The Armey Line

For an interpretation of current GOP political problems that is, I think, completely wrong take a look at Dick Armey's argument that insufficient fealty to low-spending dogma is responsible for the situation. The thing you'll notice is that there's not much of an argument here as such. Instead, it's a simple correlation observation -- the Bush Republicans have spent a lot of money, and now they're poised to lose seats. But all of the key policy steps that Armey's citing actually came before the 2004 election, which went fine for the GOP. What's changed between now and then isn't domestic policy (indeed, the economy, though still soft in many respects, is almost unquestionably better than it was two years ago) but the war in Iraq.

Comments

The war in Iraq has cost a lot of money.

Posted by James B. Shearer | October 29, 2006 7:04 PM

Here's the key paragraph, for me:

Yet despite such successes, we didn't learn the right political lessons. A few months before the victory on welfare, we lost the battle over the federal government shutdown of 1995, when we were outmaneuvered by Clinton, a masterful political operator. After that fight, too many Republicans apparently concluded that America wanted bigger government. This misreading was the first step on the road away from the Reagan legacy.

You might ask, why is this a misreading? Why shouldn't Republicans have concluded that Americans like government? Well, Dick Armey has the answer to that, too:

chirp

Pelosi! Conyers!!!

chirp

Yup, he never once addresses the issue. Just asserts it. He takes maybe the single best example (before hte privatization debacle of aught-five) of the American people's deep-seated love for government programs, and tries to counter-assert it out of existence. That basically displays the level of electoral analysis going on here.

Posted by DivGuy | October 29, 2006 7:04 PM

Although perhaps the unhappiness was brewing already at that point.

Posted by Don't Forget Katrina | October 29, 2006 9:54 PM

When will notice be taken of the latest electronic voting machine news? The U.S. is investigating ties Chavez may have to ownership of many machines used in several states? Can't anyone see this as the groundwork being laid to contest close elections favoring Democrats in their final outcome? It's a pushback against all those alleging Diebold and Bushco are conspiring to steal the election. "Oh yeah, so we stole a few races? Ha! You and your leftist, terrorist buddy Chavez actually are to blame for all this confusion. Our patriotic supporters went to the polls only to be stymied by machines owned by an avowed Bush hater!" This is so transparently an attempt to confuse the electorate as to who is actually planning an electoral heist it's laughable. I won't hold my breath waiting for the MSM to label it for what it is.

Posted by steve duncan | October 29, 2006 11:07 PM

It is depressing how much some people simply cannot get a handle on the idea that sometimes election's are no ones fault. In Western democracies it is extremely difficult to hold power for long without getting disgraced. Having to actually compromise and be responsible, along with getting the lion's share of the media's investigations into corruption, will slowly kill ANY party. If the Democrats just decided to give up and didn't take back any branch this year, then 2008 would only be even more wonderful for the Dems.

These things go in cycles, and no amount of policy loyalty was going to save them, gah.

*Disclaimer, the main exception being governments that are made of HUGE coalitions of divergent interests, such as the Democratic Congress, the CD coalition in Italy, and the Liberals in Japan. But they tend to be flukes, very hard to replicate purposefully, and don't really get much done in terms of major policy per cycle.

Posted by Tony v | October 30, 2006 9:05 AM