Divided Government - A Dissent

A few days ago, Laura posted a wonderful, well reasoned and reseached piece arguing for different parties to control the Oval Office and Congress.

Although it is probably generally true - I believe it is in our best interest to root against it in this election.

There is little dispute that neither of the major parties are currently a vehicle for greater freedom. Also, they are the only ones with a chance of getting elelcted.

So do the forces of liberty hope for a slightly slower slide to totalitarianism or do they hope for an opportunity for quick victory?

Ron Paul changed everything this year.

He proved three previously held political certainties to be false.

1. The freedom coalition is small. Although he failed in his run as a presidential candidate he showed that not only Libertarians care about freedom. The supporters are broad and diverse.

2. Freedom/message candidates can't raise money well - you need to offer handots or favors to get serious cash. Obviously, not true. $35 million for a candidate who polled 4% in six months is not chump change.

3. You can't get the youth to support the message of individualism. Ever head to a college campus during the election? I'd say they 'get' it. Those are today's creative activists and tomorrow's candidates.

So we have to storm the gates of one of the two parties. The democrats are so hopelessly enthralled with socialism that they are a lost cause. The GOP is philosophically bankrupt but has a platform (which it rarely adheres to) that is more friendly. Plus, there are a number of activists now engaged and gaining positions of power within the Republican Party..

But the forces of liberty are hopelessly outnumbered and at a severe tactical disadvantage. They have a ruling establishment in bed with the neoconservatives and media. And the only message most Republicans listen to is (re)election.

So the only way to convince them to change is to face widespread defeat in their races and philosophy. We must force introspection within the talking head class which only comes with defeat.

We need a wholesale repudiation of the philosophy of big government conservatism.

In other words, we need to risk a few years of democratic controlled government to allow an opening for the forces of liberty to remind Americans and Republicans why freedom works.

Letting the neoconservatives rise up again in 2 years after the Democrats fail to 'fix'' the country is not an opening that we can allow to be exploited. We must drive a stake through the neoconservative monement, burn it, stomp on it, and shoot its ashes into the sun.

Comments

[Georg Thomas]

I agree with Eric Larson. That includes a recommendation to read Laura's superb paper on divided government, available at the RedStateEclectic think tank: http://redstateeclectic.us.com/article.php?articleid=14

Laura's outstanding paper has helped me greatly to find my position concerning the issue, which happens to coincide with what Eric Larson expresses in the above post.

All those little tactical games intended to appeal to a sense of guilt in the supporters of the Libertarian Party (ah, you are helping Obama by not voting McCain) loose all relevance once you realise that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between the Reps and the Dems, and that therefore there is A HUGE NEED to create a GENUINE ALTERNATIVELY, hopefully in one day, or in ten years, if need be. That is what matters - nothing else.

The Republicans have lost their identity a long time ago; instead of defending and giving meaning to the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, they have adopted the ideal of the Democrats: totalitarian democracy, and have built a strong, deep rooted and multi layered division of labour between themselves and the Democrats to use unrestrained power so as to entirely dominate American society.

[mark p]

Can I get an amen from the congregation?

[Laura]

That's a reasonable dissent, Eric. My only disagreement (or question) with it is this: is the "freedom movement" well enough organized and cohesive enough that in 4 years it will be able to not only elect the President, but a significant number of members to Congress? If not, then what damage is done--let's say after 8 years (either of total control of Democrats, or of total control--perhaps if the Dems don't "fix" the problems--by the neoconservative element of the GOP)? I'm skeptical--in part because of the differences of opinion within the LP, and in part because of the failure--thus far--of some of the Ron Paul meetup groups to coalesce around a common purpose now that Paul is out of it. The Campaign for Liberty is a nice start, and I'm hopeful that will be the rallying point, but "movements" in American seem to require a little bit of aging time before they become mainstream.

The first of the baby boomers started collecting Security this year. That cohort (caveat: while I technically fall into that group, I'm at the tail end of it, and tend not to view things eye to eye with many of them)has been used to getting goodies its whole existence--from College grants to College deferments while there was a draft, to their movement into Medicare and Social Security now, many of these folks are not going to abide by anything sudden in the way of less government--I don't think.

If I'm right, then chipping away at the state may be the best bet. Now, if I'm going to start chipping away at iceberg that has frozen and grown for 8 years, would I rather that it's quadrupled in size, or merely doubled in size from Point A?

