Shot in the Dark

What The Hell Is Wrong With The MNGOP: Part VI

So the mission is this: dispense with the careerism and backbiting and just-plain-doesn’t-matter buncombe that occupies so much of the MNGOP’s time, and come up with a message – a message that’ll not only unite the party, but reach out to people who aren’t especially affiliated with either party to begin with.  A message that will clearly frame the fact that there is a very clear choice between Republicans and Democrats.

Here’s the hard part; they have to be messages that even Republicans agree on amongst themselves.  And that’s a tough one; leaving aside the single-issue voters who might be completely ignorant about issues outside their turf (I can’t count the number of single-issue pro-lifers who’ve claimed to oppose, say, concealed-carry reform, just because they had never cared to learn about the issue beyond what the media told them), a lot of the messages that are absolutely vital to one group of Republicans can be anathema – or at least not very important – to others.

Good example?  Gay marriage.  It’s an issue worth taking up arms over to some Republicans; to the GOP’s tiny gay minority, it’s a goal; to a lot of us (the “Mitch Berg Bloc”, let’s call us), it’s various degrees of “important, but not the most important issue out there.  In any case, it’s an stance that serves more to ensure ideological purity within a movement than to win elections.

The goal here, once again: find messages all Republicans can agree on, and that can win people over to the party.  The idea is this; when we’re back in power, we can fuss about all the issues that divide us; if we’re out of power, we lose on all the issues, no matter what; the Democrats will gut-shoot every liberty that matters while they’re in power.

Last week, I suggested three of those messages:

Prosperity.

Education.

Security.

These are all make-or-break issues on the state level (these are not intended for the national party, although two out of three should be), both for unting the party and winning over voters.

We’re going to go over one of them per day.  We’ll start with prosperity.

America has a hard time not being prosperous.  You airdrop ten Americans in the desert with jackknives and plastic tubing and come back in a week and they’ll have built an ice cream machine, and a commodity market to trade ice cream futures and spin them into complex derivatives that they can sell to the Saudis and then short-sell when the Russians move extra capacity into the sherbet market, making money on the up and downsides.

Oh, business has up and down cycles – creative destruction isn’t just a great band name.  But as John McCain (and now Barack Obama) said, the fundamentals of the American economy – immense human and material resources, drive, constantly-replenishing intellectual capital) are more sound than in any econony on earth…

…provided government gets out of the way.  The most dismal periods in recent American history – the most extended swatches of misery – are the times when government opted to “help” solve financial crises with taxation, regulation and intervention.  Government intervention extended the Great Depression until the beginning of World War II (and, without the war, it’d have likely lasted well into the forties) when it would likely have ended on its own by about 1937-8.  And government regulation and aggressive taxation – the bastard children of FDR and LBJ’s policies – helped make the seventies the dismal morass they were.  And let’s not forget that the mortgage bubble grew out of the government’s mandates to expand sub-prime lending, socializing the risks of shoddy loans.

The more you leave government out of the equation (yes, yes, make sure  nobody’s making baby formula out of arsenic, and yes, the courts exist to an extent to help people get relief from business’ excesses), the better things are.  Any number of the world’s great philosophers and economics and economic philosophers, from Smith to Hayek, have shown how it works; all the greatest periods in American (and world) economic history have accompanied periods of enlightened deregulation.

Conservatives stand for “limited government” – but that’s another ephemeral concept to an awful lot of people.  How do you shrink government?  You starve it!
So how do you sum that up briefly?

Like this:

Republicans: Low Taxes, Prosperity and Freedom.

Low taxes lead to free markets lead to jobs, which leads to prosperity.  Low taxes mean you have more money; having more of the fruits of your labor at your own disposal is freedom – very likely the most-used freedom in our society today.  It’s the freedom to take a trip, donate to charity, put money away for your kids’ education, buy a car, change careers…whatever you choose (which benefit in turn the travel industry, charities, banks, car dealers…)

Republicans equal low taxes. Low taxes equal prosperity. Prosperity equals freedom.

So how does this compare with the alternative?

Democrats:  Taxes and Control.

The Democrats believe that your earnings belong first to government; that government’s mission, and keeping that mission funded, is the reason you work.  Anything left over?  Well, don’t spend it all in one place!

