tall order indeed to clear all that out.
J.L.:
What crucial Republican policies has Snowe voted for?
I’ve never liked Romney or Huckabee. They’re both big-government Republicans, as was G.W. Bush. I’m against big government.
Reagan was generally a good President, but we can clearly see now that his amnesty was an unmitigated disaster. I’ve never been a Reagan worshipper.
If you read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”, you can see the extent that Progressivism has utterly infested the policies of both parties over the past century. It will be a tall order indeed to clear all that out.
grackle, I think we are far closer to having loose confederations of political entrepreneurs, instead of coherent parties, than you might think. Almost every Member of Congress and Senator (especially) have his own organization and fundraising apparatus that is largely independent of the national party.
The normal role of the whips is to make it clear that there will be consequences for not supporting the party position when it really matters. The judgment required of party leadership is to decide what really matters, and it can’t be everything. If you are building a majority, you don’t want your members to take on suicide missions. Equally, you can’t have members freelancing and defecting whenever it is convenient for them.
Even if a member opposes a specific party policy as a matter of conviction, a good party member will express that opposition in a way that does not advance the general interests of the other party; at a minimum, you should not make propaganda on behalf of the other party. If you do, you should not expect your party to love, admire, or respect you for it, especially if it seems that your principles and self-interest are mainly in alignment with your ego. This is where I get impatient with people like McCain (even though I supported him for president and contributed to his campaign) and Graham.
This is not a call for ideological purity, or anything like it. There is a role for principled disagreement within the party on most issues. (I think we can agree that there are also positions where there is rightfully no room for disagreement, as Trent Lott discovered.) The question is, where are you when you are most needed?
Looking at Snowe’s voting record is interesting.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Olympia_Snowe.htm
Her voting record and official website suggest that her story is about constituent service, soccer mom hot button issues, and defense, with some mild populism thrown in for good measure: a potent electoral combination! I don’t detect any particular interest in leading in any particular direction; rather, she seems to take a tactical and reactive stance.
A thoroughly unreliable vote. But it could be worse: she could be an Al Franken or a Barbara Boxer.
rickl Says:
What crucial Republican policies has Snowe voted for?
Admittedly, she is not a reliable vote for most conservatove policies. But, to answer your question, see the next to the last paragraph in neo’s post. In other words: more than would a democrat in the same position.
rickl Says:
I’ve never liked Romney or Huckabee. They’re both big-government Republicans, as was G.W. Bush. I’m against big government.
Reagan was generally a good President, but we can clearly see now that his amnesty was an unmitigated disaster. I’ve never been a Reagan worshipper.
My point was, who exactly would be left in the GOP if it takes a “hard line” approach? Is this going to be a party consisting of only Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin? Buchanan already tried to run for president and was trounced. How would you get anyone elected?
In fact, there are presently at least two “hard core” right of center parties in the U.S.:the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party. These are the parties that truly stand for hard “right of center”, no compromise views. These are the parties which stand for hard core social/paleo conservatism (the Constitution party) or hard core libertarianism (the Libertarian Party). They have not been able to get past the local levels of government. Theirs is a losing formula.
The reality is that, while most of the American public opposes (rightly so) Obama-style socialism, they also oppose going all the way to the right. As is often stated, most Americans are, like myself, center-right. We are a center-right country, and will not be won over by extremism in either direction.
If you read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”, you can see the extent that Progressivism has utterly infested the policies of both parties over the past century. It will be a tall order indeed to clear all that out.
Ah, yes, those awful Progressive policies. Well, if youre talking about the tendencies of Progressives throughout the 20th centrury to support excessive expansion of government, and to think that government is always the answer, then I agree that those policies have been bad for the country. I also think that too many “progressives” have had the tendency to be beguiled by collectivist foreign ideologies when they should know better. I also agree that most of what passes for “progressivism” nowadays is pretty bad, in some cases even anti-American and anti-individualism.
But to condemn all of 20th century preogressivism is just as equally extreme. Progressivism is too broad a category for people to just condemn or praise with one breath.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, child labor was common. Progressives were at the forefront of ending it.
At the beginning of the 20th century, standards for the production of food products were lax. Progressives fought to make sure you didn’t wind up with “special secret ingredients” (if you get my drift) in your sausages, or that standards were in place to make sure you werent being sold bacteria along with your can of soup.
At the beginning of the 20th century, working conditions were, in some cases, deathtraps. See, for example, the Triangle Shirtwaiste factory Fire of 1911 . Progressives fought to implement workplace safety standards. (And, yes, I know how many people here just hate regulation… and I also hate excessive regulation, but I think many who are complaining would have hated to work in the conditions that existed prior to Progressivism.
Does anyone here use any state or national parks? It was the Progressives that initiated that effort.
At the beginning of the 20th century, woman were without a vote, and blacks were often lynched. Yes, I know we oppose affirmative action. I do too. But, thank God progressives fought to make sure people were accorded their rights as citizens. (Now, we need to get rid of this affirmative action reverse discrimination, but that doesnt mean going back to the original discrimination either.)
Oh, and immigration control used to be considered a “progressive” cause.
I’ve never been a Reagan worshipper.
The commentor should not worship Reagan or any other person but he should certainly ask himself, “What was Reagan’s method that he whipped the Progressives like mangy curs in 2 elections and was one of the most popular Republicans in the last hundred years?” And, “How was his approach different than the approach that got the Republicans spanked in the last election.”
