Tea Party Tory

#1
From The American Conservative Tea Party Tory by Patrick J. Buchanan
Before the Tea Party philosophy is ever even tested in America, it will have succeeded, or it will have failed, in Great Britain.

For in David Cameron the Brits have a prime minister who can fairly be described as a Tea Party Tory. Casting aside the guidance of Lord Keynes — government-induced deficits are the right remedy for recessions — Cameron has bet his own and his party’s future on the new austerity. He is making Maggie Thatcher look like Tip O’Neill.

Two headlines Thursday testify that the Tories have seized the Tea Party banner. First was the headline in The Washington Times, “Tea Party Urges Drastic Cutting,” that carried a caveat subhead, “Economists Question If Move Is Wise at This Time.”

Second was the Financial Times banner, “UK Unveils Dramatic Austerity Cutbacks.” The FT story begins, “The U.K.’s conservative-led coalition has announced the most drastic budget cuts in living memory. …
“The sweeping cuts in entitlements and spending far exceed anything contemplated in the U.S., where Barack Obama … has proposed only a three-year freeze on discretionary spending and Congress is still debating whether to extend tax cuts for the wealthy.”

The Tory budget cuts defense 8 percent and military personnel by 7,000. Translated here, that would mean a cut of $60 billion and about 100,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

By 2015, some 490,000 public-sector employees, 8 percent of the total, will lose their jobs. The rest will have their wages frozen for two years and face a 3-percent-of-salary hike in compulsory contributions to their pension program. The retirement age will rise from 65 to 66.
France is in the 10th day of demonstrations, strikes and riots over President Sarkozy’s plan to raise the retirement age to 62.

If Cameron’s plans take effect and his projections prove correct, Britain’s deficit will fall from 10 percent of gross domestic product to 2 percent.

Writes the FT, “The UK cuts … over four years are the equivalent of 4.5 percent of projected 2014-2015 gross domestic product. Similar cuts in the U.S. would require a cut in public spending of about $650 billion.”
Nothing like that is being discussed here, and even if Republicans capture the House, cuts of that magnitude appear out of the question. The correlation of forces would not permit it.

Consider what seems the best possible outcome, Nov. 2, for the Tea Party. Republicans capture the House by winning 50 seats and come within a vote or two of capturing the Senate.
Should that happen, Democrats, shorn of their centrist wing in the massacre, will be in no mood to cooperate in cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicare, unemployment insurance, food stamps or the earned income tax credit, the party’s legacy to the nation.

They will vote against serious cuts with as great a unanimity as Republicans voted against Obamacare. And if the GOP House votes the cuts, Senate Democrats will restore them. And if President Obama thinks they are too severe, he will veto the budget, his veto will stand, and he will run against “Boehner’s House” in 2012.

And Obama would do so with conviction. For neither he nor Fed chair Ben Bernanke agree with Cameron that Carthusian austerity is the way to go. They are Keynesians who think that is Hooverism.

Both believe the $1.4 and $1.3 trillion deficits they just ran up prevented the Great Recession from becoming a Great Depression.

Recall. Obama endorsed George W. Bush’s TARP bailout of the banks. He enacted a $789 billion stimulus bill, pushing the deficit to 10 percent of GDP. Bernanke doubled the money supply. He has now embraced “quantitative easing.” He is going to print billions to buy bonds and inject the money directly into the economy.
Quantitative easing is another bailout of the banks, only this time through the Fed back door.

Hence, the Tea Party faces almost certain disappointment, if not disillusionment.

Why? Because many in the Republican establishment also do not believe austerity is the way to go in a recession. Second, while most Republicans may favor deep cuts, they know that if they vote to cut Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, but do not get those cuts, they will get the pain but not the benefit and be held accountable, just as Democrats were held accountable for cap-and-trade, which they voted for but did not get through the Senate.

Republicans will come out of this election with a tricky hand to play. They will have the appearance of power, but not the actuality. They will vote for cuts that will not be agreed to by the Senate or accepted by the president.

If the economy is in the ditch in 2012, they will seem ineffectual. If the economy is improving, Obama and Bernanke will claim credit.

By then, however, we will know the fate of the Tea Party Tory who will at least have seen his policy prescriptions put to the test.
This is an interesting moment.

We have a second rate POTUS succeeding a profligate third rate one in the midst of a well deserved economic crisis. The result: mostly stasis, his modest and ineffectual tweaks to a plainly failing domestic system are described pejoratively as radical. Despite the atmosphere of near hysteria, Pat is right if the GOP get's its paws on the tiller of power concern about the deficit will go onto the back burner as political realities set in and America lines up for their usual diet of Federal pork, tax breaks and entitlements like elderly bums queuing for soup.

