Eliot Spitzer, moving the goalposts

Eliot Spitzer's piece on Slate is a near-perfect example of how Republican politics are misunderstood, at best, and flat-out lied about at worst. He's ostensibly writing about the recent debate among some Republicans who have either declared their candidacies, or are dipping a toe in the water, checking the electoral temperature. It's such a disappointing article, because while there is plenty of room to criticize Republican policy or the candidates themselves, this article simply moves the goalposts in an attempt to portray literally ANY nominee as "extreme."

The article is subheaded: "The Republican presidential debate revealed how alarmingly far right the mainstream GOP has shifted." His subtly-stated example of a centrist Republican is George W. Bush. The same Bush who, just a few scant years ago, was called Nazi, facist, Hitler, warmonger, worst president in history, the real mastermind behind 9/11, and any and every other slur and smear a fevered mind could think of. Now, Spitzer wants us to think Bush was a moderate, compassionate example of what GOP candidates should aspire to? It should be pretty obvious that the article is not a serious exploration of policy at this point, but let's look a few specific examples.

Read more...




Spitzer has three points in support of his theory, that formerly "fringe" positions have now become mainstream. First, "the cut-taxes/deregulation libertarian perspective that puts even greater faith in the magic of an unfettered private sector than it did before the economic cataclysm of 2007-08[...]" The following explanatory paragraph is all misdirection and confusion. Republicans do seek to cut tax rates, true. This does not represent any rightward shift, however, and Spitzer provides no evidence that it does. Every Republican candidate or president since Nixon has sought to cut taxes. For that matter, so did JFK and Barak Obama. Adding "for the rich" is near meaningless, as "rich" has been defined down to those making $100k a year. Spitzer also does not mention that the "rich" ended up paying more of the tax burden under Bush's much-derided 2003 tax cuts. The top 1% saw their tax rates go from 38.4% to 39.1%, and the bottom 50% of earners saw their rates drop from 3.4% to 3.1%. Obama extended these tax cuts late last year. But somehow, this is "radical." Spitzer's further description of the private sector as "magic" and "unfettered" is painted as rhetorical flair, but is actually a deep, dangerous misunderstanding of how capitalism functions best. To say that ANYONE, much less the mainstream GOP candidates is calling for "unfettered" private sector is just flat-out lying, or flat-out deluded. 


"No matter that the economy and job market have only gotten worse since President Bush pushed down tax rates." Here, he's insinuating that cutting taxes will hurt the economy and the job market. Well, maybe. I'm not an economist, and even economists disagree ferociously on this point. But the fact that this is such a hotly debated point means that it's not at all "radical" to propose a plan of limiting government's involvement with the economy as a means to find our way out of the current mess. Which, after all, is all anyone is proposing. The devil is in the details, to be sure, but I think it should be clear that if more government spending, with consequent higher tax burdens, could get us out of this economic mess, we'd surely be out of it by now. 

They propose to repeal Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley, as if overregulation was the cause of the Wall Street meltdown. They propose to eliminate most of the regulations that the EPA and other agencies have promulgated. And they swear to prevent any more bailouts or stimulus spending, as if the auto bailout failed.

No, no, and no. They propose to repeal Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley not because they propose that overregulation caused the "Wall Street meltdown," but rather because these pieces of legislation have been credibly charged with hindering economic recovery, a fine example of responsible criticism of excessive government involvement in the economy. They propose to limit some EPA regulations because they would do precisely the same. And they propose to prevent more bailouts because, again, why should the federal government seek to inject itself into private companies that have proven themselves unable to compete effectively in the marketplace? Spitzer paints a scary picture of extremism for its own sake, when an entirely reasonable position is the actual motivating force behind these plans: let the economy work without meddling by the federal government.

They seek to repeal the New Deal, repeal Keynesian economics, repeal all that worked from the Great Depression until 2000: 70 years during which we created the middle class, the finest infrastructure in the world, and the greatest economy the world has ever known.

The "New Deal" isn't a law subject to repeal, neither is Keynesian economics, and neither is "all that worked from the Great Depression until 2000." The existing legislation that broadly covers the economy is a patchwork, an ideological mishmash enacted over decades, and extends well before the Great Depression, and well after 2000 (but includes, it should be noted, the dreaded Reagan years!) But what happened in 2000 that was the watershed event that sent our economy into the tank? One presumes that Spitzer refers to the election of George W. Bush. But wait! Wasn't he the paragon of compassion, the oracle of centrism to which all current candidates should aspire? Come on, Eliot. At least try to make it through your own article before changing your own mind.

In the social sphere, the candidates expressed none of the "compassionate" conservatism that carried George W. Bush forward. On issues relating to marriage and choice, these free-market candidates implored the government to intervene in the private lives of citizens.

George W. Bush opposed same-sex marriage, too, just like most of the current crop of candidates, and just like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Are they, then, "radical?"I thought Bush was "moderate?" I'm so confused. By "choice," one presumes Spitzer refers to abortion, but it's confusing to say that the GOP "implored the government to intervene in the private lives of citizens." Both sides of the debate seek governmental activism on this issue, with the pro-choice side seeking protection and funding for legalized abortion, while the pro-life side seeks, at it's most extreme, either a total legal ban on abortion in most or all cases, or an overturn of the Roe v. Wade decision, which would lead to states making their own decision on the issue legislatively. Spitzer is implying some sort of hypocrisy here, and he may well be right. But it hardly qualifies as "radical."

In foreign policy, they express an isolationism that is fascinating because it is completely antithetical to Republicans' insistence on American exceptionalism.

Again, Spitzer weirdly pines for the days of "cowboy" foreign policy of the Bush years, or at the very least tries to imply some hypocrisy here. One is unsure precisely to which specific example of foreign policy he is referring, but we can assume the recent and ongoing war kinetic military action in Libya is what provokes "isolationism" in the candidates. This may be the case for Ron Paul, but the rest of the candidates were pretty supportive of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some even wished President Obama was more supportive of uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, and especially Iran. The fact that Obama continues to wage a half-hearted war in Libya without any consultation of Congress, and arguably in violation of the War Powers Act leaves a lot of room for reasonable disagreement without smears of "isolation" and radicalism.

It's disappointing, to say the least, to see legitimate policy positions smeared as "radical" without even giving the ideas a modicum of respect. Sadly, I predict that this will be the playbook of the Democratic party against the GOP candidates this election cycle.