When government claims the fruits of your labor, you don’t control what you do with a third of your life.  You cede control of what you do to the government; you cede your freedom.

DFL Senator Cy Thao put it well at the beginning of the 2007 session; “When you guys win, you get to keep your money.  When we win, we take your money!”.  If the GOP doesn’t make up T-shirts with this saying emblazoned in white on black and distribute them througout the state, they don’t deserve to be a party.

The choice is simple; freedom to enjoy the results of your hard work versus being (in effect) government property.

It’s not just fuzzy-headed libertarian theory; Obama’s current spending mania is going to make you, your children, and your grandchildren into de facto government servants for their entire lives.

There’s nothing abstract about this.

Republicans: Low Taxes, Prosperity and FreedomDemocrats:  Taxes and Control.

Tomorrow:  Education.


Posted

in

,

by

Tags:

Comments

30 responses to “What The Hell Is Wrong With The MNGOP: Part VI”

  1. Terry Avatar
    Terry

    Democrats think that the way you make prosperity is to pay two people to do a job one person could do. Unless they are the one paying for the job.

  2. angryclown Avatar
    angryclown

    It’s a tough assignment. The Democrats have Hope and Change, not to mention Decency and Competence. But Angryclown put on his pointy thinking cap and came up with these possible themes for the MNGOP:

    Blood.

    Sweat.

    Tears.

    Or how about:

    Earth.

    Wind.

    Fire.

    Maybe:

    Larry.

    Moe.

    Curly.

  3. Terry Avatar
    Terry

    The Democrats have Hope and Change

    Shouldn’t that be past tense?
    Iraq is still chock full of American troops, Guantanamo is still open for business, and the federal government is still shoveling billions of dollars into failed businesses.
    On the other hand, unemployment and deficit spending are up! up! up!

  4. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    Clown,

    For the moment, let’s humor you and assume that “Hope and Change” was anything more than a meaningless bromide to lull the easily-swayed, and that anything you say about the GOP (that I’m not already addressing with this series in the first place) is remotely true.

    So what?

    The conversation is about what Republicans can and will have to do to change things, especially in Minnesota.

    Which is, with all due respect, what I’d like to limit this thread to.

    Thanks,

    MBerg

  5. angryclown Avatar
    angryclown

    I’m just pointing out that there are limits to what you can claim to represent, at this point, without further straining your party’s already tenuous ties to reality. Usually the out-of-power party at least gets to claim the mantle of change. Not so in 2009. I suggest you return to the basics: We’ll let you keep most of your money and we’ll keep the people you don’t like down. You’ll need to fancy it up a little, of course.

  6. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    We’ll let you keep most of your money

    So far so good.

    and we’ll keep the people you don’t like down.

    That’d be an interesting sell in my district caucus.

  7. angryclown Avatar
    angryclown

    Wow, good point Terry. Two months in office already, President Obama hasn’t fixed all the problems it took Shrub eight years to create!

  8. Dog Gone Avatar
    Dog Gone

    Lets get a lot more specific about this anti-regulation position.

    WHICH regulation is it that is bad, exactly? The broadness of that position is troubling – at least to me. While this may or may not be true of your position, Mitch, I have as a general experience found that there is an alarming ignorance of many kinds of regulation, where there is cherry picking to find instances of problem regulation, but an absence of depth and breadth of the applicable regulation, how and when it came about – the ‘why’ of it. Taken in broader context, including the problems that regulation addresses, often presents a very different picture.

    So, while yes, there are instances of bad regulation, excessive or redundant or ineffectual rules, this is troubling as a general position.

    I think there is a strong argument to be made that the gutting of desirable regulation, along with the gutting of good enforcement, is like a recklessly played game of Jenga with real assets instead of wooden blocks. It is the root of many of our current problems ranging from an economy in crisis to the weakening of our national securiy resulting from that economic crisis.