I absolutely agree that both parties today are addicted to government growth. And I certainly support the notion that folks in solid Republican and Democrat states ought to send a strong message that they are "mad as hell" and want liberty back--by voting for Barr or Baldwin, or whoever. That being said--not because of any virtue of either John McCain or lack thereof of Barack Obama, I still think that aiming for divided government is our best bet as the liberty movement matures--whether in the 3rd parties or within an existing party, or both.

[Laura]

There is one thing that I would add, Eric. We don't really know--in the Republican Party, for instance, how many "true" neoconservatives there are. I would say that my experience suggests that most mainstream folks really aren't--but they tend to be following the party leadership. Are most of the party leaders and elected officials truly neoconservatives, or is it--as you suggest--that they're really only interested in re-election, and their perception (from a lack of dissent from what they're doing) is that the course of action they're taking is what their constituents want? Politicians do tend to sway with the political winds, so it may be that dire warnings of "neocons" taking over again in 2 years (if the Dems mess up) might be overstated. It could be--maybe--that pressure from the grassroots will force some of the folks who have just been going along with the party line to reassess where they stand on some things. I still think an argument can be made for divided government and minimizing further damage to liberty WHILE we continue to educate and gain ground.

[ericlarson]

Laura,
You are entirely right to express concern that there isn't the infrastructure to run candidates in 2 years.

However, as you stated very correctly, most politicians are not principled and work to stay in power or follow a leader.

Right now, the GOPs political and intellectual leaders are neocons or at least buy into the theory. To win the GOP back, one must definitively defeat all of those leaders.

If the election is close will the party question the 'philosophy'? No. And the momentum from the Campaign for Liberty is here now. You put yourself at a significant risk by allowing that dreaded philosophy simmer.

To further the point imagine McCain is routed. The GOP loses 20+ seats in the house and a few in the senate. How does it respond? Would continue with Boehner and co? No. It would try to explain why it got so thoroughly beaten.

This is when the leadership would be purged and republicans who are 'different' from the old would emerge. Flake, Paul, Sanford, etc. And the Limbaughs and Hannitys would follow. I dare say they would lead the charge. As would most of the Republicans in the house and elsewhere.

[Georg Thomas]

Laura's relative confidence in "divided government" puzzles me. It is based on the assumption that the Republicans, who have discredited themselves in a breathtaking way over the past 8 years (with a very long pre-history leading up to this shameful period), will be urgently and vitally needed to save America (a little bit) - from what?

The catastrophic Bush years are the result of collusion between the Dems and the Reps.

Put differently, if the Dems had had the political will to oppose the Reps' transgressions from the Patriot Act to the vicious imperialism of the Administration, they would have been able to exercise highly efficient resistance. Instead they happily sat in the neocon boat. In a word: behind the rhetorical smokescreen, Dems and Reps have again proven birds of a feather.

Even the idealistic assumption that of two parties that stand most to gain by colluding within a system of unrestrained power they have completely usurped, one might give precedence to principles beneficial to the country and thus become an effective force of restraint within divided government, even this idealistic assumption is wholly lacking in substance and credibility.

Both parties have proven that they feel they own America and are determined to go on dominating society with the welcome help of a growing over-abundance of power.

If anything, one party will do its level best to make sure that the other does not spoil that tremendous advantage. They therefore will continue to work together on the common project of ever growing power. They would have to be idiots not to.

For a more extensive discussion of the divided government issue, see my various comments on this post:

http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2008/06/voting-for-divi.html

[Laura]

I don't really think we're all that far apart, Eric--just seeing things from a different starting point, maybe. You may be right about some of the leadership of the party being neocons--but I don't really think it's the majority--or I certainly don't think most of the elected officials have really thought about it that much. Here in Nebraska, for instance, our relatively junior members of Congress ache to get re-elected year after year, and they can do that by doing what "the folks" want back home, and kissing up to the true leadership (who may have that ideological leaning) that assigns committees. In a state like Nebraska where most people are cultural Republicans (always been, always will be, a Republican), then there's sort of web being woven--if I believe that the Republicans are always better than the Democrats, and the Republican leaders say "x", then I judge my Republican member of Congress by his "Republicanness" and how he conforms to "x".

