Say Anything Blog

Gene,

I know many of you don’t remember 1994 and what that was all about. It was about the cultural free fall.

Uh, no.  The “Republican Revolution” was about limited government.  Remember the Contract with America?  It was made up of 8 major reform bills:

The Fiscal Responsibility Act
The Taking Back Our Streets Act
The Personal Responsibility Act
The American Dream Restoration Act
The National Security Restoration Act
The “Common Sense” Legal Reform Act
The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act
The Citizen Legislature Act
Family Reinforcement Act
Senior Citizens Fairness Act

Not one of those acts was about a social agenda as defined by Mike Huckabee, thus the Republican Revolution was not about values voters.

And no, the Family Reinforcement Act was not about gay marriage or abortion.  It was about tax incentives for adoption, strengthening the powers of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and elderly dependent care tax credit.

Supporting Huckabee is one thing, Gene, but it’s ironic that in a post about your candidate’s honesty you’d attempt a blatant re-writing of history.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You just don’t remember:
Here are some actual stories from that time.  The votes were not for the contract, although it was good.  The votes in 1994 were a direct rejection of a moral climate and corruption that was out of control. It had far less to do with Taxes and such than a call to arms by social conservatives that turned a deadly tide. 

Newt Gingrich after the election of 1994:

But while he claimed that the “liberal media elite” had distorted his comments, Mr. Gingrich also reiterated today that the new Republican leadership could profoundly improve the moral climate of the country.

“A society which punishes violence and a society that is emphatic about right and wrong tends to have less sickness and less violence,” he said, adding that since the 1950’s, America had spiraled down into “a culture which is extraordinarily tolerant of violence, with a situation-ethics morality, in which your immediate concern about your personal needs outweighs any obligation to others.”

Although he gave dozens of warm and fuzzy interviews on Election Night and the next morning about his eagerness to work with President Clinton, Mr. Gingrich revealed a colder view of the chief executive when he talked about morality and the need to pass a constitutional amendment restoring school prayer.

He dismissed the First Lady’s “politics of meaning” with a grimace, and made it clear that he thought that Bill and Hillary Clinton had failed to provide the moral leadership the country needs because they are counterculture McGovernicks.

“That is honestly who he is,” he said of the President. “He’s a very smart, very clever tactician whose core system of activity is a combination of counterculture and McGovern. He was McGovern’s Texas director, he and his wife were counterculture at Yale, and why wouldn’t you accept that they really are who they are? Their problem is, that is a contradiction with the vast majority of Americans. So you have this constant internal stress and what the American people were saying is ‘Enough.’ “

He said the election proved that the “American people are clearly fed up with what they see as the decay of American society.”

Or Robert Bork on the 1994 Election:

No one can be certain of the future, of course. Cultures in decline have, unpredictably, turned themselves around before. Perhaps ours will too. Perhaps, ultimately, we will become so sick of the moral and aesthetic environment that is growing in America that stricter standards will be imposed democratically or by moral disapproval. Perhaps we will reject a government that is controlling more and more of our lives. A hopeful sign is the degree to which modern liberalism and its works-political correctness, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and the like-is coming under intellectual attack, not merely from conservative but also from liberal intellectuals. If its intellectual and moral bankruptcy is repeatedly exposed, perhaps modern liberalism will die of shame.

But then again, perhaps not. Country singer and social philosopher Merle Haggard, whose perspective is like Irving Kristol’s, says that the decade of the 1960s “was just the evening of it all. I think we’re into the dead of night now.” Chances are, that is too optimistic and the dead of night still lies ahead. For the immediate future, in any event, what we probably face is an increasingly vulgar, violent, chaotic, and politicized culture and, unless the conservative resurgence of 1994 is both long-lasting and effective, an increasingly incompetent, bureaucratic, and despotic government. Kristol refers to himself as a cheerful pessimist. If the argument here is even close to the mark, and if the counterattack falls short, we had all better start working on the cheerful part. 