    As to the strength of our ‘fundamentals’, I partially agree with you. Even in our current crisis, we have a lot with which to work. We are by no means down and out YET. I have problems with the strong fundamentals assertion on several points – 1) the cumulative loss over a period of decades of important kinds of jobs, particularly industrial jobs; 2) the cumulative and continuing unemployment stats; 3) the continuing failure of banks, although they have not been widely reported in the case of smaller institutions. In particular, as an example, I would refer you and your blog followers to the NPR segment in the past few weeks that covered the actual step by step procedures when the FDIC comes in to take over a failing bank or other similar institution. In that segment, which if I recall correctly was the take over of a bank in a Pacific northwest state, as a context to the description, it was repeatedly mentioned that these kinds of takeovers of failing institutions are occurring at the rate of one failure PER WEEK. Any bank failing has been rare, much less one a week, in my lifetime. (I, like Mitch, am a ‘boomer’.)

    Beyond the vast and as yet largely uncovered and unexplored massive, massive fraud that underlies both the stock market near collapse, and the failure of banks and other financial institutions. Beyond the UTTERLY bogus ratings given to derivatives, there are serious questions to be explored about the potential for similar fraud in related investments.

    If you really want to press this position, why not try to get Mr. Black, the superstar fraud buster of the Reagan administration, to do an interview by phone on your radio show? No one knows the topic of regulation, pro and con, better than he does. It is a perfect fit, given your admiration for former President Reagan.

    You are a widely read blogger, and have a significant audience not only through your broadcast, but through your program’s streaming audio and podcasts, not to mention your other venues of interview. I think you are more than sufficiently prominent to ‘get’ Mr. Black; it would be a great coup for you and Ed over other area media.

  9. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    I have as a general experience found that there is an alarming ignorance of many kinds of regulation, where there is cherry picking to find instances of problem regulation, but an absence of depth and breadth of the applicable regulation, how and when it came about – the ‘why’ of it. Taken in broader context, including the problems that regulation addresses, often presents a very different picture.

    Re: Mr. Black: It’d be an interesting interview. Good suggestion.

    Re: going into greater depth on regulation; also an interesting topic, but way out of scope for this discussion; messaging is by its nature simplistic (although I believe the American people can handle more complex fare than “Hope and Change”).

    And I am NOT a baby boomer! My parents were 9 and 5 on VJ day; boomers, by demographic definition, are the children of the WWII generation.

    Whew!

  10. Kermit Avatar
    Kermit

    Sorry, Berg. Baby Boom lasted until around 63.

  11. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    Yes, but only because that’s how long the WWII generation was having kids. There’s no such thing as a hard cutoff date with demographic trends. I was born during the baby boom, but I am not a baby boomer.

    The only thing I remember about the Beatles was the news they’d broken up. I share not one single cultural touchstone with them. And allow me to repeat myself; my parents were not 18 on VJ day.

    While the very youngest boomers are my contemporaries, I am not one of them.

    And this is really off subject. Thanks.

  12. Mr. D Avatar

    Kerm is right – general definition of the Baby Boom is 1946-1964 or thereabouts.

    As for the piece — in terms of basic messaging, I suspect you’re spot on. And the D’s are very busy making our case for us, especially on the control piece. By the time we get to 2010, the tax part will be much more clear as well.

  13. Master of None Avatar

    “Any bank failing has been rare, much less one a week, in my lifetime.”

    Over 700 S&L’s failed in the 90’s at a cost of $160 billion. We’ve been through this before and not that long ago.

    “And I am NOT a baby boomer! ”

    Ditto!

    I define the end of the baby-boom generation to be 1960, the year that the Pill was approved for use in the U.S.

  14. Dog Gone Avatar
    Dog Gone

    Master of None, any idea the number of banks that have failed in the current crisis and the amounts involved, especially in terms of the assets/deposits of those banks compared to the S&L scandal?

    AIG alone has cost more than the total 80 -90’s S&L’s;far more if you add in the costs to the FDIC.

    Further, savings and loan associations, and credit unions are NOT banks, although the distinctions were sharper between banks and S&L’s prior to the changes made by 1989 federal legislation. For example, S&L accounts are insured by the FSLC, not the FDIC; Credit Unions, which are not for profit are insured by a different entity, which acronym I don’t recall off the top of my head.

    And as part of an earlier thread, the allegations of racial factors in the sub-prime mortgage debacle: recently the first law suit was filed by the NAACP, providing data that there was similar, sometimes superior qualifications by blacks who were steered into subprime mortgages compared to whites similarly qualified. Qualified not only in terms of income, but also down payment, credit ratings, and another source has indicated equal or better employment histories for blacks who ended up in subprime deals. Similar law suits are pending in other states, and given the documentation compiled by the U of MN Law School project, I’d expect similar law suits here sooner or later. I would also expect that other groups will turn out to have been targeted for similar illegal discrimination.

