Information
The Collective
ARCHIVES
Tuesday, March 3, 2024
By Dr. Steven Taylor

James Joyner notes that both Christopher Buckley and Andrew Sullivan aren’t happy with the direction of fiscal policy under the Obama administration. As James notes, both men were vocal supporters of Obama despite their conservative/Republican bona fides. This synergy of facts leads James to ask:

These are two highly intelligent people who make an excellent living writing about politics. Did they really not see this coming?

I am sure they saw it coming. I saw it coming, to one degree or another, even if McCain won. Indeed, didn’t a lot of this start (Medicare prescription benefit, profligate (and off budget) spending on wars, TARP, not to mention general budgetary irresponsibility) during the previous 8 years?

Indeed, while one can get, as Andrew notes, “some budget heart-burn” (perhaps, in fact, far more than “some”) about the projected deficits, but at least these numbers are honest, as they put the war costs on budget and those costs are being figured into the projections (which much of the Bush war spending was not).

And I am not trying to be snarky, not at all. I think that a lot of people who were extremely frustrated with the Bush admin, but who otherwise would have voted Republican, looked at the situation and at the choices, and found McCain’s campaign to be a wreck, especially with the addition of Palin, and thought that after 8 years of incompetence governance (and often bad policy) that they would give the more competent candidate a chance, even knowing that they wouldn’t like a lot of the policy choices that that candidate would support if he won. The choice was likely made easier by the simple fact that it was clear that the Democrats would control Congress and that even a President McCain was going to be going along with a great deal of what the Congress wanted to do.

For example: does anyone out there really think that we would have had a radically different stimulus package if McCain were in the White House? I don’t. Other proposals would be different–but heart-burn was coming no matter what.

And, back to Buckley and Sullivan, one expects that they expected any number of profound disagreements between themselves and the administration, and the question of whether they will ultimately regret their votes will likely not be answered for some time, and will be predicated on things like torture, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a host of other issues, not on fiscal policy.

Back to James’ question specifically: I read neither Buckley nor Sullivan as registering surprise here, just reservation about the policies. I can’t imagine that they didn’t foresee disagreement with an Obama administration, especially on the topic of spending.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

20 Responses to “Buyers’ Remorse on Obama? (Sullivan and Buckley Edition)”

  • el
  • pt
    1. James Joyner Says:

      It’s one thing to be irritated with one’s candidate on small matters or ones tangential to the election debate. I disagreed with Bush on torture, for example, but it wasn’t exactly a major topic in either campaign.

      But this is pretty fundamental to who Obama ran as. I do think McCain would have been better here, although probably still not to my liking either.

    2. Richard Scott Nokes Says:

      So you’re arguing that elections (or at least presidential elections) don’t matter — we’ll get essentially the same fiscal policy no matter what? The best we can hope for is to have bad policy enacted by a President of the same party that controls Congress?

      Surely I’m reading this post wrong … no?

    3. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      I think that’s fair, and I can likewise understand why someone who was generally disenchanted with Bush would have voted for McCain anyway.

      On torture: I agree that it wasn’t a big campaign topic. However, big in the campaign or not, the likelihood was that Obama was going to be different on it, and a number of other war on terror issues, while fiscal policy wasn’t likely to be radically different between Obama and McCain, which explains Sullivan’s position at least.

      I will confess, too, from my own POV, after the spending under Bush I am somewhat desensitized to the entire issue.

    4. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      Scott,

      No: I am arguing that in the specific situation of the moment: massive recession and a Democratically controlled Congress, it was highly unlikely that we were going to get substantially difference short-term fiscal policy from a McCain administration than we are getting from an Obama administration.

      Did you really envision McCain poised, with veto pen in hand, fighting off the political pressure to sign a stimulus bill had he been elected?

      Further, to pretend like all the spending started only after Obama was nominated is to ignore things like TARP.

      Also: the argument here is not about the efficacy of elections, nor even of the desirability of the current state of fiscal policy, but rather the argument is to explain how people like Buckley and Sullivan might have voted for Obama.

    5. Obamacons and Buyers Remorse Says:

      [...] Christopher Buckley to task for their seeming surprise that Obama is a big spender. Some, including Steven Taylor, responded that they, like other center-right types who supported Obama, were aware that he would [...]

