Kemp vs. Herbert

In response to Jack Kemp’s death, Bob Herbert at The Times pens a typically unhinged piece about Kemp’s triumphs and tragedies. Predictably, he gets it backwards.

Kemp, a student of economics – courses Mr. Herbert should seriously consider taking – concluded, based upon evidence rather than ideology, that a society which keeps taxes low, government small, abjures efforts at redistribution, rewards effort and punishes sloth, succeeds. He also saw this as the way to get more minorities into the GOP. As we all know, the Republican Party is the Party of the rich, and as people prosper, they will, Kemp persuasively reasoned, become more inclined to join the Party which supported the policies which created that prosperity.

Kemp supported certain problematic ideas, like affirmative action and enterprise zones, presumably as temporary, political measures, adopted more for public or political relations than for their efficacy. Like the Voting Rights Act – which, long ago, served its purpose, but which has become an object of liberal veneration and a useful tool to drum up support among those, like Herbert, who can’t get beyond 1953 – these programs represent deviations from principle, assertedly necessary to bring us back to principle. But, alas, programs which "work" only to the extent of deviating from principle tend to undercut it rather than encourage it; once you go down the path of identity politics, it’s hard to regain your sanity, as Herbert’s writing proves. And once you create insular, low tax zones, it’s difficult, later, to repeal that unfair advantage.

While Kemp’s efforts to broaden the GOP base ran into solid opposition from those who believe – properly – that attention paid to complexion is not worth the benefit, if any, it produces, his economic policies were solidly embraced by the conservative wing of the GOP. These ideas attracted the attention of Ronald Reagan and became the foundation for his economic policies, setting the stage for the longest period of prosperity in American history.

Herbert, like most socialists, hates supply side economics for one simple reason: freedom. Many socialists believe passionately that rich people got that way through some great crime; all socialists believe that government exists expressly for the purpose to taking from the rich to give (after a substantial deduction for governmental administration) to the poor. They are utterly blind to the destructive economic effects, because they reject the notion of economics that says people will work harder for their own benefit, and that of their families, than for others.

Let us assume that taxes were cut, tomorrow, to a top rate (federally) of 25%. Herbert and his socialist allies would scream bloody murder: "these tax cuts only benefit, and are gifts to, the rich"!! Leave aside the inanity of referring to governmental policy which permits people to keep what they themselves earn as "a gift"; it’s indisputable that the direct beneficiaries would be "the rich".

Most non-rich conservatives applaud; people – rich or not – should be allowed to keep more of what they earn, as, after all, the money belongs to them, not us. But that’s mere principle. Pragmatically, we’re delighted, because we understand that money in the hands of "the rich" is far better than money in the hands of the tax collector.

One wonders if Herbert actually reads his own paper, and, in particular, the column I mentioned a few posts back, noting that when "the rich" feel a draft, the not rich catch cold. But let’s put it in practical terms.

A few years back, the Dems, in response to the proposed Bush tax cuts, harumphed: "The rich will be able to buy a Lexus; the poor will be able to but a tank of gas." Assume that’s true.

Now: who will build that Lexus? Who works at the dealership which sells it? Who will provide the maintenance for it? Who will repair it if it’s involved in an accident? Who (in NJ) will pump the gas into it? Who will design and build the garage to house it?

The rich?

Call it "trickle down" if you want. Conservatives call it "freedom and prosperity". Tax that money away from those who earn it and the only industry to grow is government. This produces absurdities like a "stimulus" package which borrows hundreds of billions and spends it on governmental programs, which do precisely nothing to stimulate anything except more government.

Kemp looked around the world and considered the evidence. Herbert, contrariwise, like all socialists, believes what he believes as a matter of received wisdom, immune from trivialities like refutation by evidence. Kemp’s assessment of the evidence persuaded him – as it would any rational observer – that the poor do much better in free market economies in which guarantees are few but opportunities vast.