Leadership would almost surely change if there was a massive loss by the GOP in Congress this fall. But...at what expense would that change come? A Congress even more inclined toward the Democratic statism with no counterweight at all in the White House? Frankly, that just scares the bejeebers out of me. My oldest child will be in her second year of college this year--and will be graduating (we hope) during the next administration. My husband, at 47, ought to be in the peak of his medical practice years during that time. Socialized medicine? Higher taxes? Less liberty? I just can't see rolling over and saying that it's worth the risk when the real alternative--the liberty movement--hasn't graduated from diapers yet. I mean it's like parents failing to plan for their kids' college education by assuming that they're going to be athletic superstars who will have full-ride scholarships while the kid is in Kindergarten.

I have great hope for the movement. And I have hope that the new method of communications in the Internet will help to mature the movement faster. I believe that in many places (like here in Nebraska) we are getting people well positioned within the State GOP, and that in another 2 years, with a little bit of effort, we'll be able to stage something close to an effective takeover of the Party organization, and that 2 years after that, most of the delegates to the National Convention will be libertarian-types. I really do believe that.

I have no particular affection for Sen. McCain, and the more I read around the country, the more it seems that there is a definite lack of enthusiasm for him. But if partisan bickering can slow the flood of a massive wave of new entitlements, then I still think it's worth considering the divided government option over the almost-certain threat of bigger, more intrusive government if the Dems have total control. One of the great conundrums (and the problem that the Libertarian Party has, I think, as long as we've got a two party system) is that it would be very easy for libertarian Republicans to vote for the LP candidate in many instances--but if we do, there's the question of whether we are effectively voting for less liberty because we've made it easier for the Democrats to come into power.

Of course single votes in most instances aren't going to make a difference anyway. But theoretically, if I could walk into the voting booth in November, and see what the current results were, and I saw that John McCain was tied with Barack Obama in Nebraska, and way behind them in single digits, Bob Barr was sitting--AND the last 2 voters in the state are behind me in line, and I know one's an Obama supporter, the other a McCain supporter, what would I do? Vote for McCain, and insure that he wins by one vote, giving him Nebraska's electoral votes (which every Republican really has to have), or would I vote for Bob Barr, knowing that he's not going to win anything, and making it exceedingly likely that Barack Obama will be the next president? I'll freely admit that both the Republicans and Democrats are bad choices right now--but why doesn't it make sense to TRY to stem the tide by pitting them against each other.

As to Georg's comment. My assumption isn't based on the ideas of the Republicans suddenly wanting to "save us"--note that when you talk about the last 8 years (7, really) that 6 of those were un-divided government with Republicans in control of both branches. My assumption is based merely on the notion that the two parties will bicker between themselves--perhaps over minutiae, or perhaps around the margins--but they will bicker nonetheless if there is a period of divided government.

The bottom line, though, I think, is that you either buy the theory of divided government or you don't. It's not perfect, and McCain (who fancies himself as bipartisan) is not the perfect foil to Democratic initiatives. But frankly, I'd rather have things gummed up a bit with partisan bickering and get less passed, than I would to have hundreds of Barack Obama's initiatives passed in the first year. That's just me, though.

[Georg Thomas]

Laura, if the Dems, government divided or not, had had a serious problem with the Patriot Act, their resistance would have made all the difference, which goes for every major issue, including the Dems and the Reps common unjust wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know the detailed story, but I understand the neocons are basically former Dems - and even if they aren't, it is about time that critical Republicans realise that the Reps are an extension of the Dems - they have fully accepted the political system of America which is entirely in line with Democrats' ideas of unrestrained government legitimised by the hoax of "the people" being the sovereign.

[mw]

ERIC SAID:
"He proved three previously held political certainties to be false.
1. The freedom coalition is small. Although he failed in his run as a presidential candidate he showed that not only Libertarians care about freedom. The supporters are broad and diverse."

Not really. He proved that the freedom coaliton is more effective and bigger than the Libertarian Party, which never gets above 2-3% in major elections, but it is still small and with a lot of money and a lot of press is capable of getting around 12% of the vote in a Republican Primary. 18% if you count the protest vote against a nominee that has already won the election. There is no opportunity for "quick victory" as Eric suggests. The real question, is how can this ~8-12% organize to wield actual political power? My answer, which is 100% in concert with Laura's argument, is for this block to "Vote By Objective".

