Still Missing the Point

I'm ill today and so won't give this one the fisking it deserves. Instead, I'll just point out that my favorite "battered wife of the religious right", Pejman Yousefzadeh, is at it again. This libertarian, who advocates a continued alliance with the fundamentally anti-capitalist religious right, has apparently become confused by all the big-government chickens that have come home to roost.

It never ceases to amaze me how this man keeps getting published. Consider this blatant self-contradiction. Early in the article, Yousefzadeh bemoans the fact that the Republicans might lose power if they alienate their fiscal conservative base.

But merely because his political fortunes did not suffer in 2004, it does not mean that Republican political fortunes may not suffer in either 2006 or 2008 thanks to a continuing and bizarre tendency among national Republicans to embrace the foundations of a large and activist government.

Only he later seems to be admitting that he's not really afraid of that, but of the Republicans becoming the favor-dispensing political machine that the Democrats used to be.

The Republican political dominance that has largely taken place over the last decade is in danger of being betrayed on the policy front as national Republicans have found their appetite for increasing the size of government -- and increasing commensurately their hold on power.

Oh! So it's really Yousefzadeh's political fortunes that will suffer! And why might that be? Interestingly, his proposed solution provides the clue.

The best solution to this dilemma is for small-government activists to become more engaged in finding primary challengers for "Me Too" Republicans in their districts and in their senatorial races. Neither the White House nor the Republican National Committee should continue to hold to the default position of automatically endorsing incumbent candidates in their re-election races. If Republican incumbents are found to have abandoned small-government principles, they should be challenged by insurgents who will fight to end the ongoing policy betrayal that is happening in the battle to limit government.

This is not bad on its face, especially since, as Yousefzadeh points out, the Democrats are invincibly hostile to small government. (Also missing from his analysis is the unpopularity of so much of the agenda of the religious right.) But note one option that is not even considered: Splitting into a separate party.

If the Republicans do become the machine that Yousefzadeh seem to think they will -- and the Democrats continue disintegrating -- this is something that will probably happen naturally anyway. So why not plan for it?

Before I say, "I told you so," though, I want to point out something rather amusing. Yousefzadeh lists several big government abuses on the part of the Republicans and then, in the way of good news, offers us this.

... Republicans have done good things for their small-government, free-market base. Free-marketers should generally take heart at the work done by the Bush Administration to pass CAFTA -- as well as noting that the Democratic Party has become largely protectionist. The Republican commitment to lower taxes remains a key feature in its ability to keep the loyalties of small-government activists. These activists know that when it comes to keeping taxes low, whether one measures in relative or absolute form, Republicans are pretty much the only game in town.

CAFTA? He didn't exactly jump for joy over it, but this bill was comparable to the highway bill he cited just before in terms of extra pork -- to the tune of $50 billion! As for keeping taxes low, color me a light hue of impressed when the Bush income tax cuts become permanent, and not a moment before. Oh! But the Republicans are the "only game in town".

Why not start another game, then?

As I blogged long ago, Yousefzadeh is a big fan of the fiscal right-religious right coalition that is the Republican Party to the point that he seems willing to sell out completely to keep it intact. Why do I say this? Because the two partners in this coalition hold different fundamental principles (when the fiscal conservatives do at all, which is also a big problem). I discuss this problem in terms of drug legalization and abortion here, but the social conservatives' regard for free markets would shake out in a similar way.

And would the "marriage" end once states rights had, Christ-like, risen from the dead? I think the Libertarians would be in for a rude awakening (or at least an abrupt interruption in their supply chain of weed) on that score. They'd be in favor of (I can't resist this next word) defending the "marriage". But the Christians would legalize pot anywhere over their cold, dead bodies. But no. The marriage would not end. It would be annulled. It would be like the marriage had never existed! If need be, the Christians would find other allies. Abortion would become illegal. And marijuana would stay that way. And the Libertarians would be impotently wailing about the "extremism" of the Christians who at least got one thing right: Never cede an important principle to someone you disagree with.

The problem is, Pejman, that the Christians have principles. This means that they know what they want. Knowing this, they will accept as allies whichever other faction demands fewer concessions from them [bold added]. Why? Because a more demanding partner is also one that will want to use some of that power for his own ends, at the expense of their own.

And I would likewise hold that, should the fiscal conservatives start acting too uppity in terms of running against incumbents as Yousefzadeh suggests they do, that they might wake up one day to find themselves alone in the bed.

How much more government largesse has to be spread around at taxpayer expense before it becomes apparent to Yousefzadeh that economic freedom is about as important as reproductive freedom to the social conservatives? The writing is plainly on the wall. The religionists are treacherous and ultimately useless in a coalition whose purpose is to advance a freer economy. Better to read the writing now and sign the divorce papers now. Get out while the getting is good. As I once said:

I say it's time for an end to the Republican coalition between small government conservatives and the religious right. Sure. They might win an election with their brothers-in-spirit, the Democrats. We may well have to suffer through a Jimmy Carter. But one taste of that will straighten out a lot of people. And if they lose, our country will become much better much faster. If they dump the religious conservatives, it will not be a question of if, but of when our country improves. And so, the question of getting the religious right out of government is also not a matter of if, but of when.

Hope that made some sense. If not, I'll make a new blogging rule for myself: Never blog sick and under the influence of pseudoephedrine!

G'Night!

-- CAV