Kevin Drum, discussing the Megan McCardle laffer issue, asks:
Still, is there really any comparison? In fact, is there any subject among liberals that has the same totemic appeal as tax cutting does to conservatives? As near as I can tell, every single Republican running for president publicly says that cutting taxes always raises revenues — even though the idea is as absurd as Ron Paul’s gold standard crankiness. Ditto for the Heritage Foundation, AEI, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, etc. etc. Deviate from the party line, as Bruce Bartlett has, and you’re quickly excommunicated.
Liberals agree on lots of things, but I just can’t think of anything that’s enforced quite as ruthlessly as the conservative party line on tax cuts. Any ideas?
Kevin’s first flaw is buying into the notion that Republicans actually believe the things they claim to believe. They don’t. Certainly, there are true believers mixed in here and there, and they most certainly do believe completely in their cause. And, for now, it does appear that Republicans do seem united around keeping taxes cut. For the most part, though, the thing the remaining Republicans believe in is the Republican party.
There is a difference in the public perception of Democrats and the Republicans, and that is that all Republicans have a wide range of shared beliefs that unite them, whereas with the Democrats, different groups have their own issues with which they adhere to rigidly, but as a whole, are not bound to in any way that approaches the current alleged fealty to Republican dogma.
Certainly, within the different groups of the Democrats, you can find a whole host of issues that have a degree of ‘totemic appeal.’ Hell, one need look no farther than the bitter feuds between the DLC and the dKos wing of the party to figure that out. However, in recent years with the Republican Party, if you do not pretend to believe the terrorists are going to kill us all, abortion should be outlawed regardless of circumstance, that the Democrats are worse, that Michael Moore is fat, that the media is biased, and so on and so forth, there simply is no home for you there anymore. And in the unfortunate and frequent circumstances in which Bush violates one or all of those alleged principles, they manage to rally around the flag or find an external villain to demonize (Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, etc.) until the unpleasantness of the ensuing cognitive dissonance disappears.
In one sense, you have to admire the ruthless efficiency with which the current GOP is able to suppress the fact that they violate their alleged principles from one day to the next. Try to juggle the claims of America’s moral authority on the right with the GOP’s newfound devotion to torture. Or watch the allegedly Christian right sit silently during the torture debate. For more fun, watch the family values party cheer David Vitter soliciting prostitutes while screaming bloody murder over Larry Craig’s lavatory dalliances. Republican “ideas” and the mandatory rigid public adherence to them may still resemble a three ring circus complete with clown cars and trained elephants and a host of geeks and bearded ladies, but they have folded up the big tent (although I am sure it will make an guest appearance at the 2008 RNC). All that remains is the freak show, really, and that is just it- it is little more than a show.
That is what is confusing Kevin. The GOP claims to have over-arching principles that bind the party together, but in reality they would be scrapped at a moments notice for political expediency. If it came down to winning the 2008 election or the Laffer curve, is there really anyone who doesn’t think the Laffer Curve and tax cuts would go the way of the Edsel?
The Democrats have a number of different factions with their own beliefs, but nothing that binds them together the way the faux GOP beliefs do. Well, other than the notion that Bush sucks, but that really isn’t just a Democratic belief these days.
Zifnab
Clinton was worse!
El Cruzado
Authoritarian Cult anyone?
whippoorwill
The one thing the remains for the 30%’ers is a formidable noise machine. Not only that, they’ve managed to rap the MSM around their little fingers when it’s crunch time on important issues.
Although dems are now building a counter punch to the wingnut lie factory we’re still pretty far from parity.
It always amuses to listen to wingnuts bitterly attack dems raucous and disjointed style of politics as incompetent and crazy. I guess when your wrapped so tight in the flag while clutching your bible, it would seem dems are nutty moonbats destroying the country.
Doug
It seems to me that these days the Republicans are liquidating their electoral infrastructure for short term gain just the way they were and are willing to liquidate America’s actual infrastructure for short term gain. Neither is a good long-term strategy.