  15. Terry Avatar
    Terry

    Didn’t I debunk that UM study, Dog Gone?
    I am familiar with the type of lawsuit the NAACP has filed. The plaintiffs will use poorly written studies (like the UM study) to ‘prove’ a racist business practice without ever having gone to the trouble of finding an actual racist act. It’s worked for racial hucksters in the past, and it may this time, but it doesn’t make any sense. Racism is a vice; individuals have vices (and virtues). Collectives don’t.

  16. K-Rod Avatar
    K-Rod

    The problem is that as our state loses authority to the federal government the GOP won’t have the ability to make changes under the “global regime” of the Obama Oligarchy.

  17. Master of None Avatar

    “any idea the number of banks that have failed in the current crisis”

    25 in 2008, 21 in 2009 up through end of March.

    http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html

    The first 13 failures in 2009 cost a total of $1.5 billion, or about $100 million per failed bank.

    Bank failures are the least of my concerns.

  18. Dog Gone Avatar
    Dog Gone

    Terry says:
    “Racism is a vice; individuals have vices (and virtues). Collectives don’t. ”

    While racism may be described as a vice, there have been demonstrated, proven patterns of racial discrimination and other kinds of discrimination in a variety of entities, both business and governmental, which I believe fits within your term collectives, in the sense of being organizations of large numbers of people. Red lining in insurance and other kinds of business is just one kind. The Pigford decision successfully documented discrimination against Blacks and I believe also against Latinos by the USDA in the matter of emergency funding, loans, and subsidies that resulted in a significant decrease in the number of farms owned by the individuals discriminated against.

    Terry says:
    “Didn’t I debunk that UM study, Dog Gone?”

    If I am misrembering what your wrote Terry, I apologize. What I remember is that you raised questions about information not provided on their website; you did not establish, so far as I recall, that they actually failed to acquire that information as part of their study.

    While I agree with you that vigilance is necessary to distinguish between those who would exploit race from those who genuinely have been the targets of unfair treatment, I would respectfully NOT agree that no such unfair treatment ever exists on the part of organizations, both public and private.

  19. angryclown Avatar
    angryclown

    Terry informed: “Racism is a vice; individuals have vices (and virtues). Collectives don’t.”

    Gee, Terry, after considerable rumination, a couple counterexamples come to mind. For example HITLER’S NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY.

  20. Troy Avatar

    angryclown said:

    “Decency and Competence”

    Ha! Back that up, angryclown. Or are you saying that bowing must now define decency, and competence must be measured by how much money you want to spend? *snicker*

  21. Kermit Avatar
    Kermit

    Once the middle class starts to really feel the impact of carbon taxes, inflation devaluing the dollar and honest interest rates, the message won’t be hard to convey.

  22. K-Rod Avatar
    K-Rod

    And even if we elect conservative state representation they won’t have the authority or ability to change and take control back from the federal government. The same can be said for local government taking control back from the state.

    Gov. Anderson was correct when he claimed the state sales tax would be temporary.

    It was temporarily at 2% and then went up, up, up… and now the sales tax is part of our state constitution.

    Create the MN GOP message as you wish, Mr. Berg, but in the end all you are doing is trying to slow the march toward Socialism and Liberal Fascism.

    Leading the pig to the trough is easy, just try to stop the pig once it starts feeding on the largess.

  23. penigma Avatar

    For the moment, let’s humor you and assume that “Hope and Change” was anything more than a meaningless bromide to lull the easily-swayed,

    You mean like..

    Shock and Awe
    Dead or Alive
    Drill, Baby, Drill
    Support Our Troops
    Healthy Forests
    Clean Skies
    Illegal Combatants
    ?

    LOL

  24. Terry Avatar
    Terry

    Gee, Terry, after considerable rumination, a couple counterexamples come to mind. For example HITLER’S NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY.