The objectives I vote for: Federal government should be limited in scope, provide for common defense, protect and respect individual rights, spend and tax in a fiscally responsible manner, provide effective oversight of elected and appointed representatives, legislate carefully and slowly, and pass only laws that are tempered in the fire of partisan debate. I vote in the hope and expectation of moving our government and country toward these objectives. Many would recognize these objectives as a centrist, moderate and/or small "l" libertarian perspective.

While political parties and candidates pay lip service to these goals and objectives, there is no empirical evidence that these objectives can be accomplished by voting for a specific party or candidate. Neither Republicans or Democrats can be relied on to move our government toward these objectives. After decades of trying, there is no evidence that voting for a 3rd party like the Libertarians does anything to move the country toward these objectives.

Yet, there is a way to vote that has been historically documented to accomplish exactly these goals. If you want to vote for those objectives, there is a way to vote that has been shown as documented historical fact*, to deliver exactly what you are voting for, 100% of the time. These objectives can be accomplished at the ballot box. Not by voting exclusively Republican, Democratic or 3rd party, but by voting consistently for divided government.

Divided government as a voting heuristic may not always work, but it works now. When there is an obvious divided government vote (as in '06 and '08), voting for divided government is the best way to accomplish the objectives outlined above. It may not alway be that way, and accomplishing these objectives may not always require a divided government vote. After all, it is the objectives and not the divided government state that matters. One could speculate that if this meme were to evolve into a tightly organized and highly sophisticated voting block, it could become very granular and work to maintain a divided congress at all times, so the presidential vote would always be "free-agent," "best-man," lesser-of-two-evils," most libertarian, whatever. But that is getting pretty far-fetched, even for me.

Ultimately, I see this voting tactic as effective, but short-term and self-limiting. Maintaining divided government has real benefits in terms of governance, and the primary benefit of successfully implementing this voting tactic is to move the country toward these objectives. But as a side benefit, it could serve to establish the moderate libertarian center as a self-aware, broadly recognized and organized voting block.

Objectively, divided government only slows the growth of the state, with no evidence that it can actually begin to reduce it. One way to describe the situation is that the "Divided Government vote" stands down when the "Moderate/Centrist/Libertarian/Freedom vote" stands up. Ultimately, if the divided government constituency is co-opted and eroded because Democrats and/or Republicans are wrestling with each other to prove who are the better, more effective moderate/libertarians, and can prove this to a skeptical, rational, empirical moderate/libertarian swing vote ... well then our job here is done.

*The referenced historical documentation for the benefits of divided government can be found at my blog, on the post from which much of this comment is cribbed:

http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2006/05/vbo-voting-by-objective.html

[ericlarson]

Mw,
As I said before I agree with the contention that on average divided government is more desirable than one party rule.

However, my contention is that this is a unique year allowing for the potential defeat of a destructive ideology within the GOP. It is really only a hypothesis that we are presented with timing.

Taking the assumption that the GOP loses seats in both houses of Congress, what would happen if McCain wins? It will validate the failed republican 'positions' of more war, more deficit spending, global warming/energy control, inflation, etc.

They will continue to see these positions as 'winners' and it will be 4 more years of further erosions of our liberties, treasure, and worst - increased contracture of Republicans in Congress.

Like Laura said, most congressmen are like sheep lacking principles and will follow a leader who shows a winning way.

Delaying the inevitable one-party rule another 4 years will probably only make it that much harder to climb out of the minority.

The leaders are there, the activists are ready, and we have the opportunity to change course.

[ericlarson]

Mw,
As I said before I agree with the contention that on average divided government is more desirable than one party rule.

However, my contention is that this is a unique year allowing for the potential defeat of a destructive ideology within the GOP. It is really only a hypothesis that we are presented with timing.

Taking the assumption that the GOP loses seats in both houses of Congress, what would happen if McCain wins? It will validate the failed republican 'positions' of more war, more deficit spending, global warming/energy control, inflation, etc.

They will continue to see these positions as 'winners' and it will be 4 more years of further erosions of our liberties, treasure, and worst - increased contracture of Republicans in Congress.

Like Laura said, most congressmen are like sheep lacking principles and will follow a leader who shows a winning way.

Delaying the inevitable one-party rule another 4 years will probably only make it that much harder to climb out of the minority.

The leaders are there, the activists are ready, and we have the opportunity to change course.