    6. Pete Burgess Says:

      Steven, perhaps next time you have the choice between a committed socialist spender (not stimulator) and a wish washy war hero who is not a committed socialist, you may finally admit that the wishy washy one at least MIGHT veto unnecessary social spending. The committed socialist will only veto defense spending. I have never liked John McCain, but At this point I am proud I voted for him because I have lived through the wreckage wrought by socialists (Carter). As bad as capitalism can be, it is a whole lot better than socialism, and that is where Obama wants to take us. Wishful thinking during the campaign, bolstered by distaste for Bush muddled your critical thinking.

    7. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      I am highly skeptical of the stimulus bill/process and have not written anything in support of it.

      Having said that, the notion that Obama is a socialist (or that Carter was) is simply incorrect.

      It is quite possible that McCain would have vetoed some spending bills. That he would have been able to block a massive stimulus plan is a fantasy, given the economic times we find ourselves in. Again: a Republican President not only signed the first such bill, but he sent his Secretary of the Treasury to ask for it (i.e., the ~$700 billion TARP bill). Likewise, Bush is the one who extended loans to the car industry. This notion that there was a stark contrast between the parties in the area of fiscal policy at this exact moment in time is a partisan chimera that lacks any foundation in reality.

      I am not sure, btw, what wishful thinking you are accusing me of.

    8. Pete Burgess Says:

      Stephen, by choosing Obama last fall, you put your faith in a man whose obvious prescription for governance leaned well left of center. Today, his statements and preferences for fiscal policy confirm his leanings.

      McCain would have at least listened to free market advice; a “foreign language” to Obama. IMO, knowing where the economy was going when I voted, my belief in Obama’s prescription, I at least voted for the man who would have a more open mind as to how to prescribe the stimulus. This is where I referred to your wishful thinking. Apparently, as smart as your are, you were willing to give a committed socialist “thinker” (is that more accurate?) the benefit of the doubt. To me, that is wishful thinking; not critical thinking.

    9. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      I assure you, Pete, I didn’t “put my faith” in any man (or woman) who was running in 2024. I would note that nothing I have written today was about how I voted. I will admit, I did vote for Obama–and it was the first time I ever voted for a Democrat for President. I did so not out of “wishful thinking” or “faith” (or even “hope”). First, voting in Alabama means that voting for anyone other than the Republican is a casting a protest vote. I seriously considered voting Libertarian, but ultimately chose not to do so. Second, based on what I perceived to be likely policy outcomes going forward (including the high probability of a massive stimulus bill), that I would preferred Obama over McCain for a variety of reasons, many of which were linked to simple competence, and the fact that contra your position, Obama is no socialist, and indeed is fairly centrist. My ability to vote for McCain was obliterated when he chose Palin as his running mate, as given McCain’s age, a Palin presidency was too likely an outcome for me to stomach. Other issues have been on my mind for some time (see here and here).

      Look, beyond all of that, an increase in fiscal expenditures is not socialism. And if you are talking about the fact that he supports allowing the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket to expire in 2024 (which was going to happen anyway, as long as the Democrats control the congress), that is hardly socialism. See here and here.

      What do you think constitutes “socialism”?

      And, in all honesty, this doesn’t really make any sense:

      Apparently, as smart as your are, you were willing to give a committed socialist “thinker” (is that more accurate?) the benefit of the doubt. To me, that is wishful thinking; not critical thinking.

      Setting aside the socialist thinker bit, what “benefit of the doubt” are you talking about? What “wishful thinking” have I demonstrated?

    10. Joe R. Says:

      So you’re arguing that elections (or at least presidential elections) don’t matter — we’ll get essentially the same fiscal policy no matter what?

      Depending on how long of a term you’re willing to look at, I’d say that’s a pretty fair statement. Evidence #1: George Bush expanded Medicare and the Dept of Education, among other things. Evidence #2: the two parties are arguing about a difference of 39% or 35% as a top marginal tax rate.

      So maybe my libertarian cynicism is in overdrive, but yeah I consider them “essentially the same.”

    11. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      Joe makes a legitimate point, and fits some things I have argued before. At the moment we have reach general consensus on the marginal tax rates within a given range: we are not back in the 1970s and top marginal rates of 70% or more.

      Likewise, we have general consensus on social spending, within a range. The notion the McCain and Obama presented stark policy choices on these matters is a problematic position.

      Beyond that, the first six years of the Bush administration (i,e., a period of mostly unified government) underscores the lack of radical differences between the two parties.

      As such, it was not unreasonable for voters to choose based on something other than fiscal policy–which was my original point to begin with.