Bombadil
There is not some clear demarcation between “Democrat” and “Republican”, some point where you can say “I/we believe this, and that’s what makes us Democrat/Republican”. The definition of each is flexible and constantly evolving. John, you’re a good example of this — you’ve been sliding along the continuum and at some point you realized that what “Republican” means now does not describe what you believe. Or maybe the continuum has been sliding beneath you, but in any event at some point you look around and find that you aren’t where you were before. That happened to me during the Carter years, when I gave up membership in the Democratic party and declare myself (and have remained) “unaffiliated”. I’m to the left of Bill Clinton (whom I admire very much) and to the right of Ted Rall (who disgusts me more often that not).
Many “Kennedy Democrats” were far more conservative than “McGovern Democrats”, and many “Reagan Republicans” are appalled at what being a “Bush Republican” entails. Hell, there’s a big difference between “Bush I” Republicans and “Bush II” Republicans.
I don’t have an answer as to what are the core beliefs. Maybe that’s what puts me more in line with the Democrats than with the Republicans.
Billy K
Has everyone forgotten abortion rights? I’m pretty sure that’s the Left’s “totem item.” I know it’s practically all that kept me identifying as a “Democrat” for a few years.
P.S. Maybe I’m wrong and that needs to be expanded to include “Human Rights” or “Equal Rights.” Still, the point is the same…
Nicole
Makes me think of my two favorite quotes from Will Rogers on his party:
“I am not a member of any organized political party; I’m a Democrat.”
and
“You’ve got to be optimist to be a Democrat, and you’ve got to be a humorist to stay one.”
The Other Steve
Bombadil is spot on. My family is more of the school of Eisenhower Republicans. Well they’re long gone.
So we’re pretty aligned with Democrats, because right now the Democrats are not well defined.
I’m actually a Social Conservative Libertarian Moderate. More old-school. My issues are drinking, gambling and wenching. I don’t like any of it. That being said, I realize that I can avoid said behaviors myself and feel no need to impose prohibition. On the other hand, in economic sense… I think govt needs a safety net to promote people taking economic risks, but not so much of a net to encourage people from never working again.
And if the laffer curve is true, set the tax bracket to 0% and we’ll rake in the money. I’ve long advocated the Democrats should play a game of chicken on that one, to get the Republicans to flinch.
28 Percent
John are you trying to say that Michael Moore isn’t fat? You do not have no proof that he is not un-slim. Do you never get tired of being wrong?
just sayin
Has everyone forgotten abortion rights? I’m pretty sure that’s the Left’s “totem item.”
Harry Reid, who is opposed to legal abortion, is currently Senate Majority Leader, although not a particularly popular one. I would think being out of line on a “toten item” would be disqualifying for a leadership post.
Jess
There are plenty of Dems who oppose abortion, but most of those believe that the social cost of imposing their will on others in this area is worse than trying to make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” I think this is one defining difference between how Dems and Republicans (or social conservatives, to be more accurate) think; Dems generally are not looking to punish others they disagree with, but to find fair and practical solutions when there is a conflict. This is what makes me a pretty committed Democrat, even though I disagree with a lot of my fellow Dems on a lot of subjects. Both sides are ideological, but the Dems allow more room for flexible, pragmatic solutions and compromises. I guess this why we don’t adhere to any one set of issues.
LITBMueller
Hmmmm… a political party that has controlled and enhanced the power of the Chief Executive of a nation state after a national tragedy, engaging in unlawful spying on its own citizen, indefinitely detaining citizens, encouraging citizens to spy and report on one another, eroding civil liberties, espousing a political manifesto while routinely ignoring it, yet requiring complete party loyalty and unquestioning obedience to the government and enforcing it all through fear and denunciation of dissenters as unpatriotic traitors…
This all sounds like another party from way back when, but I just can’t put my finger on it.
