creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Mona Charen
Mona Charen
14 May 2013
Obama Administration Scraps Free Speech

Two years ago, this column, along with others, raised an alarm about the Obama administration's decision … Read More.

10 May 2013
Hawking's Moral Calculus

Stephen Hawking, the world-renowned physicist and celebrity, has cancelled a planned trip to Israel to … Read More.

7 May 2013
Benghazi Ghosts Haunt White House

My iPhone buzzes on a regular basis with "news alerts" from Politico, The Hill and other sources. … Read More.

And You Say Conservatism Is Dying?

Comment

Strangely, chatter about the "death of conservatism" is circulating this fall. I say "strangely" because we are in the midst of the greatest left/liberal moment in living memory. Liberal policies are careening out of Washington and mowing down innocent bystanders. This is the greatest opportunity since the Carter administration to illustrate to voters why conservatism is to be preferred. So it's downright weird that at this moment, we are being asked to ponder how far we have fallen from the glory days of William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman. "How awful for you," say those who never sympathized with conservatism, "that you have been reduced to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity."

This is rubbish. Conservatives have always had populists as well as intellectuals. In the 1970s there was Buckley, yes, but also Howard Jarvis and Richard Viguerie. We had fewer radio voices because the Fairness Doctrine limited free speech. Now we have a chorus where once we had only a few soloists. Besides, why don't those crying crocodile tears for conservatism's supposed decline fret that liberalism is represented by the likes of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow? I'll see your Rush Limbaugh and raise you an Al Franken and a Michael Moore.

Far from suffering a decline, conservatism is on the cusp of a major comeback, courtesy of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. That revival will be fertilized by their failures. The crop is already beginning to come in:

Cash for Clunkers: The goal of the program was to reduce carbon emissions and boost the ailing auto industry. As even "Saturday Night Live" acknowledges, the program succeeded in stimulating the economy — of Japan. The Department of Transportation estimates that 59 percent of vehicles bought with clunker bonuses were foreign made. As for the American auto industry, as soon as the program ended, sales plummeted by 25 percent compared with last year, suggesting that consumers simply rushed to purchase cars in August that they were planning to purchase soon anyway. The environmental impact is speculative. Some estimate that the program will save 0.04 percent of CO2 — or two days worth — over the next decade. Or maybe not even that. Lee Schipper of Berkeley and several colleagues warned in the Washington Post that new cars are more fun to drive than old clunkers.

It is therefore possible that the program will not yield even that de minimus environmental benefit. Moreover, the price for this fandango came to $2,000 per vehicle, or $1.4 billion to taxpayers.

Minimum Wage Hike: On the campaign trail, candidate Obama proclaimed, "We shouldn't raise the minimum wage every 10 years, we should raise it every year, to keep up with inflation. If you work in this country, you should not be poor." Conservatives warned that increases in the minimum wage always result in fewer jobs for the young and unskilled. The Democrats passed it. It became law in July. What happened? Seasonally adjusted teen unemployment reached its highest level in 63 years — 25.9 percent. In two months, 330,000 jobs for teenagers just vanished. As the Wall Street Journal noted, the situation is most dire for black male teenagers, whose unemployment rate jumped from an already grievous 39.2 percent in July to 50.4 percent in September. The anemic economy is obviously one factor in the equation. But particularly in a time of recession, it violates common sense and 50 years of experience artificially to raise the price of labor.

The Stimulus Bill: In order to prevent unemployment from reaching 8 percent and to boost consumption and economic activity, Congress passed a $787 billion stimulus behemoth. Six months on, the unemployment rate is brushing up against 10 percent. And, as economists John F. Cogan, John B. Taylor, and Volker Wieland argue, it seems that just as in the case of the $150 billion Bush stimulus plan in 2008, the temporary infusion of cash through refundable tax credits and one-time payments (about 20 percent of the stimulus) did not budge consumption at all. Thirty percent of the stimulus package is designated for unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies, which may or may not be good public policy but which will not create a single new job. Another 20 percent will go to education. Only the most obtuse would argue that we weren't already spending too much on education. Another 20 percent or so is designated for public works. But as a number of critics have pointed out, federal spending on roads and bridges has not necessarily been directed to the places with the highest levels of unemployment.

Any stimulus package amounts to taking money from the pockets of some Americans and placing it in the pockets of others who have better political connections. (Tax cuts are fairer.) Most of the stimulus money has not yet been spent. And all of the spending will have to be paid for by tax hikes or inflation — or both.

If this is the death of conservatism, I'm feeling like Lazarus.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM



Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Well said, Mona. People get tired of the Right, people get tired of the Left. But it seems that they always get tired of the Left a lot quicker.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Matt
Tue Oct 6, 2009 2:27 AM
Personally, I get tired of right-wingers' fact-free, idea-free musings. Sadly, Mona is no William F. Buckley... in fact, he wouldn't give her the time of day. Left or right, we need serious thinkers. This diatribe demonstrates Mona is no serious thinker.
Comment: #2
Posted by: pgbach
Tue Oct 6, 2009 4:07 AM
As a member of the chattering class (and so are you, by the way), I have to tell you that I don't care whether other women choose to stay home or not. I grew up in a typical family where dad worked, mom didn't. My brother's family was different - he stayed home and raised the kids while his wife did her surgical residency and training.
And whose family turned out better? I have to say that my niece and nephew are confident, honest, and well-educated, and a lot more emotionally balanced than I was at that same age. Although their family had its tensions, they were nothing like what happened at home in our "typical" and "healthy" family structure.
There's a couple of myths at work here. The liberal myth is that women who don't work will become drug-addicted, bored housewives, uneducated and incompetent, dependent on a domineering male who wields the power of the purse, and the power of the fist. The conservative myth is that if women would just stay home and stick to breeding that all our societal troubles would subside.
Two reasons I can think of for a woman to work are 1) She needs the money and 2) Her family needs the money. It's called s-u-r-v-i-v-a-l. For most of us, supporting ourselves is not an option. It is something we will have to do until we drop dead.
And since we're going to be supporting ourselves and possibly other family members, we might as well have a career so we can earn more and also contribute more to society than we could at some low-wage job selling french fries at Mickey D's. It's all too easy for even trained professionals to become obsolete in a few short years, especially in software engineering.
It's not just liberal/conservative thinking at work. There are also factors of race and class. Both liberals and conservatives who can afford it have housekeepers, who are more often female and at least around here they're Hispanics with large, stable families and conservative values. Hispanic moms aren't frowned upon for working because it's assumed that they need to - whereas in a white couple it's assumed somehow that the man has sufficient earning power to support a non-working wife and kids, too.
Different values apply to the black community as well. These female Princeton grads are not the black women I see here in Oakland or San Francisco. And everyone knows black women are the matriarchs and have to work, because all the black men are in jail! That's an over-generalization, yes, but there is a grain of truth to it. Everyone expects black women to work, even the black women themselves. There's some study going around showing that there's a bias against white mothers who work, and an equally strong bias against black mothers who don't!
Comment: #3
Posted by: Red Ree
Tue Oct 6, 2009 7:27 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mona Charen
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaugheyUpdated 15 May 2013
Ben Shapiro
Ben ShapiroUpdated 15 May 2013
Joseph Farah
Joseph FarahUpdated 15 May 2013

29 Sep 2009 Who Needs Religion?

26 Aug 2011 Biden's Moral Obtuseness

26 Jun 2012 Grow up: Life Has Trade-offs