    12. Pete Burgess Says:

      Stephen, I interpreted your words such that I concluded what I wrote. Since I haven’t followed you and your thinking for long, I accept that my interpretation is flawed.

      Socialism: A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.(from the American Heritage dictionary)

      This is the direction I believe Obama wants to take our economy. The stimulus is a convenient distraction. The social system described in the definition above becomes more influenced by the expansion of the federal government. I believe Obama would be more centrist if this opportunity had not presented itself.

    13. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      Let me set aside any argument about who voted for whom, and let’s get to the definition you provided.

      Now, just using the dictionary definition you provide, where, exactly, do you see a system being created wherein good and the distribution thereof are moving in the direction of collective ownership with the economy being directed by the central government? The closest one can come to that is in terms of loans to car companies and stock ownership in a number of financial institutions–all of which was done for the purpose of averting economic disaster, and most of which was already being done by the Bush administration. These are all temporary and targeted moves and there is no fundamental overhaul of the underlying structure of our economy taking place here. Really. Seriously.

      Where do you see serious, long-term government ownership and management of the economy? Of specific elements of the economy? There are plans for health care reform, yes, but that is as close as it gets. And while one may find that a good or bad thing, it doesn’t constitute the destruction of the capitalist basis of the economy.

      And, I would note, we do have some elements of redistribution and social cost-sharing already in the economy (e.g., public schools, roads, and so forth).

      Indeed, even if we look at something like the percentage of GDP under the control of government of all levels as a measure of state involvement in the economy, we are still far from being socialistic.

      Even if Obama is successful as moving toward some type of socialized medicine, we will not be a socialist economy, not by the definition you cite.

      I am telling you as one who studies comparative politics and political theory for a living, we are not about to range into socialism, and certainly not if defined as have done. Really. Honeslty. Truly.

    14. Pete Burgess Says:

      Stephen, I accept what you say. As a small businessman, government intervention in my realm of business decision making is amplified. Tax policy, regulatory policy, monetary policy, social policy all impact my ability to optimize my business; and not just for me but for my customers and employees. I accept I must find the path of least resistance; however, policy changes designed at the margin for many can have serious impact on the heart of my business. I fear that the more the federal government undertakes to manage our economy through increased regulations, laws, punishing tax policy, etc. it is de facto taking control of the ability of our economic system to work efficiently. I am not against oversight and regulations, social safety nets, etc.; I am against the idea that the continued growth of power in the hands of fewer people is beneficial to the long term health of our economy. Calling that socialism is my way to vent my frustration and succinctly describe the direction I believe Obama wants to take us.

    15. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      There are a lot of legitimate and complex debates to be had about all of those things, without a doubt.

    16. MSS Says:

      Yes, I think the ’stimulus’ would have been quite different under Pres. McCain. (Whether ‘radically’ or not is hard to say.)

      It would have had much less for green energy, possibly zero for high-speed rail (given that the latter was in only at Obama’s insistence), and a lot more for tax cuts. Oh, yes, tax cuts. And probably not a whole lot less in overall spending. So the deficit would be much worse under McCain than it will be under Obama. We have seen this before, under Reagan: more of the vaunted bipartisanship necessitated by divided government means less coherent packages with more goodies for both parties–and lots of tax cuts–and hence more budge-busting.

      The remarkable thing is that this did not happen under Clinton, but that’s because he became a fiscal conservative after 1994.

    17. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      MSS:

      I agree that the actual details of the stimulus would have been different. However, and I am sure you agree: there would have been one, and the price tag would still have been huge.

    18. Barry Says:

      Or, Dr. Taylor, there would not have been one (just a package of tax cuts for the rich), and we’d be conducting an experiment to see how Hoover II would do. Not that right-wingers would ever accept it.

    19. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      I somehow think that a McCain presidency would not have been able to alter the behavior of the Democratic Congress that much.

    20. Dennis D Says:

      McCain would have been more bipartisan than Obama for a few reasons. One being he would have no choice with a minority Congress. McCain naturally likes to make friends with the left and for this reason I am glad he lost. The same stimulus bill would have passed and I am sure the same Amnesty bill I expect from Obama. At least now we can blame Dems .

    Leave a Reply


    blog advertising is good for you

    Blogroll

    Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics
    ---


    Advertisement

    Advertisement



    Visitors Since 2/15/03

    Powered by WordPress