[For those who don't know him, BB was one of the modern founders of "supply side" economics -- he was Jack Kemp's economic advisor and ran Jude Wanniski's consulating firm Polyconomics. Then he wrote a book in 2006 criticizing the Bush tax cuts for bankrupting the country -- because even by his standards, they were nuts. Since then he has been ostracized by Republicans and become a symbol of their inability to accept criticism from anyone even on their own side. He is still a economic paleoconservative by our standards, but seems like the voice of reason compared to what passes for that now.]
[I like his brisk sketch of all presidents as betraying their bases. It suggests that's their job.]
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx
July 22, 2011
The Fiscal Times
Barack Obama: The Democrats' Richard Nixon?
By BRUCE BARTLETT
There is no question that Barack Obama is one of our most enigmatic
presidents. Despite having published two volumes of memoirs before
being elected president, we really don't know that much about what
makes him tick. The ongoing debate over the deficit and the debt limit
is clarifying what I think he is: a Democratic Richard Nixon.
To explain what I mean, I first have to tell some history.
Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was a transformative president, partly
because of his policies but mainly because he presided over the two
most disruptive events of the 20th century: the Great Depression and
World War II.
By the time Dwight Eisenhower took office, people craved stability and
he was determined to give it to them. This angered his fellow
Republicans, who wanted nothing more than to repeal Roosevelt's New
Deal, root and branch. And with control of both the House and Senate in
1953 and 1954, he could have undone a lot of it if he wanted to.
But Eisenhower not only refused to repeal the New Deal, he wouldn't
even let Republicans in Congress cut taxes even though the high World
War II and Korean War rates were in effect. He thought a balanced
budget should take priority. Eisenhower also helped to destroy right
wing hero Joe McCarthy and worked closely with liberals on civil
rights.
Eisenhower's effective liberalism was deeply frustrating to
conservatives. Robert Welch of the John Birch Society even accused him
of being a communist. But after Republicans lost control of Congress in
1954, he was the only game in town for them.
By 1964, conservatives got control of the GOP's nominating process and
put forward one of their own, Barry Goldwater, to complete the
unfinished work of repealing the New Deal that Eisenhower refused to
do. But he lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, who quickly
capitalized on his victory by doubling down on the New Deal with the
Great Society.
Although Johnson was done in by Vietnam, his domestic liberalism was as
popular in 1968 as the New Deal had been in 1952. Nevertheless,
conservatives deluded themselves that Nixon would repeal the Great
Society. But just as Eisenhower cemented the New Deal in place, Nixon
accepted the legitimacy of the Great Society. His goal was to make it
work efficiently and shave off the rough edges. Nixon even expanded the
welfare state by expanding its regulatory reach through the
Environmental Protection Agency and other new government agencies.
Conservatives were infuriated by Nixon's betrayal, but lacking control
of Congress they were stuck with him just as they had been with
Eisenhower. Not very many were upset when Watergate pushed Nixon out of
office.
Conservatives finally got the president they had always hoped for when
Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. But by then, key New Deal/Great
Society programs like Social Security and Medicare were so deeply
embedded in government and society that he never lifted a finger to
dismantle them. Reagan even raised taxes 11 times to keep them funded.
Liberals initially viewed Bill Clinton the same way conservatives
viewed Eisenhower - as a liberator who would reverse the awful policies
of his two predecessors. But almost immediately, Clinton decided that
deficit reduction would be the first order of business in his
administration. His promised middle class tax cut and economic stimulus
were abandoned.
By 1995, Clinton was working with Republicans to dismantle welfare. In
1997, he supported a cut in the capital gains tax. As the benefits of
his 1993 deficit reduction package took effect, budget deficits
disappeared and we had the first significant surpluses in memory. Yet
Clinton steadfastly refused to spend any of the flood of revenues
coming into the Treasury, hording them like a latter day Midas. In the
end, his administration was even more conservative than Eisenhower's on
fiscal policy.
And just as pent-up liberal aspirations exploded in the 1960s with
spending for every pet project green lighted, so too the fiscal
conservatism of the Clinton years led to an explosion of tax cuts under
George W. Bush, who supported every one that came down the pike. The
result was the same as it was with Johnson: massive federal deficits
and a tanking economy.
Thus Obama took office under roughly the same political and economic
circumstances that Nixon did in 1968 except in a mirror opposite way.
Instead of being forced to manage a slew of new liberal spending
programs, as Nixon did, Obama had to cope with a revenue structure that
had been decimated by Republicans.
Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and
launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely
accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his
presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately
conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately
liberal.
Here are a few examples of Obama's effective conservatism:
* His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought
necessary;
* He continued Bush's war and national security policies without
change and even retained Bush's defense secretary;
* He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had
been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent
past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by
liberals;
* He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended
without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever;
* And in the past few weeks he has supported deficit reductions that
go far beyond those offered by Republicans.
Further evidence can be found in the writings of outspoken liberals
such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has condemned
Obama's conservatism ever since he took office.
Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any
sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind
of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it's now
obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with
the passage of time, it's increasingly obvious that Clinton was
essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before
Obama's basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it's a fact.