SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Illusory Power of Grover Norquist

PLANK NOVEMBER 27, 2012

The Illusory Power of Grover Norquist

The Svengali-like influence of Grover Norquist and his Taxpayer Protection Pledge may be coming to an end. If so, it’s the end of an illusion. Norquist has long been thought to keep the GOP in thrall by wheedling Republicans into promising never, ever to vote for a tax increase. But Norquist and the Pledge never possessed much clout in the first place. 

Pretending Norquist was the Republican party’s puppetmaster served the interests of liberals because it made Republican politicians look like, well, puppets. It also served Norquist, who played the role with consummate skill, balancing threats of retaliation against Pledge-breakers with modest and unconvincing disavowals of any personal influence. It didn’t particularly serve Republicans, but few of them saw any reason to go out of their way to alienate an evangelist for the GOP’s most cherished principle—tax cuts über alles!—so they mostly kept silent on the subject.

In 1985, Norquist—a conservative wunderkind who, not yet thirty, had already been executive director of the National Taxpayers Union and the College Republicans—founded Americans For Tax Reform, a lobby group created to help pass the 1986 tax reform bill. (ATR’s Web site says Ronald Reagan chose Norquist for the job. This is a fanciful way of saying that the Reagan White House put future attorney general Bill Barr in charge of creating the lobby group, and that Barr’s law associate Peter Ferrara,  a friend of Norquist’s from Harvard, recruited Norquist, who happened to be available because he'd recently been fired by a different conservative lobby group bankrolled by financier Lou Lehrman.) According to Nina Easton’s book Gang of Five, published in 2000, Norquist initially showed little interest in his duties at ATR, instead spending much of his time traveling to Africa to pay homage to the Angola rebel leader Jonas Savimbi and other “freedom fighters” then lionized by the right for their presumed opposition to socialism (which in Savimbi’s case, at least, turned out to be fraudulent). 

The 1986 tax-reform bill wasn’t a project designed to capture the imagination of a hard-core libertarian like Norquist. It lowered rates and reduced the number of brackets, but only at the price of making the tax system more progressive by eliminating special-interest loopholes. It was not designed to lower taxes, which is Norquist’s chief interest in life. The capital gains tax actually increased—a data point Norquist has never emphasized. But the mantra of the 1986 reform was “revenue neutrality,” and in 1986 Norquist created the Pledge to ensure that taxation levels never went up again.

Like thorough, unbiased reporting that challenges your way of thinking? Subscribe to The New Republic for $3.99/month.

It’s worth pointing out that at the time of the Pledge’s creation Reagan himself had already violated it by clawing back about half his 1981 tax cut. Four years after the Pledge was born George H.W. Bush raised taxes, including tax rates, and two years after that Bush lost to Bill Clinton, who raised taxes once again, leaving ATR’s founding mission in tatters (and putting the federal budget on the path to solvency by decade’s end).

Poppy Bush’s 1992 defeat enabled Norquist to spin the straw of ATR’s failure into gold. Bush’s loss was commonly thought to have resulted from his violation, not of Norquist’s Pledge (which Bush never signed) but of Bush’s own ill-considered “read my lips: no new taxes” pledge in his 1988 convention speech. Evidence for this hypothesis has always been weak; among other difficulties, four months after his Great Tax Betrayal (i.e., at the start of the Gulf War) Bush saw his approval ratings soar to 89 percent. Bush lost mainly because of the slow recovery from a recession that the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official referee of the business cycle, didn’t declare over—hard cheese for Poppy—until December 1992. (Ross Perot did Bush a fair amount of damage as well.) No matter. Republicans took away from the 1992 election the simplistic lesson that they must never, ever, raise taxes—something they hadn’t been particularly inclined to do, of course, in the first place. This absolutist new orthodoxy allowed Norquist to position himself as the high priest of the antitax movement. But it was the orthodoxy born of the 1992 election, not the priest, that made all the difference. Norquist reportedly advised George W. Bush (who did sign the Pledge) on his tax cuts in the aughts. But Dubya wasn’t in thrall to Norquist so much as to Sophocles and Freud. Whatever “41” caught hell for doing in office (raise taxes, leave Saddam Hussein in power) “43,” playing Oedipus, did the precise opposite. 

To update Josef Stalin’s famous rhetorical question, how many divisions does Americans For Tax Reform have? Not a lot. Although it threatens mailings to terrorize violators of the tax pledge, it has never been a heavy hitter financially. It spent about $1.6 million this year on lobbying, which sounds like a lot but doesn’t even put it in the top 20. (Exxon Mobile, which ranks 20th, spent $9.9 million.) It spent about $16 million in independent expenditures in the 2012 cycle, mostly to oppose Democrats, two-thirds of whom won anyway. Sixteen million isn’t bad—that ranks ATR 17th in independent expenditures—but the real financial powerhouses were Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers, whose Crossroads GPS and Center For Patients Rights (an anti-Obamacare outfit) bankrolled fully half of ATR’s spending. ATR targeted one Republican, Eric Hovde, R.-Wisc., because Hovde wouldn’t sign the pledge, and Hovde did indeed lose. But it’s doubtful that the $3,547 ATR lavished on his primary defeat had much to do with it. 

Norquist is mainly a media creation. To TV bookers, he’s a dream talking head: Funny, blunt, smart, cynical, and never reluctant to play the role of ideological extremist. (I’ve always thought it was Norquist’s media irresistibility that kept him from paying a higher price for his extremely close ties to disgraced superlobbyist Jack Abramoff.) During the 1990s Norquist helped run the “K Street Project,” a Republican-led protection racket to prevent lobbying firms from hiring Democratic ex-staffers, but in the end that effort achieved little more than bad publicity. Norquist presides over “the Wednesday meeting,” a weekly gathering of conservatives modeled on a similar weekly meeting presided over by Paul Weyrich, an influential Republican activist who ended up being regarded even by fellow conservatives as a crank. What little influence Norquist ever had has diminished in recent years. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, and House Speaker John Boehner have both openly dissed Norquist, and in 2012, for the first time in recent memory, we had a presidential election in which Republicans were actually downplaying the tax-cut issue.