In the UK things are systemically different. A shaky and in some way rather progressive coalition has come to power and despite a limited mandate is determined to govern and has the legislative power and will to do so. Team Dave glorying in its moment. The PM speaks proudly of his radical policies. Time will tell if they are wise but you could mistake the UK for the younger creature that is prepared to risk failure for gain.

This is arousing some interest across the pond as folks on the wings of the narrow spectrum of US politics actually watching fiscal austerity in action. While the IMF and Bond markets applaud such idealogical rigor their Liberal economists regard it as a nearly suicidal policy and so discretely do many GOP policy makers. One fears Team Dave may succeed setting a worrying precedent the other that in leading with it's chin they'll tip the UK into a deep recession and be seeping claret and on the canvas by 2012.
 
#2
We have a second rate POTUS succeeding a profligate third rate one in the midst of a well deserved economic crisis. The result: mostly stasis, his modest and ineffectual tweaks to a plainly failing domestic system are described pejoratively as radical. Despite the atmosphere of near hysteria, Pat is right if the GOP get's its paws on the tiller of power concern about the deficit will go onto the back burner as political realities set in and America lines up for their usual diet of Federal pork, tax breaks and entitlements like elderly bums queuing for soup.

In the UK things are systemically different. A shaky and in some way rather progressive coalition has come to power and despite a limited mandate is determined to govern and has the legislative power and will to do so. Team Dave glorying in its moment. The PM speaks proudly of his radical policies. Time will tell if they are wise but you could mistake the UK for the younger creature that is prepared to risk failure for gain.

This is arousing some interest across the pond as folks on the wings of the narrow spectrum of US politics actually watching fiscal austerity in action. While the IMF and Bond markets applaud such idealogical rigor their Liberal economists regard it as a nearly suicidal policy and so discretely do many GOP policy makers. One fears Team Dave may succeed setting a worrying precedent the other that in leading with it's chin they'll tip the UK into a deep recession and be seeping claret and on the canvas by 2012.
My bold etc. Do you mean progressive as used in the US political vernacular, i.e. socialist, or did you mean forward looking?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#3
the pond as folks on the wings of the narrow spectrum of US politics actually watching fiscal austerity in action. While the IMF and Bond markets applaud such idealogical rigor their Liberal economists regard it as a nearly suicidal policy and so discretely do many GOP policy makers. One fears Team Dave may succeed setting a worrying precedent the other that in leading with it's chin they'll tip the UK into a deep recession and be seeping claret and on the canvas by 2012.
That bit concerns me, the rabidly freemarket policies that the IMF and others inflicted on the economies of South America and Africa were an utter disaster for them. A purist freemarket is as deadly and destructive as centralist communism in the mould of Stalin et al.

The biggest worry for me, that although the cuts are necessary there is not enough diversity of in the economy to pick up the slack, just as in the 80s very little is being done to foster a sensibly mixed economy or create jobs in the private sector to enable people to change career or find employment.
 
#4
My bold etc. Do you mean progressive as used in the US political vernacular, i.e. socialist, or did you mean forward looking?
Progressive is Septic code for liberal, and something timidly far from socialist in Yurp terms their liberals tend to be pretty conservative in reality. They have no conception of what socialist means beyond death panels and murdered babies.

In US terms the Tories are barking mad, green tinted, Godless Commies, at least if you've trouble yourself to actually read Team Dave's manifesto and have enough knowledge of US politics to see how hysterical Tea Partiers would see it.

Any POTUS who made this sort of brutal defense cut while promising to preserve the affront of a free at the point of care granny murdering NHS would risk being burnt in effigy on the DC Mall. It's worse than socialist, it is disturbingly Canadian.
 

Travelgall

LE
Kit Reviewer
#5
In US terms the Tories are barking mad, green tinted, Godless Commies, at least if you've trouble yourself to actually read Team Dave's manifesto and have enough knowledge of US politics to see how hysterical Tea Partiers would see it.

Any POTUS who made this sort of brutal defense cut while promising to preserve the affront of a free at the point of care granny murdering NHS would risk being burnt in effigy on the DC Mall. It's worse than socialist, it is disturbingly Canadian.
Hmmm. I would argue that since the Republican Party - like the Democrats- is a pretty big tent, some Republicans would find a spiritual home in the Conservative Party of the UK. The basic gut - The state isn't the solution, it is the problem would be equally at home in either party. I wouldn't call all the Tea Party "Hysterical". They're not all Sarah Palin. What I found amusing was listening to Tim Robbins on Radio 2 denouncing the Tea Party as a Astroturf Movement funded by Millionaires. That is spectacularly untrue, and I guess is symptomatic of a gut Liberal Luvvie feeling that anything that doesn't fit into their little view of the world is some sort of Right Wing Billionaires Plot.