Irving Kristol referred to above said:
What began to concern me more and more were the clear signs of rot and decadence germinating within American society-a rot and decadence that was no longer the consequence of liberalism but was the actual agenda of contemporary liberalism. . . . Sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. -Irving Kristol, “My Cold War”

OR Rush Limbaugh in “The Way Things Otta Be” just before the 1994 election (1992) that motivated a lot of people:

When you hear about ‘the Culture War,’ ladies and gentlemen, know that this is what it’s all about. It’s a war of competing ideas and worldviews. On one side, you have people who believe in living by a set of divinely inspired moral absolutes — or, at the very least, they believe that following such a moral code represents the best way to avoid chaos and instability. On the other side, you have people who insist that morality is simply a personal decision. Any attempt to enforce it is viewed as oppression.

or Paul Weyrich

Since well before the 2006 elections, the authors of this essay have sought to begin the discussion of the next conservatism. Our motive was not solely political success. We recognized some time ago that the old conservative agenda, comprised largely of anti-communism and free-market economics, had run its course. It was born in the Cold War and much though not all of it became obsolescent once that war was won. The next conservatism, in our view, has to come to grips with a new and different external reality, one in which “the permanent things” remain permanent but must be related to new phenomena. Our starting point was Kirk’s observation that conservatism is not an ideology. Rather, it is a way of life.

In the same article he says this:
The only surprise about the Republican debacle in the 2006 congressional elections was that many conservatives found it surprising. For at least a decade, the conservative movement has been on intellectual cruise control. The well of conservative ideas that so richly watered conservative political successes from the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 through the Contract with America and the Republican capture of the House of Representatives in 1994 ran dry before the Clinton years ran out. Most conservatives know that liberalism suffered political eclipse as a consequence of intellectual aridity, of an agenda that had become a museum piece of New Deal-era class warfare.

Why were they surprised when a similar conservative idea deficit led to a similar electoral defeat? Just as you can’t beat something with nothing, the 2006 vote showed that conservatives can’t beat nothing with nothing.

That election was won because millions of people like me were sick of the cultural and moral free fall in America and wanted someone to take a stand.

WE did.

WE won.

That lesson has been forgotten.

Read the last part of the last paragraph of quotes once more:

Why were they surprised when a similar conservative idea deficit led to a similar electoral defeat? Just as you can’t beat something with nothing, the 2006 vote showed that conservatives can’t beat nothing with nothing.

WE as conservatives are about to go into a general election with NOTHING.  If we don’t lower taxes and less government as good at they are doesn’t get people out to the polls.  The Republicans recognized it in 1994.

We can’t beat nothing with nothing. Anyone but Huckabee is nothing.  I’ll vote R. But lose.

Rob, I like you, think you’re a good man. You just don’t know history.  I was polled by a national polling agency after the 1994 election as to why I had voted as I did.  Cultural free fall was my answer and at the time it was the dominant theme.

We need to get militant social conservatism back and start winning this thing or become a super minority party once again.

the AVATAR
Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

That election was won because millions of people like me were sick of the cultural and moral free fall in America and wanted someone to take a stand.

WE did.

WE won.

That lesson has been forgotten.

Gene, much like Huckabee himself who is hiding his populism behind some fierce Bible-thumping, you are hijacking a movement that, when founded, had more to do with limited government than “values voters” issues.

If you don’t get this, you’re fooling yourself.

Honest people can disagree, but you aren’t being honest here Gene.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

I’m not hijacking anything.  The conservative move that began in 1994 that was culturally driven (or you have to disregard all the things I posted as evidence).

What Fiscal Conservatives don’t get is you can have zero taxes and zero government and total anarchy.  Or worse as was in the Clinton years, imposed taxes, and the cultural decline.  Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage.

Seems like Fiscal Conservatives want to incorrectly believe that the driving force behind the earlier successful efforts like 1994 were all about Tax and Government.  When Newt, the architect of it all, the NEXT DAY didn’t talk for a minute about taxes.  Read it again. It s the first Quote. He talked of “the Decay of American Society”.  NOT a PEEP about TAXES.

Horse without the carriage.

So, who hijacked who?

Show me where the credit for the win in real time was about the agenda, the contract and NOT the social issues.

I’ll wait.  Link please, because you will have a hard time finding Conservatives in that time frame (not revisionists now) who talked of anything less than Cultural Revolution.  NOT TAXES.

That’s what the Dems thought.

the AVATAR
Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

It;s the same old song
God, Gays and Guns.