You want to know Norquist’s true legacy? He got Washington National Airport renamed Reagan National Airport, removing the first president’s name in order to insert the name of a president whose only lasting contribution to aviation was to fire 11,345 air traffic controllers. To George Washington, never signing the Pledge was indeed fatal. For everybody else, Norquist has never been anyone to rationally fear.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 9 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

9 comments

Well, in all fairness, Clinton got less than 1/2 the popular vote. Since Perot was in there sucking a few percentage points of conservative votes, it was enough to let Clinton win. This isn't a popular explanation, but I think it's the right one. This explains, after Clinton implemented "the largest tax increase in history", why the Republicans came roaring into office in 1994, giving us Newt Gingrich and the start of Republican Intransigence (and "shutting down the Government" as a political ploy). Not to mention Impeaching the President for adultery -- also not a popular explanation. The resulting paralysis in Government spending allowed Clinton's tax rates to actually balance the budget for only the second time in American history -- and resulted not in the financial disaster the Supply-Siders predicted, but the exact opposite. But that's okay -- George W. Bush took care of that in spades. I had no idea Norquist was there the entire time. I just assumed he was riding the wave, not creating it too.

- AllanL5

November 27, 2012 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When Reagan was asked if revenue neutrality applied to each taxpayer, he said that it did. That his response was preposterous didn't seem to bother Reagan, or his aides who had to provide "clarification". Of course, it's Reagan who is known as the great tax cutter, even though he signed into law the largest tax increase ever imposed on lower to middle income working Americans, one that would help offset and make possible GWB's tax cuts for the wealthy many years later. Indeed, the extra revenue that would be generated from the small tax increase on the wealthy proposed by Obama ($4 trillion) isn't that much greater than the amount "borrowed" from the social security trust fund before Obama became president ($2.7 trillion). Noah points out that GWB did the opposite of his father, with terrible consequences to the rest of us. Now, all the VSPs wish to do the same as Reagan, cut tax rates along with tax expenditures, even though history informs us that its a recipe for endless deficits because tax rates, once cut, take an act of God to increase, whereas tax expenditures grow like kudzu. GHWB did what was right and his son did the opposite, and Reagan did what was wrong and now everybody wants to repeat it. Are all Americans dumb or only some of us?

- rayward

November 27, 2012 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wonder if there's any way to get that airport changed back to its proper name. Somebody, please write a book about the Reagan era. I remember it well, as the time when it all started going south.

- Sophia

November 27, 2012 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Douthat has become the champion of eliminating the regressive payroll tax. Of course, he doesn't really mean it, since he has no proposal for replacing the lost revenues such as increasing the taxes paid by wealthy Americans. Today he says Robert Stein has a proposal, which Douthat says he supports, that would reduce the payroll tax (by enacting a child tax credit to applied against the payroll tax), and offset the lost revenues from, you guessed it, a cut in tax rates, a reduction in the rates to two brackets, the elimination of tax expenditures, and a drop in the income at which the top bracket goes into effect. In other words, the Reagan path to endless deficits. I do give credit to Douthat for claiming that he wants to eliminate the regressive payroll tax, even if he doesn't really mean it. I also give credit to Stein for creativity. His point in increasing the child tax credit is to encourage people to have more children - so they wouldn't have to depend on social security in old age.

- rayward

November 27, 2012 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anybody who thinks they will raise revenue and simplify the tax law by eliminating deductions (instead of raising the top rate) is just nuts. Period. End of Story. If it was simple to raise revenue by cutting deductions how come nobody is giving any examples? On the other hand, I could raise the top rate by going into the code, replacing the 5 in 35 with 9.6 and I'm done, thank you very much. Blah blah blah, deductions, blah blah blah loopholes. Stop it already with such nonsense.

- Nusholtz

November 27, 2012 at 5:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would like to believe that it's over with Grover. He isn't just an anti-tax nut. His self-stated objective is to shrink the federal government down to size and strangle it in the bathtub. Sounds subversive to me. Grover is also an active gun nut. He has rendered service to the gun lobby in efforts to fight all efforts at gun regulation. Grover is also a fellow traveler with Islamist organizations like CAIR, MSA, etc. He opened doors for them at the Bush White House.

- amidut

November 27, 2012 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, amidut, Grover is an anti-American subversive. And, like you, I don't believe it's over for Grover. There are too many subversives in America who agree with him. Alan Simpson today: "You got guys like Grover Norquist who want to drown government in a bathtub. I hope he slips in there with it."

- magboy47.

November 27, 2012 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy, yeah, I saw that too on Msnbc, it is a funny quote. If anything GWB is the instigator of a huge tax increase since he sunsetted the tax cuts to expire after 10 years and Norquist supported that bill so Norquist is really at fault.

- blackton

November 27, 2012 at 8:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My favorite fairly tale as a child was "The Emperor's New Clothes There are always undressed emperors and always children willing to squeal on them. We are fortunate there are at least a few countries where the emperor does not unleash death squads on the irreverent kids (don't try this in North Korea or Iran), but there are always new emperors parading naked. It's in our genome and perhaps why God didn't clothe us in fur like the Bandar-Log. As Kipling so aptly and presciently put it: We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true.

- skahn

November 27, 2012 at 11:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close