For the record, I suspect the Anti-Tea Party movement called the Coffee Party is also grassroots. What most certainly isn't in terms of spontaneous interest from the masses is Jon Stewarts "Rally to restore sanity". It hopes to target "Overheated debate and laziness in the media". Now I think the guy is funny, but if he really wanted to calm political debate down, he had plenty of time during the vilification of George W Bush. He's simply afraid of, or unwilling to understand a large block of taxpayers grouping together and saying that they're no longer willing to fund state profligacy. Basically Godwins law. I don't like you, I'm worried about loosing the argument, I'm going to call you all lunatics.
 
#6
Hmmm. I would argue that since the Republican Party - like the Democrats- is a pretty big tent, some Republicans would find a spiritual home in the Conservative Party of the UK. The basic gut - The state isn't the solution, it is the problem would be equally at home in either party. I wouldn't call all the Tea Party "Hysterical". They're not all Sarah Palin. What I found amusing was listening to Tim Robbins on Radio 2 denouncing the Tea Party as a Astroturf Movement funded by Millionaires. That is spectacularly untrue, and I guess is symptomatic of a gut Liberal Luvvie feeling that anything that doesn't fit into their little view of the world is some sort of Right Wing Billionaires Plot.

For the record, I suspect the Anti-Tea Party movement called the Coffee Party is also grassroots. What most certainly isn't in terms of spontaneous interest from the masses is Jon Stewarts "Rally to restore sanity". It hopes to target "Overheated debate and laziness in the media". Now I think the guy is funny, but if he really wanted to calm political debate down, he had plenty of time during the vilification of George W Bush. He's simply afraid of, or unwilling to understand a large block of taxpayers grouping together and saying that they're no longer willing to fund state profligacy. Basically Godwins law. I don't like you, I'm worried about loosing the argument, I'm going to call you all lunatics.
All of the "liberal" mass movements are astroturf (ever see one of their rallies without SEIU and/or ACORN T-shirts and pre-printed signs in evidence? Thought not...), so they just cannot conceive that the tea party isn't. It's outside of their frame of reference. Thus it must have been cooked up by evil billionaires, like... err... George Soros... err... wait one...

Just like what they are waking up to this morning: they've been told by NPR, MSNBC etc that the tea party is just a slack handful of kooks, Glenn Beck is an irrelevant nobody and almost nobody turned up to his rallies, and eleventy bazillion turned up for the Jon Stewart rally. Thus, how could the Democrats have possibly lost? Must have been cheating... must have been those evil billionaires like old George (see above)... oh wait...
 
#7
Hmmm. I would argue that since the Republican Party - like the Democrats- is a pretty big tent, some Republicans would find a spiritual home in the Conservative Party of the UK. The basic gut - The state isn't the solution, it is the problem would be equally at home in either party. I wouldn't call all the Tea Party "Hysterical". They're not all Sarah Palin. What I found amusing was listening to Tim Robbins on Radio 2 denouncing the Tea Party as a Astroturf Movement funded by Millionaires. That is spectacularly untrue, and I guess is symptomatic of a gut Liberal Luvvie feeling that anything that doesn't fit into their little view of the world is some sort of Right Wing Billionaires Plot.

For the record, I suspect the Anti-Tea Party movement called the Coffee Party is also grassroots. What most certainly isn't in terms of spontaneous interest from the masses is Jon Stewarts "Rally to restore sanity". It hopes to target "Overheated debate and laziness in the media". Now I think the guy is funny, but if he really wanted to calm political debate down, he had plenty of time during the vilification of George W Bush. He's simply afraid of, or unwilling to understand a large block of taxpayers grouping together and saying that they're no longer willing to fund state profligacy. Basically Godwins law. I don't like you, I'm worried about loosing the argument, I'm going to call you all lunatics.
I don't think this is accurate but of course to find out depends largely on the traditional media that has demonstrated its unreliability in terms of true journalism. There is a much greater degree of centraliz(s)ed, top-down control (not surprising given the modus operandi of progressivism) among those against the "tea party movement."
 
#8
From The American Conservative Tea Party Tory by Patrick J. Buchanan
This is an interesting moment.

We have a second rate POTUS succeeding a profligate third rate one in the midst of a well deserved economic crisis. The result: mostly stasis, his modest and ineffectual tweaks to a plainly failing domestic system are described pejoratively as radical. Despite the atmosphere of near hysteria, Pat is right if the GOP get's its paws on the tiller of power concern about the deficit will go onto the back burner as political realities set in and America lines up for their usual diet of Federal pork, tax breaks and entitlements like elderly bums queuing for soup.

