THE PLANK DECEMBER 28, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The other Jonathan has a great item explaining how implausible it is that Republicans will or could successfully execute Bill Kristol's suggestion that they repeal health care reform. Of course, understanding Kristol's strategic worldview as a coherent whole is always fairly tricky. Kristol, of course, famously warned in 1993 that the passage of health care reform would provide a huge political boon to the Democratic Party:
Because the initiative's inevitably destructive effect on American medical services will not be practically apparent for several years--no Carter-like gas lines, in other words--its passage in the short run will do nothing to hurt (and everything to help) Democratic electoral prospects in 1996. But the long-term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse--much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for "security" on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.
To be sure, Kristol wrote this about Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama. But it's hard to see what politically could have changed so much that health care reform would be a massive political boon for Clinton and the liability Kristol now paints it as for Obama.
Moreover, it's kind of funny that Kristol is now gloating about the resilient anti-government conservatism of the populace:
The American public seem to have decided--personal goodwill toward the man notwithstanding--that President Obama is not doing a particularly good job, that more big government liberalism is the last thing we need, and that, yes, American exceptionalism isn't a bad thing or an out-of-date idea.
So our Man of the Year is the American citizen. He's sensible, resistant to being herded around like a sheep, and invigorated with, in the words of Federalist 39, "that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."
... at the same time he's calling for Republicans to immediately repeal several hundred billion dollars of Medicare reductions. I mean, if the public has decided that big government is "the last thing we need," I'm not sure how they're going to be chomping at the bit to add several hundred billion dollars of entitlement spending to the budget deficit. Nor do I quite understand how this squares with the ideal of self-government. But admittedly I lack Kristol's expert understanding of Federalist 39. Maybe it's in there somewhere.
In all seriousness, there's pretty clearly no intellectual coherence to Kristol's worldview. As a political strategist, his worldview is basically the same thing as his foreign policy worldview. He advocates maximum partisan hostility against the opposition at all times. (As captured by this quintessential Kristol passage: "Fight on with respect to health care. Fight on other fronts. And recruit new fighters. In a word: Fight.")
So, when health care reform hangs in the balance, Kristol fires up Republicans to fight by telling them that passage would be a political disaster. When its passage is all but assured, he fires them up to fight by crowing that it's a looming disaster for Democrats if only the GOP will press its advantage. His method of fighting can take the form of advocating bigger or smaller government, whichever seems to offer the best tactical prospects. And, of course, the worst is always behind the Republican Party and glorious victories always lay ahead, especially if Kristol's fighting words are heeded.
As political strategy, this isn't always wrong. But it's hard to imagine the exact same advice can be the correct prescription for every scenario. And, given that Kristol's entire strategic calculus could be written on the back of a postage stamp, with room left over for a dreamy Sarah Palin doodle, it's difficult to figure out why anybody chooses to listen to him.
8 comments
Because he always tells them what they want to hear?
- wildboy
December 28, 2009 at 5:36pm
Why does anybody listen to Bill Kristol? Because enough conservatives (A) respected his father and (B) prefer European notions of hereditary status to the American ideal of meritocratic status. These are by and large the same folks who backed George W. Bush in 1999 solely because they liked his daddy. Deference to hereditary hierarchy is almost necessarily inherent to the conservative mindset, so they are particularly (though not uniquely) prone to the sin of lazy nepotism. Plus, conservatives honestly are not interested in accuracy, truth, or facts. They want cheerleading and consolation, which Kristol amply provides.
- rhubarbs
December 28, 2009 at 5:56pm
"Fight on with respect to health care. Fight on other fronts. And recruit new fighters. In a word: Fight." I think William Kristol's slogans apply equally well to the Democrats, and in particular to the liberal wing of the Party. Health care will be a battle in every subsequent Congress. The balance of power remains disproportionately weighted in favor of Big Pharma, Health Insurance Companies and Medical equipment and technology companies, etc. The battle for a more equal distribution of health resources will remain a constant of our political system.
- LawrenceGulotta
December 28, 2009 at 7:28pm
Kristol's father was not, as far as I know, a fanatic anti-big-government guy. The son has gone completely meshugeh.
- jacksondyer
December 28, 2009 at 7:51pm
jackson, Irving gave in and pretty completely drank the rightwing kool-aid during the Reagan years. Toward the end, sadly, he at times wrote nearly as much partisan hackery as his son always has. But at least Irving earned the right to suffer a bit of a decline in his late years -- we should all be so lucky as to decline from such a height!
- rhubarbs
December 29, 2009 at 9:36am
rhubarbs: " Deference to hereditary hierarchy is almost necessarily inherent to the conservative mindset. . . " As it is to the liberal one. Kennedy Dynasty. The Houses of Patterson and Cuomo. The Caseys of Pennsylvania and the Browns of California. Not to mention all of this petty little political dynasties that prevail in local politics, like Chicago's Dalys and Philadelphia's Goode's I do not like Republicans any more than the next Democrat, but there are vices the parties share, and fealty to dynasties that share the same DNA are one of them.
- Shane Fergessen
December 29, 2009 at 10:21am
Stuart, hereditary deference is not an almost necessarily inherent quality of the non-conservative mindset. It is an almost necessarily inherent quality of the conservative mindset. This is a case where conservatives and non-conservatives often arrive at the same end, but for different reasons. For most conservatives, according to the son respect due to the father is an expression of their values. For most non-cons, according to the son respect due to the father is a violation of the values they claim. (Or more precisely, an expression of values they prefer to deny holding.) On a personal note, the two dumbest adults I have ever met were both the sons of famous and respected men who achieved statewide political success by trading on their fathers' reputations. One a very liberal Democrat, one a very conservative Republican. So there's a certain equality there, except that of the two dumbest men I've ever met, only the Republican (not George W. Bush!) was seriously considered a candidate for president by his party.
- rhubarbs
December 29, 2009 at 10:51am
When I think of Bill Kristol, I am reminded of what Dan Rather once said of some Republican (I can't recall who exactly): "Frequently mistaken, never in doubt" That sums up this Idiot Son to the T.
- MrCookie1
December 29, 2009 at 7:13pm