Herbert, apparently, considers working for a living demeaning. Consider:

"Working people were told they should sign onto this craziness because the economic benefits of supply-side tax policies would ultimately benefit everyone. As every scheme imaginable was developed to bolster the fortunes of the rich, ordinary people were left in the humiliating position of waiting for some of the goodies to trickle down to them."

"Goodies"? Letting people keep what they earn is giving them a "goodie"?

For whom, pray tell, do these "working people" work? Would anyone be delusional enough to believe that the best way to secure a job one lacks is to zap the employer with a big tax increase? That if one wants a a raise, best hike your bosses taxes? Conservatives have absolutely no interest in "bolster(ing) the fortunes of the rich"; what separates us from liberals is our willingness to simply leave them alone to enjoy the fruits of their labors or investments, because their money does not belong to us!! And we don’t think that leaving "the rich" alone represents "humiliating" begging for the scraps of their tables. We’re delighted when someone else can afford to buy that Lexus, because we know that their freedom benefits us all.

Herbert simply hates freedom. He is utterly ignorant of the basic principles of economics, never mind human nature. The simple, irrefutable truth is that the poor do best where government lets the rich alone, where taxes are low, and where economies are free. This is not some theoretical faith; it’s empirical fact. Herbert much prefers that everyone share equally in a minuscule pie than that some people get a larger share of an entire bakery.

Herbert’s world is a crabbed, mean place, zero sum place, filled with hate and envy, where one’s neighbor’s gain must inevitably come at one’s expense. A juvenile world in which everyone sits at the table and measures precisely how much milk and how many cookies each child gets, completely oblivious to how the cookies and milk are actually produced. A whiny, petulant, "that’s not fair!!" society.

Kemp’s, on the other hand, was a free, happy world, which permits everyone to earn what they could and to keep what they earned. In which family, friends, churches, charities, neighborhood and community ensured that the needs of those who, through no fault of their own, were met. In which people understood that we’re all in this together without a political commissar ala Herbert issuing marching orders.

Leaving aside the philosophical superiority of Kemp’s freedom based world over that of Herbert’s command and control society, the simple, irrefutable fact is that Kemp’s society works, Herbert’s fails. Kemp’s free market make prosperity in which all, in fact, benefit, without "humiliation". Herbert’s inevitably fails, collapsing under the weight of the government required to maintain it.

Whitman on Specter

Christie Whitman – she whose tenure as Governor of the State of New Jersey set the stage for the enduring Republican majorities enjoyed here ever since – holds forth in The New York Times on Arlen Specter’s defection to the opposition. This provoked a predictable number of well-reasoned responses so typical of the Times readership.

Let us commence with Heronor’s analysis. She contends, as did The Ledger, that "our democracy desperately needs two vibrant parties".

Why? If the Democrats now have a "big tent", with room for pro-lifers – like Bob Casey – radicals – like Barack Obama and Barney Frank – and "moderates" – like Arlen Specter – could not reasonable policy by shaped within that one Party? Why not simply leave the conservatives – assuming there’s no room in the Democratic Party inn for us – to live in sulking irrelevance?

Parties only exists to advance competing political ideas; if those ideas are already addressed in the context of one Party, which embraces everyone – or, at least, most folks – why should anyone care that 30% or so of the population has little or no effective voice? I mean, who really cares about the troglodytes who concern themselves with unborn children and preachy morality anyway?

Governor Whitman continues:

"We cannot simply be the party of no; we need to provide a compelling counterpoint to the Obama administration’s tax-spend-and-borrow policies."

Well, then, why lament the flight of Specter to the other side, which flight was precipitated precisely because his GOP colleagues said "NO", forcefully, and offered a "compelling counterpart" to the horribly irresponsible Obama policies? If so-called "moderates" bolt the GOP because it refuses to endorse "tax-spend-and-borrow policies", how might we hope to retain them? Put simply, the GOP message of fiscal responsibility sent Specter packing; how might the Party, simultaneously, oppose reckless economic policies and still retain the loyalties of folks who endorse them?

