Posted by
Andrews on Friday, January 30, 2009 3:30:17 PM
Since the Obama victory, I have
been predicting that the "paleo-con"
protectionist neo-mercantilists in the Republican party would start trying
to stage a coup to take back power from the rather fragile coalition of economic libertarians and pro-defense Republicans which have (somewhat) guided the party from the Reagan years to the present. Granted, there have been other influence, social conservatives have played a significant part in some administrations, not so much in others, and recently the "moderates" and big government Republicans have had a larger roles, but since the 80's the party has, to one degree or another, ascribed to a small government, strong defense platform, supporting free trade, less intervention in the private sector, and so on.
But we can now see a much more confident protectionist wing starting to make an effort to redefine "conservative". In an effort to return the Republicans to their 19th century
protectionist, nativist,
mercantilist roots, these "paleo-cons" are starting to more openly proclaim their beliefs, using our economic woes to argue that protectionism is just "common sense". For example, the following post:
so
we'll have to pay more for American made goods. That is fine. We need
to keep the jobs here, and if the only way to do that is to make
American manufacturers bleed, so be it.
You'll have no
customers if they have no work. If the jobs are in India, those people
are not buying American services like doctors, lawyers, gardeners,
dentists. Very shortsighted.
Of course, this is not the first effort, just the most open and aggressive. During our "oil crisis" earlier last year, the same people were pushing for some sort of de facto nationalization of oil companies, using the right to drill in ANWR for leverage. Once again arguing from "common sense" they suggested if we opened ANWR the oil would be sold on "the world market" and not benefit the US. I dealt with that foolishness in many posts, so let me just summarize by saying if it is sold on the world market, world prices decline, we buy on the world market, so how are we not helped? Then again, their real goal was not to force the domestic sale of oil, or even to lower prices, the real ambition was to strike a first blow in restoring some theory of economic nationalism. A goal in which they were thankfully thwarted.
Still, they do have some chance here. The public has been deluded enough by anti-globalization rhetoric and horror stories of "outsourcing" that they may be bamboozled into thinking some sort of new Smoot-Hawley is just the ticket to solve out problems. Of course, as Smoot-Hawley prolonged and worsened the depression, these protectionist measures will do nothing but worsen our situation, but that won't deter anyone. When has failure ever been enough to stop government from meddling?
Hopefully the paleo-cons will not succeed, not even enough to give them a larger voice in the party. Though economics and foolish beliefs about foreign trade have given them some advantage, the grass roots of the party seem to understand this was a failure of the moderate Republicans not of the economic/defense conservative wing. Unfortunately, with the party signing on to the bailout, by and large, or at least the concept that a bailout of some sort is needed, it is possible discontent with the existing Republicans could give the protectionists an opening.
I suppose we shall have to wait and see.
POSTSCRIPT
I have trouble calling most paleo-cons "conservative". In that they support intrusive governmenbt, massive economic meddling, and many other authoritarian policies, I have difficulty describing them as anything other than Christian liberals, some with nationalist views.I knwo they claim libertarians, econoic conservatives, defense conservatives and the dreaded "neocons" are not "real conservatives", but when your policy is
closer to Obama's than Reagan's, I think you have lost most rights to define conservative thought.
POSTSCRIPT II
I did not refute the original comment in this post, as I have already done so. Please read "
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs" and "
Cheap Lighters, Overseas Dumping and Monopolies", "
Capital Investment" and "
Outsourcing Example" for an explanation of why such arguments are simply wrong and why it is an absurd fear that we will somehow be left "without jobs in the US".
POSTSCRIPT III
I am not suggesting individual Townhall posters are actually part of the paleo-con coup, just a symptom. As high profile paleo-cons feel more confident in their position, and make more confrontational public stands, those who share their veiws tend to become more vocal as well, oftenr epeating those arguments. Thus a proliferation of protecitonists among the grassroots is often a sign that the paleo-cons among the leadership are becoming more vocal, which usually means an attempt to jockey for more influence over the party.