LarryB
I agree that Kevin misses the mark, but I think that’s because there are two important groups in the modern Republican party. At the top there are a few Conrad Burns types who cynically (or maybe better, honestly) pull the strings to benefit themselves. At the bottom, it’s a bunch of folks who are slowly being pushed out of the middle class into low-paying service industry jobs and Wal-Mart serfdom. They are scared and angry at their reduced economic prospects. That anger is really easy to harness and redirect. It’s called fascism.
The Other Steve
Abortion is different. See you can be against abortion, without also wanting to legislate it down people’s throats.
Democrats are against the legislating bit.
It is all a bit confusing, and I agree that both parties tend to take positions which contradict one another.
jenniebee
We have definite, universal opinions on rape (against), fraud (against), murder (against) and genocide (against, but not so much that we’re going to get all worked up about it or anything.) On slightly more controversial issues: the left has abortion, environmental stewardship, gun control, social security. Even for those, our guys don’t fight particularly hard for them, and we’re ok with them being totally against once in a while, but I’d say we toe the line pretty hard on being against any radical dismantling of social security. We rally for Equal Protection under the Law (unless the preznit says you’re a terrist, in which case we’re gonna get kinda squeamish). And we’re definitely for guaranteeing health care for the terminally sympathetic. We likes the cute blond kids with diseases, ain’t no doubt about it.
We aren’t really crusaders for anything these days. That’s the other side’s racket. Maybe in another fifteen years we’ll get all visionary and uncompromising or something, but definitely not now.
Billy K
What a coincidence – mine too! Except of course I’m trying to find the means to keep indulging in them as I get older.
LarryB
Hmm, my last post was kinda eliptical. Let me try to connect the dots. The dichotomy outlined in this thread is that on the one hand, the modern right has a few fanatically-espoused beliefs. On the other hand, they seem to violate them at will. My hypothesis is that for the rank-and-file, the important thing is the fanatic part, not the belief part. It’s all about fear. “Fear leads to anger…”, etc. I also posit that the leadership contains few true believers, except in the belief in their own privilege to lead.
Zifnab
Ironically, this seems to be the same play book that radical muslims have been pulling from for years. Scare the shit out of your average Palestinian or Saudi or Jordanian who’s already been getting bent over a poll by the ruling upper class. Then tell’m its those evil Americans who make your lives so miserable.
Same game plan, just swap the skin colors. Mexicans / Mid-Easterners become the invading hordes that only a
Caliphatestrong Republican Majority can protect us from.It’s like the entire world is getting played off against itself so a few tycoons can play Scrouge McDuck in gigantic piles of money that their grandchildrens’ grandchildren couldn’t spend through.
D-Chance.
Make that the “24%’ers” according to the latest poll.
DragonScholar
I think it actually comes down to the Republicans “re-finding” something that’s often forgotten: the fear/security/military/bloodlust vote.
I hear talk about the Religious Right – and they provided footsoldiers and an easily led group of voters. I hear talk about Business – which provides money and support.
But what’s forgotten with Republicans is a strong history of supporting militarism, force, law-n-order, and not always subtly – a promise to deal with not-white people (the Southern Strategy).
However, since the Repulbican party is essentially geared to win elections at any cost, it’s aquired a bunch of hypocrites, panderers, and opportunists (moreso than usual). Throw in the fact you’ve also got some repressed religious right types and hypocrites, and you have a hefty cocktail of incompetence, sleaze, and sexual issues.
So with the religious right taking a mix of realizing they’ve been had and ITS leaders wanting more influence, and Business realizing that incompetent pandering is bad, all that’s LEFT is the people that love killing other people. That can yank in some religious types and some money – but not quite.
However, the Republicans began using the We Will Kill Lots of people routine (IE security is promised) over and over. It sold well and cross lines. It used fear, which we all have in common.
Now, however, its all they have left.