The Governor wrote:

"... Arlen Specter caucused with the Republicans, and he voted with his party 70 percent of the time ... It is a sure bet that his voting record will now change."

Oh? What votes would he cast differently? And why? Not a very principled guy if he permits mere partisanship to color his judgment. If that’s the case, he BELONGS in the Democratic Party, which places little importance on principal or honor. Opposing good policy – or favoring rotten policy – for crassly partisan purposes is idiotic. (I voted against all but one of the budgets Whitman and her GOP successor drafted because, considered at that time, they were irresponsible. Of course, by comparison to what came later, Governor Whitman’s fiscal record looks like a beacon of restraint.)

Finally, Heronor writes:

"In the coming election cycle, we have the opportunity to remind the nation that our party is committed to such important values as fiscal restraint, less government interference in our everyday lives, environmental policies that promote a balanced approach between protection and economic interest, and a foreign policy that is engaged with the rest of the world."

How, I wonder, given the abysmal record of "fiscal restraint" under the last Republican President and the last Republican Congress, might one remind the electorate of that fact? "Well, now, we really mean it. Please, we’re not your father’s GOP." Actually, Specter’s vamoosing might help: "you see? We’ve reformed. Irresponsible big spenders, like Specter, feel they have no place in the new GOP." Given the unrestrained glut of borrowing and spending under Bush and the GOP, we should expect no little skepticism from the electorate. Only horror at the astonishingly irresponsible Democrats, seen at the TEA Parties, might save Republican cookies.

No one – NO ONE – in the electorate gives a damn about what the French think about us, least of all anyone even marginally tempted to vote for a Republican. So-called mainstream environmentalism has been captured by apocalyptic Luddites who view man and all his works as evil, separate and distinct from nature not a part thereof. In NJ, we see the baleful effects of that silliness in the Highlands; essentially no one who actually lives in the Highlands supports the Act. In lieu of the nuttiness that passes uncritically on the left, we should support pragmatic alternatives, such as support for the construction of more nukes.

And, finally, the cryptic "less government interference in our daily lives" presumably refers to those days upon which someone wishes to perform an abortion. (She probably doesn’t mean those days on which you wish to carry a firearm) Never mind that consistent majorities of Americans support substantial restrictions on abortion and that Republicans will NEVER, EVER win the votes of pro-abortion extremists. Kiss off the right to life vote and goombye GOP.

Assuming the GOP manages to recoup its fiscally responsible image by expressly repudiating the last eight years, it loses "moderates" like Specter, who abandoned the Party precisely because it seems to be doing precisely that. Even if the GOP throws right to lifers under the bus, it will not attract the votes of abortion-extremists, who tend to be liberal on other issues as well. Internationally, the GOP might adopt a Mulshine-ish isolationist policy – let the world take care of itself – which has some facial appeal, but produced unfortunate results the last time we tried it in the 1920s and 1930s.

Just now, the population seems inclined to give Obama and the radical left the benefit of the doubt. They’re scared and want government to "do something". The danger lies for the GOP rests on the New Deal precedent: it failed miserably while being hugely popular. Given that the media – what’s left of it – is completely in the tank for Obama, we cannot expect critical reporting. It falls to us to, repeatedly, point out the astonishing irresponsibility of the program and its inevitable failure.

I would dearly love a Party which returned to the policies and principles advanced by Ronald Reagan, as the Governor purports to desire. I share her views that this is precisely the way to win back the hearts and minds of the American people. But we can’t do that while lamenting the loss of unprincipled opportunists like Specter. He skedaddled precisely because the GOP threatened to return to the very principles the Governor contends we should embrace. We can’t have it both ways: we’re either the principled Party of Reagan, or the Party of Specter. I opt for the former, and wish the Democrats a lot of luck with this guy.