Rob, Gene is right here. How old were you in 1994?

Woof,

God, gays, and guns? Okay, you have a point.  But when contrasted with what liberals are most threatened by… individual liberty… it rather pales in comparison.

Gene,

Huckabee isn’t a low-life, and he isn’t conservative.  He does have convictions, and many including myself share many of them with him.  What he doesn’t have is consistency in his record.  His record isn’t consistently Christian or conservative.  His message is a populist one, on immigration, corporate America, education, and the economy.  A message that betrays conservatism and leads his supporters in a moderate direction which fosters resentment and ignorance for the conservative positions on these issues.  A message that will set the country back economically and socially.  And even if he can, which is extremely doubtful if not impossible, champion a marriage ammendment, the ignorance and confusion on these issues where Huckabee fails, will take more than an election cylcle to correct.  Huckabee is telling the truth about gay marriage, but he is wrong and therefore not speaking the truth on issues as significant to social conservatism as traditional marriage.

liberals are most threatened by… individual liberty

Threatened by hippies smoking pot?

Threatened by icky gay sex?

Nah.

Threatened by hippies smoking pot?

Threatened by icky gay sex?

Nah.

a

Agreed.  They are not threatened by deviant behavior—albeit unwittingly.  They are however threatened by unalienable rights and the subsequent responsibility which follows.  Liberals are threatened by financial freedom which has no need of their social programs.  Liberals are threatened by a sense of morality which applies anything but moral relativism to society.  .  Liberals are threatened by the right to defend oneself and society with deadly force.  Liberals are threatened by the right and responsibility to stand up to the sworn enemies of freedom rather than barter some of our liberty away.  Liberals are threatened by a citizenry free from the burden of excessive bureaucracy and its ability to manipulate and control societal behaviors.  Liberals are threatened by people living their own lives, pursuing their own happiness, and reaping the rewards of such individualism. 

I could go on and on.

I think Rob and Gene are both right—because when the GOP speaks to BOTH SIDES—the social AND the fiscal conservative, we win.

Speaking to only one side, we lose.

This is why Gene’s quotes were so dead on.  They weren’t “rewriting of history”—they proved at even Rush Limbaugh and Newt knew that you had to talk to the moral center, to pass tax cuts. 

Divided, we fall.  As we are seeing now.

[Feet make good soup!]

Rob, Gene is right here. How old were you in 1994?

No, Gene is not right.  And I was old enough.  I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh.

And I’m not denying that there was a social component to the 1994 Republican “revolution,” but it took a backseat to fiscal issues.  This is the simple truth.

Gene is trying to invoke the contract with American in support of Huckabee by claiming the contract was all about Huckabee’s brand of social conservatism.  This simply is not true, mostly because Huckabee could have never been a part of that movement because he’s a populist.

Words mean things.  I understand why some people are supporting Huckabee.  It’s because they think social conservative issues are more important than fiscal issues.  Fair enough, but let’s not try to re-write history.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You went out of your way to miss MY point, Rob.

A “backseat”?  Perhaps—but we weren’t hidden in the trunk.  We weren’t ingored, and we DID have a say in the direction of things.  (Hence the term “backseat driver")

Point is, we got there together.  MY point is, neither would have gotten anywhere without the other.

[Feet make good soup!]

Well said, Marty.

There are a number of problems with the current attitude of Republicans, chief among that that you don’t need each other anymore.  I called this the “empty tent” party on another thread.

I think that Rob is correct that fiscal conservatism played the bigger role.  The reason is that for either party to win, you need the support of the moderates.  That’s just a fact.

I think there isn’t much distinction between a moderate and a “libertarian” personally, so generically the fit to Republican philosophy is better than it is to Democrats.

The Republican Party could rule this century if you guys ceased your intercine warfare.  I have seen this go on for six years now, and it has eaten the party from the inside out.  This is extremely damaging, especially when it comes in concert with a press that is generally hostile towards the Republican Party and conservative ideals.

Point is, we got there together.  MY point is, neither would have gotten anywhere without the other.

And I’ve made that point as well.  Look back at my posts about consensus candidates.  There are three legs on the conservative stool: Fiscal conservatives, national security conservatives and social conservatives (each group obviously has some overlap).