Rick Taylor
We oppose torture! We support habeus corpus. There was a time when I would have assumed those beliefs united Americans, but they are held by a small minority in the Republican party and have nearly universal support in the Democratic, if recent votes are any indication.
Rick Taylor
I don’t know, tax cuts will never be unpopular so we can’t test that. But privatizing social security was a big looser, but damned if that didn’t stop Bush from blowing huge amounts of political capital on it and getting squat in return. I’m not sure, but opposing expansion looks like a looser to me; are the Republicans going to over-ride the veto?
LarryB
jenniebee,
Cute! Pretty accurate, too. I’d add a plug for good government (yes, to Dems, this is not an oxymoron).
RSA
As some of the commenters on Drum’s site point out, there’s a bit more to the comparison than his description lets on: Is there something that the Democrats agree on that goes counter to both common sense and expert opinion? (That is, that tax cuts are good for the economy, whatever the circumstances. I’d love to see, during the Republican Presidential debates, the moderator ask, “Under what conditions would you advocate raising taxes, or is that something you’d never consider?”)
I don’t think that there’s anything comparable on the Democratic side.
ThymeZone
I think that’s quite wrong. Progressive American views are fairly consistent, and center around advancing the social and economic liberal policies made extant in the 20th century by the likes of FDR and LBJ (that’s LBJ the civil rights guy, not LBJ the Vietnam war guy). They center around equal protection, social libertarianism, and so forth.
You are apparently confusing congruent views with sloganeering. The right has done a great job of sloganeering and marketing, even thought its coalitions don’t embrace any particular coherent worldview at all.
What you’ve expressed is not a lack of unifying thought on the left, but a lack of salesmanship. Not the same thing at all.
jcricket
To be fair, the laffer curve in its initial form (think the St louis Arch) is a relatively innocuous and likely true statement. As the tax rate is raised between 0 and X% (where X > 0) if you raise taxes, tax revenue also increases. At some point, as you raise taxes between X% and 100%, tax revenue decreases because people “figure it’s not worth the extra effort” to earn more money and stop working harder. Therefore, if the tax rate is currently above X%, reducing it to X% will actually increase tax revenue.
It may be that this is false and that the “right side” of the curve is actually a flat line (or a line that flattens out but never quite goes down). But in general, the notion is not actually that absurd.
What’s more important is that Laffer, and every Republican who follows him, have never correctly identified at what point the tax revenue starts decreasing. Many simply assumed we were already on the right side of the curve and simply started cutting.
Since the 80s, Republicans have further over-simplified Laffer’s premise to the ridiculous notion (as the strawman points out) that cutting tax rates always increases tax revenue.
Since Laffer’s time some economists have accepted Laffer’s basic premise, but argued that X is somewhere in the 70th or 80th percent (far, far above our current maximum tax rates). It’s also important to note that virtually no upper-class/rich Americans pay their marginal tax rates. Through deductions, loopholes and credits their effective tax rate is significantly lower (I should know, I’m one of those upper-classians).
Even holding that Laffer is correct, our 35% (31% now) maximum tax rate puts us far onto the left-hand side of the curve.
jcricket
Gol darnit, why don’t I finish reading my feed reader before I type up all my gibberish. Kevin Drum makes the point better than I can.
Bubblegum Tate
Well, there are definitely ardent supply-siders who absolutely insist that tax cuts always work and always increase revenues and blah blah blah. Paul Krugman (whose name sends wingers into conniptions…it’s not quite as powerful as the name “Clinton,” but it’s up there) wrote a great column a few years back about the difference between supply-siders and the Grover Norquist-style “starve the beast!” folks.
Basically, the Norquists really run the show, and supply-side theory is meant to put a happy face (“cutting taxes increases revenues!”) on what is really a rather grim policy (cut taxes in order to cut government revenues, which can then be used to cut spending ons ocial programs–voila! One starved beast). Basically, supply-siders are useful idiots to the Norquists, and it should come as no surpprise that an entire apparatus, most notably Heritage and AEI, has been created in order to provide intellectual support and underpinnings for supply-siders to use.