Let’s leave individual policies out of consideration, since the commentor doesn’t seem to like Reagan’s policies, and just look at overall approach, which consisted mainly of 2 relatively simple things:
Reagan NEVER demanded purity of thought or action. He welcomed many to the fold, including social conservatives, who were just as wrongheaded then as they are now.
With Reagan the emphasis was on political issues, namely the 3 Golden Political Principles: Limited government, Strong defense and Free markets.
Let us now ask the commentor: We know you don’t like Reagan – what political figures do you revere? And why?
Almost every Member of Congress and Senator (especially) have his own organization and fundraising apparatus that is largely independent of the national party.
Is this different than what was the case during the Reagan era? If it is what does it tell us about the direction and emphasis of the fundraising policies of the GOP since the Reagan era?
If you are building a majority, you don’t want your members to take on suicide missions. Equally, you can’t have members freelancing and defecting whenever it is convenient for them.
I agree, although the commentor and I might diverge on how we define “freelancing” and “convenient.” One of the skills required of good Congressional leadership should be the ability to reconcile the sometimes conflicting needs of the party and the individual politician.
There is a role for principled disagreement within the party on most issues.
I agree here also. Where the commentor gave me cause for debate was the hyperbole of leaping from a few votes against party-lines, as is normally the case, to worrying about “535 independent political entrepreneurs.”
After John McCain, who is certainly a maverick and with whom I also have policy disagreements, won the GOP nomination for President the disappointed social conservatives whined and raged and generally acted like spoiled toddlers having a fit in Wal-Mart because mommy won’t buy them a Barbie doll. You cannot win elections with this kind of childish reaction when your favored candidate doesn’t get the nomination.
J.L.:
It was only called Progressivism in the United States. Europeans called it Fascism.
Same political movement, same ideas, same goals.
An Ill Wind is Breaking For Our President
To rickl: The Iowahawk link – I’m still laughing. The man is a comic genius.
Iowahawk: hilarious as always. Just a couple of misses. First, there is no harbor at Gay Head; the closest is Menemsha, though Vineyard Haven is probably preferable, depending on Nancy’s LOA. Second, I have never known Mr. Frum to be at a loss for words.
rickl
It was only called Progressivism in the United States. Europeans called it Fascism.
Same political movement, same ideas, same goals.
No.
Progressivism is a more deiverse movement… really a set of movements…with a generalised tendency “favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice).” See this Wikipedia entry
Progressivism was a very broad and generalized phenomenon in the twentieth centruy, which included radicals and well as moderates. As I mentioned earlier, it included many of the goals I specified (ending child labor, better working conditions, ending racial discrimination).
“Fascism” is more specific. It refers to a nationalistic, totalitarian movement which supported “a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.” This is a much more specific definition than that for Progressivism.
While it is true that Fascism had some tendencies which overlapped with Progressivism, they are not the same. (It had some tendencies which overlapped with European conservatism as well, but they weren’t the same either.) Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, whatever you think of them, were not Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.
Further, while I would agree that what remains of Progressivism nowadays is the dregs of it… and what remains contains many tendencies which I reflexively oppose, thats not the same as saying that all of 20th century Progressivism was the same. It wasn’t.
Also, while some Progressives in the twentieth century certainly adopted some awful viewpoints (for example, the support of Eugenics by certain birth control activists), a lot of what came out of Progressivism, as a whole, was beneficial. It is worth making a differentiation.
Which one of the previosly mentioned goals would you oppose? Ending child labor? Safety standards for food products? The National Park system? Giving women the vote?
Heres the wikipedia articles for
Progressivism
and
Fascism .
Note the difference between the two.
Also, I would note that Jonah Goldberg himself would agree with me.
See this interview with him
In the interview, Goldber notes that his book is intended to point out that, notwithstanding that Fascism is often placed on “the right” of the political spectrum, that it actually shares some tendencies with “the left.” He says that he isn’t trying to imply that facsim and progressivism are identical.
Regarding that type of thinking, he says:
No, no. I mean, I try to reject that kind of thing … I don’t believe that liberals are Nazis; I believe that if Nazism came to the United States it is entirely possible that liberals would be at the forefront of the battle to stop it. So would conservatives. I’m not trying to do any argument ad Hitlerum in this book.
Later on he says again:
I don’t say that contemporary liberalism is the direct heir of Nazism or Italian fascism. I say it’s informed by it. It’s like its grandniece. It’s related, they’re in the same family, they share a lot of genetic traits, but they’re not the same thing.
And toward the end he is asked, ” And you say you’re not calling liberals Nazis . . .”, to which Goldberg responds: “I must say it 25 times in the book.”
This hypocrisy that Snowe is attempting belies the FACT that Snowe and the other OLD BAG from Maine are ultimately self serving. In fact 1 million dollars worth of insurance company lobby money is paying Oly’s war chest to protract the debate. The electorate needs to take a close look at Snowes active collusion in this fiasco. One thing she and the other have in common is that they will never measure up to the ethical standards of Margret Chase-Smith. These two are typical of the type of parasites that were understudies of Billy “don’t ask don’t tell” Cohen, and are just as incidious and sleazy as as thier mentor. All are afflicted with the same unethical standards that we as voters have come to expect from our politicians. Face it, there will be no real reform until this effluent is flushed away……