We all need each other to succeed, which is exactly why I’ve so vociferously opposed both Huckabee and the historical revisionism by Huckabee supporters like Gene.

Like it or not, the 1994 Republican revolution worked because cutting taxes and rolling back government came first.  Social issues second.  Why is it like that?  Because, again like it or not, lowering tax burden resonates with more Americans than banning gay marriage.

This is a simple truth, and one that some are going to have to recognize is the conservative coalition is to stay together.

If Huckabee gets ram-rodded through as the nominee, the coalition is going to crumble and we all lose.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I think there isn’t much distinction between a moderate and a “libertarian” personally, so generically the fit to Republican philosophy is better than it is to Democrats.

Jeez, I don’t know about that.  I see moderates as people who might be ok with expanding Medicare entitlements are are against universal health care.  Libertarians would oppose both.

Of course, labeling people and their political beliefs is hard.  When people ask me if I’m a conservative or liberal, I usually just answer conservative because it’s easier than explaining all the nuance.  I’m guessing a lot of other commenters here feel the same way.

The Republican Party could rule this century if you guys ceased your intercine warfare.  I have seen this go on for six years now, and it has eaten the party from the inside out.  This is extremely damaging, especially when it comes in concert with a press that is generally hostile towards the Republican Party and conservative ideals.

I don’t disagree with you, Carrick, but what is to be done about it?  I understand compromise.  I understand that no candidate, not even the sainted Reagan, is or was perfect.  But at some point one has to stand on principle too, no?

I cannot accept a Huckabee candidacy.  I know the dispute over his candidacy is damaging to the overall conservative movement, but what does someone like me do?  Roll over and accept a populist as my candidate?

I can’t do it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, I wasn’t really thinking of Huckabee when I was commenting on this.  But I would say there has been quite a bit of demonization on this.

Here is how I see things:

1) Bush and the Republican Congress actually did a fairly decent job of controlling disgressinoary spending.  They’ve gotten zero credit from their own party.  Instead everybody is bannering around that demagogue jeff Flake as if instead of being an idiot, he’s some kind of savior.

It’s hip to bash on discretionary spending, even if that detracts from the very serious issue of runaway entitlement spending.

Result:  New congress, probably Democratic President next year.  You think the quadrupling of entitlement was bad this year?  Wait till Hell’ary’s budget.

2) Marginalizing Republicans leaders who don’t fit “the classic mold”.  Even these leaders have been instrumental in seeing the Republican agenda passed.  Example: Everybody loves to hate on Trent Lott, but when he was Majority Leader, in almost record time he got every bit of Bush’s legislation passed.  Republicans became exclusive club members, he gets pushed out. Loud mouthed but otherwise incompetent BIll Frist comes in.  Four years of grid lock. 

Result:  Ineptitude of Congress leads to Democratic Majority.  Mercifully they’re every bit as bad as the Republicans.  They’ve have virtually no legislative successes at all.

3) President Bush cracks down on illegal immigration and voting abuses.  Puts tough new standards for US attorneys, even removes attorneys who refused to follow his guidelines.  Results in massive and unprecedented emigration of illegal immigrants south across the border.  How do the Republicans react?  As if we are still in 2000 and Clinton were president.  Zero trust shown towards Bush’s efforts, no credit given for any of the hard work.

Result:  Republicans blamed for inaction on immigration, Democrats sympathetic to illegals put in place.  Expect to see massive immigration bill, open border, f’d up job market.]

Anyway that’s how I see it anyway.  I just find it interesting that somebody like myself as an independent am giving more credit to your President and your congress-members than you guys generally do.  And I find this sort of group-suicide pact you Republicans are on more than a little baffling.

As a group, you almost seem harder on each other than you are on the Democrats.  And that frankly won’t get you very far in world with a hostile media…

LOL.  Not quadrupling of entitlement!  It’s already more than 2/3s of the budget. 

I mean quadrupling of earmarked spending.

Carrick, Bush was for the amnesty bill.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Reagan signed an amnesty law.

My point is you should acknowledge their mistakes and flaws, but also their successes and strengths.  Otherwise it’s very easy to lose sight of the big picture.