That supply-side theory doesn’t work is hardly the point–the point is to give it a nice sheen of intellectualism. As in, “Those brilliant policy wonks at Heritage have gone over this and support it, and if those experts say it’s good, then it must be good.” It’s about managing the appearance of your goals to make them seem more attractive than they really are. They’re trying to turn a dumpy-looking lady into a megababe, and Heritage, AEI, etc. are basically just the corsets and and Wonderbras of economic theory.
rawshark
Who would be disincentivized? Is there a tax rate that would keep me from needing to eat?
mk
FYI/OT?
Paul Krugman has a two relatively recent posts up on his blog at the NYT re: the Laffer Curve.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
October 16, 2007, 9:07 am / Who’s Laffering now?
October 16, 2007, 9:22 pm / Failing to Pass the Laffer Test
ThymeZone
Where’s the curve that shows the point at which government is no longer able to meet the needs of its citizens, as tax rates are reduced?
And where are the analyses of where the most effective points in the infrastructure are to apply the taxes? What things are best taxed and paid for at the municipal level? The county level? State level? Federal level? How do we know these things? Where are the numbers?
If the people who pretend to know about these things don’t have these kinds of analyses and histories, why should we listen to anything they say? That goes for Democrats and Republicans alike, righties and lefties alike.
Otherwise, we’re just running around reacting to whichever slogan or demogogic appeal catches our attention.
Bombadil
Despite what I said earlier about not being able to pin the differences down, I found some truth to this description (forget where I first saw it):
Republicans want to make morals law.
Democrats want to make laws moral.
How does that work for you?
jcricket
Believe me TZ, I’m on the same page as you regarding taxes.
Except for people like Norquist, most people want the current range of services the government provides. I’d “give my front teeth” for a political system where we actually argued about the best way to fund these services, how to ensure the services were efficient, etc.
Instead it’s round and round about flag lapel pins and Hillary laughing funny and who would more rapidly knife 1000s muslims in the GWOT.
whippoorwill
But
If the little rugrats want health insurance let them grow up to be a relevant president like ME ME ME MEMEMEMEMEME. I’m relevant damnit, relevant, relevant, relevant, relevant. relevant.
MBunge
“Basically, the Norquists really run the show,”
Nah. The GOP has been for a long, long time the party of the rich and their hangers-on. The Norquists, religious conservatives, xenophobes, imperialists and the like have all just been instruments used to promote the agenda of the wealthy. What’s happened to the GOP is two things…
1. Those instruments have taken over the band and the wealthy are realizing that uncontrolable, incompetant, nut jobs are not going to be effective at protecting their interests.
2. The interests of the monied class are starting to diverge from cliche conservatism. For example, big business is slowly and fitfully starting to recognize the boon that universal health care would be and that there’s a lot of money to be made in pro-environment areas.
Mike
Zifnab
Certainly it can be said that if the tax rate is 100%, I have no monetary incentives to work because I’ll never see a dime of it. Reagen’s argument that a 90% income tax makes people reluctant to earn more money is fairly sound.
However, this doesn’t necessarily translate to less tax revenue. Take two examples – 1) moviestar A makes $1 million with three movies and hits the 33% cap. He decides that another $300,000 will yield him $200,000 so he goes ahead and makes the movie, earns the revenue, and turns the $100,000 in taxes over to the government. 2) moviestar A makes $1 million with three movies and hits the 90% cap. He decides that another $300,000 will yield him only $30,000 and so it isn’t worth the effort. But the script doesn’t just fall on the cutting room floor – that work still needs to be done! So an actor who has not made $1 million yet, and still considers the revenue an incentive, takes the job. He’s in a much lower bracket than his fellow – say, the 33% bracket – and he pays the government $100,000 of his $300,000 salary while keeping the rest.