    Oh, Mr. Clown, you slay me!
    Racist organizations like the nazi’s and the confederacy were full of individuals performing racist actions. The UM study Dog Gone cites identifies no actual acts of racism. It’s conclusion is statistically derived, by a team of four sociology profs & grad students working on a grant from a legal foundation that does things like sue banks on behalf of the NAACP.

    In the UM study they used census data from 2000 correlated by zip code to mortgages taken out long after 2000. They defined any neighborhood with greater than 80% minority population as being ‘segregated’, a word that has so many emotional overtones no real scientist would never use it. They find that the types of mortgages sold in these ‘segregated’ neighborhoods are of lower quality than in non-‘segregated’ neighborhoods and default rates are higher — but since the ‘segregated’ neighborhoods contain 20% non-minorities they can’t actually say that the bad mortgages were taken out by minorities.

    Using this standard of evidence you could prove that NPR & PBS are guilty of a pattern of exclusionary, racist programming because their audience is as white as me bum.

  25. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    Actually, no. Not like either any of those as they actually transpired, or your versions of each of them.

    When Republicans successfully translate Hayek and Friedman into a form that everyone can identify with – as Reagan, Gingrich and Brett Schundler did – we win. When we don’t, we get clobbered.

    None of what you list above – in fact or your talking-points-driven versions of them – were intended as anything of the sort, with the possible exception of “Drill Baby Drill”, which was actually fairly ingenious.

  26. Terry Avatar
    Terry

    Bush’s campaign 2000 slogans:
    Compassionate conservatism
    Leave no child behind
    Real plans for real people
    Reformer with results

    Bush’s campaign 2004 slogan:
    Yes, America Can!

    Obama’s campaign 2008 slogans:
    Change We Can Believe In
    Change We Need
    Hope
    Yes We Can!

  27. MarianneS Avatar
    MarianneS

    It’s not the taxing; it’s the spending.

    To spend, government must either tax, borrow, inflate or all three. None of those is something Republicans — or at least limited government types — should support.

    Hey Republicans, it’s the spending, stupid. And on spending, we have no credibility.

    A friend went to his BPOU convention this weekend, and was regaled with speeches on how we lost because we’d abandoned our principles. It came time to vote on state central delegates, and the body passed a rule that all candidates for del/alt must say whether they supported each candidate from state rep up to prez. Presumably that was to catch those who didn’t have the stomach to support Kline, Coleman or McCain.

    My friend told the truth anyways and luckily those in attendance didn’t have too much of a problem with that. This guy tied for last delegate spot, then was relegated to alternate on a coin flip. So that’s encouraging, I think.

    Yet still we’re told that it is verboten to criticize any old drunken sailor with an R behind his name. Bilge! We have a very damaged brand to rebuild.

  28. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    It’s not the taxing; it’s the spending.

    Tomato, tomahto. Big government taxes and spends and screws with prosperity.

  29. Terry Avatar
    Terry

    Hope! Change!

    Administration defends Bush wire-taps

    Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Monday, April 6, 2009

    (04-06) 15:26 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration’s wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/BARP16TJOQ.DTL

    Obama will likely keep all the executive privilege Bush claimed, but unlike Bush, use his powers against domestic political opponents.

  30. jdege Avatar
    jdege

    I keep thinking that the problem with libertarianism is that it’s stuck with the legacy of Ayn Rand’s singular mistake – her personification of freedom as the lone hero, free of encumbrances. Yet if you read her books, none of her lone heroes accomplished anything alone, they all acted in voluntary cooperation with others.

    Lincoln broke the back of slavery with the argument that no man had a right to live off the labor of others. This was an argument that had appeal to the ordinary working stiff.

    We’re dealing with people for whom collectivism is an ideal. When we attack collectivism directly, we get nowhere. And in truth, I don’t think there are any of us who are opposed to collectivism, per se. It’s forced collectivism that is the issue.

    The strength of America has always been in its voluntary associations. De Tocqueville commented on this:

    “Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association.”

    The problem with the Left is that they seek to form involuntary communities. They think they have the right answers, and hence have the right to force those answers upon the rest of us. Even if they did have the right answers, they don’t have the right.

    Clinton was a fan of Communitarianism, but Communitarianism is a fraud. The Community is not the State. The strength of a community is the strength of its civil society – the strength of its voluntary associations. And when government steps in to replace these voluntary associations, it weakens the community.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.