In the UK things are systemically different. A shaky and in some way rather progressive coalition has come to power and despite a limited mandate is determined to govern and has the legislative power and will to do so. Team Dave glorying in its moment. The PM speaks proudly of his radical policies. Time will tell if they are wise but you could mistake the UK for the younger creature that is prepared to risk failure for gain.

This is arousing some interest across the pond as folks on the wings of the narrow spectrum of US politics actually watching fiscal austerity in action. While the IMF and Bond markets applaud such idealogical rigor their Liberal economists regard it as a nearly suicidal policy and so discretely do many GOP policy makers. One fears Team Dave may succeed setting a worrying precedent the other that in leading with it's chin they'll tip the UK into a deep recession and be seeping claret and on the canvas by 2012.
I am not sure what you intended in this but I would argue very forcefully (and with many facts in support) that He (and perhaps this is the explanation in that I consider Him to be the focus of all the "transformative" efforts since he was elected even though, as you may be implying, many of these are not actually of His making with Him rather being the front for them) has gone far beyone mere "modest and ineffectual tweaks" and I do not agree that our "system" (again I am not sure how broadly you intended this) was "plainly failing." As in any "system" of human origin it will have problems needing "fixing" but not a complete (and IMHO un-Constitutional) overthrowing.
 
#9
Here progressive means so much more than liberal. It means ultra left/far left toward socialism. Greenbaggyskin had it right.
To a babbling shock jock perhaps. It's what a lot of US liberals self identify as these days, the traditional term liberal having been comprehensively trashed as something near to dread socialism, the spineless wimps have abandoned it along with their other weakly held principles.

Even the hawkish and really rather conservative Hills Clinton backs away from the toxic L word fearfully here:
"You know, (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century." She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive.""
You can argue this harks back to an era of the Bull Moose Party and Teddy Roosevelt when the US genuinely had a recognizable left wing. Now there is just a tiny fringe that Micheal Moore can barely wallow in.
Definition of PROGRESSIVE from Websters

1
a : one that is progressive
b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
2
capitalized : a member of any of various United States political parties: as
a : a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans; specifically : bull moose
b : a follower of Robert M. La Follette in the presidential campaign of 1924
c : a follower of Henry A. Wallace in the presidential campaign of 1948
TAC has another piece this week by Pat this week Deadlock of Democracy
...
But how does Obama, whose deficits have added more to the debt in two years than Bush added in eight, convert and become a deficit hawk?

Consider Social Security, which all agree must be made solvent.

There are two ways. One is to raise the wage base on which Social Security taxes are imposed and raise the 6.2 percent payroll tax on both employers and employees. But these are major tax increases. And the GOP and Tea Party will fix bayonets to fight them.
The other way is to raise the retirement age to 70 and re-index Social Security COLAs (cost-of-living adjustments) to prices, not wages, reducing future benefits for baby boomers and generations X and Y.

Will Pelosi’s battered liberals go along with reducing Social Security benefits if Obama proposes it? Or would that tear what is left of his tattered coalition to pieces?

To cut spending to 20 percent of GDP from 24 would require annual slashes of $600 billion, eliminating a sixth of the budget.
Will Democrats go along with that magnitude of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, earned income tax credits, infrastructure, Pell grants and welfare?

Will Republicans go along with cuts of that size for the Iraq and Afghan wars, new weapons systems, closing of bases and withdrawal of troops from Korea, Japan or Europe? To get 4 percent of GDP out of defense would require putting the Pentagon on furlough.

Bottom line: The new Republican House has the numbers and will to block new taxes and fund both wars and the rising defense budget. And the president has the veto power to block severe cuts in social programs, which his bloodied forces will demand that he do.

Were this a parliamentary system, Obama would be out of power, as the nation voted to reject his party and reverse the course of the country.

In Britain, under Prime Minister David Cameron, the austerity the people voted for is being imposed. In Virginia and New Jersey, where Govs. Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie were elected in 2009 to change the direction of state government, this is happening.
In Washington, however, where Obama’s agenda and party were repudiated by the nation, they still retain the power to prevent the nation from going where America voted to go.

The center has disintegrated. The result: a deadlock of democracy, with neither party responsible and neither accountable, as we drift toward the falls.

Greece, here we come
And the next dysfunctional bun fight: preserving the deficit bloating Bush Tax cut, the entitled's beloved entitlement and a Teaper favorite. Makes Dave's Broken Britain look strangely sane.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top