How did the government lose money? More importantly, how has society suffered?
The question people should be asking is do we honestly want a society in which a handful of people are incentivized to make millions upon millions of dollars in a single year?
The CEO of Ford Motor Company was recently paid $39.1 million dollars over the course of four months. That’s roughly enough money to employee 1000 people at $40k / year, $4k shy of the national median. Do we really want to give Alan Mulally an incentive to make more money by lowering his taxes? Would Alan be expected to do less work if he was only paid $5 million / quarter? Is he such a quintessentially skilled CEO that no one else could do his job (a job that saw the company lose $12.6 billion in net worth in 2006)? If the income bracket for the highest 1% of society was 90%, would Ford Motor Company be in more trouble because Alan Mulally just didn’t see the point of busting his ass for that end of year bonus anymore?
Peter Johnson
Love her or hate her, Meghan is a lot better looking than any of the doyennes of the left.
whippoorwill
What a creepy picture Johnson. She looks like lady VLAD rising from her coffin.
Delia
See, this is how you run the basic fascist scam until you’ve got hold of enough power to run the whole damn country. You run on issues that you claim that you believe in. The Culture of Life. Family Values. The Free Market. Supply-Side Economics. Democracy At The Point Of A Gun. Whatever. And whenever some little bullshit case comes along you get all self-righteous and smear your opponents like they were scumbags from hell. And when your side gets acting like the scumbags from hell, you gloss it all over and move along quickly, because the whole point is, it’s not about the issues. It’s about power. It’s always about power. You keep running the scam until you collect all the sources of power in the society in the hands of your own people. And what are they? Well, there’s the Executive, the Legislative, there’s the power of the Courts, and the power of Police.
And once they’re all in the hands of the same crew, well, then they can drop their little pretense that they care about religion or family values or economics or whatever it is this week, because it just doesn’t matter anymore, does it?
Andrew
Give it up, Pete, no one’s going to date your spoof identity.
The Other Andrew
This is probably too simplistic, but I’ve always thought of it in terms of modernism and anti-modernism. Each faction of the Republicans is entranced by some segment of the past (the Gilded Age for big business, Leave It To Beaver imaginary ’50s for the social cons, pre-civil-rights for the racists and xenopobes, pre-Vietnam “We’re unstoppable!” for the militarists), and believes that the world is falling apart and we’d be better off if we could get back to that one certain era. On the other hand, Democrats tend to believe that the world is slowly improving, due to cultural changes and new discoveries.
One of the best tricks that conservatives have pulled off (Reagan and Bush in particular) is acting all optimistic, to appeal to the moderates who aren’t so down with the “Things are horrible, let’s hope Jesus comes back soon!” stuff. I think that’s one of the reasons why the last few years have been so confusing–the parties have switched roles. Democrats are forced to be negative and reactionary, while Republicans are gleefully creating their brave new world.
TenguPhule
I believe it is called the Bush Economic Growth Plan.
dslak
There’s a tax rate that would lead you (or at least a large percentage of others) to seek essential goods on a black market, where they are untaxed. This would make such high taxes a disincentive for participating in economic exchanges which also monetarily benefit the government.
weinerdog43
John, thanks for memorializing this meme.
Once, I too was a Republican from a long line of Republicans. The end for me came during the Impeachment disaster. How was that anything more than petty vindictiveness?
Anyway, my version of Republicanism was ‘mind your own business’ regarding social issues. The gov’t. had no business messing around with its citizen’s personal matters. Further, gov’t. was there to keep an eye on big business via sensible, light regulation. Keep Main St. from being devoured by Wall St. The SEC was supposed to police the markets so that they were fair for all.
What passes for the Republican party now is simply vile, me-firstism. If Malkin, Limbaugh and O’Reilly are the public face of that party, well, count me out.
jcricket
The Onion never fails to bring the appropriate jokes: Reaganomics Finally Trickles Down To Area Man