Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CONSERVATIVES: EVERY PROBLEM A POTENTIAL TAX CUT?
Over at Next Right, a contributor writes up a conversation he had with a Republican candidate in the 2010 Alabama governor's race:
When I had the opportunity, I asked [Tim] James if I could ask him a quick question. "Sure," he replied. The question I lobbed at him was whether or not he would absolutely commit to not increasing taxes if elected governor."No problem," he responded. "Got a tougher one?"
I pitched the second question a bit harder, but his response came as quickly as the first one. I asked if he'd commit to not increasing state spending. "That's easy," he said. "You got a tough one for me, now?"
"Okay," I responded, and threw him a bit of a curveball. "Would you mind signing a pledge to this effect?"
"I'd love to...," he stated. Later on, we set up a telephone call to deal with speaking arrangements for an upcoming event and the pledge issue.
It all seems so flippant. Even given the conservative predilection for smaller governments and the ubiquity of Grover Norquist' conservative loyalty oaths, is it wise for any potential chief executive to completely tie their hands, especially in a time of recession? It speaks to a rigid ideological prism rather than the attitude of addressing problems on their own merits. Most of America's successful conservative executives would have violated both of those pledges; it's as foolish a set of strictures as if Democrats demanded that their candidates sign pledges to raise taxes and increase spending. Most people have some ideological preference about the general role of government in society, but even more of them want the government to work.
These arguments have been made time and time again, but the real point here that the praise of this approach is appearing at Next Right. Not to ascribe monolithic views to a group blog, but I get how this stance is on the Right -- I just don't see where the "next" part comes in. Watching conservatives go through what progressives did six years ago is interesting, but they don't seem willing -- yet -- to grant their candidates the virtue of flexibility, as the netroots has consistently done.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (2)
"...is it wise for any potential chief executive to completely tie their hands, especially in time of recession? It speaks to a rigid ideological prism rather than the attitude of addressing problems on their own merits."
It's easy enough for them to promise because ideologically speaking, they don't see anything that government can do. Therefore they can come up with the most irresponsible solutions humanly possible.
Their position on healthcare reform consists of nothing but tax breaks -- not because a person in urgent need of healthcare needs a tax break but because the outcome really doesn't matter to them one way or the other.
Posted by: leo | March 30, 2009 12:19 PM
They can as easily vow to cut taxes and spending as the other side can promise to increase taxes and increase spending. Both stances are ideological.
Posted by: DocinPA | March 31, 2009 10:35 PM