Underestimating The Republican Congress

There's a lot to criticize the Republicans in Congress for, but their conservative critics are often ignorant of the good the Republicans have done or ignore it. Kevin Williamson makes some good points in a recent article:

In reality, there is much to be said for the piecemeal, muddle-through approach of congressional Republicans, who have a majority in both houses but not a large enough one to override a presidential veto, which makes inaction their greatest power. In 2011 the Obama-Pelosi-Reid model of government had federal spending up to nearly a quarter of GDP, a level of federal spending more typically associated with 1942 or 1946, when Uncle Sam was engaged in some rather more serious business than subsidizing cowboy-poetry festivals in Harry Reid’s backyard. After the Republican takeover, that figure went below 20 percent of GDP, which is still a great deal higher than is ideal but is within spitting distance of the average federal tax haul. That means that we have a plausible path to a situation in which federal spending is too high but the budget is balanced, rather than a situation in which federal spending is too high and there are persistent deficits. Neither is ideal, but one is better than the other, and responsible adults cannot ignore that.

The Damage Already Done By Trump

Here's an ABC story about how some states have been taking steps to prevent people like Donald Trump from eventually running as a third-party candidate if they want to first appear on the ballot as a Republican. I think it's good for the states to do that sort of thing. But one of the dangers of a campaign like Trump's is that it can so easily be replaced by another movement of a similar nature. The longer Trump is in the race, the more committed some of his supporters are likely to become to notions like the alleged corruption of the Republican leadership and the supposed unacceptability of all of Trump's rivals. Even if Trump were to leave the race without running as a third-party candidate, his campaign has already created an environment that makes it much easier for somebody like Trump, even if not Trump himself, to get significant support as an anti-Republican third-party candidate. Even if that candidate were to get as little as, say, half a percentage point or one percent, that could easily be enough to give the election to the Democrats. Trump's campaign and his irrational supporters have already done a lot of damage, even if Trump were to drop out tomorrow and never run as a third-party candidate. Maybe there won't be a significant anti-Republican third-party candidate in 2016. But the risk should never have been taken by starting or supporting a campaign like Trump's.

"We need a third party!"

There are voters who hanker for a third party. I'll make three brief observations:

i) We already have a third party. Indeed, we have a plethora of third parties, viz. Green Party, Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Objectivist Party, SPUSA, &c.

ii) A basic problem with the idea of a third party is that that's all it is: an idea. An abstract ideal of what some voters would like a party to be. A party purified of compromise. A party whose platform and candidates share their particular views. A voting block composed of all and only those who share the same outlook and objectives.

a) One difficulty is whether there enough like-minded voters to make that a viable, national party.

b) Another difficulty is that we lack the control over human behavior to make all like-minded voters join one ideologically pure party. We can't create that party by fiat. We can't decree how people will associate politically. 

iii) Another basic problem is that third parties are apt to be most cohesive when they have the least power. When it's just theoretical. In that situation, it's easier for them to paper over ideological factions within their own party. The stakes are so low. 

But if a third party suddenly had the prospect of wielding real political power, the faultlines would become active. Suddenly, they'd have a chance to…you know…do something. So then it would become a question of, Okay, what should we do with our newfound power?

Consider the libertarian party. By definition, libertarians are united by some things. However, on social issues, they range along a spectrum, with secular libertarians at one end and Christian conservatives at the other end. Some people (especially young men) are libertarians precisely because they want to be let alone. "Get off my back!"

If the libertarian party become a viable national party, divisions between the secular right and social conservatives would surface with a vengeance. Both sides might agree on freedom to opt out of the homosexual agenda. But on bioethics, there'd be a fundamental conflict in terms of what the state should permit or prohibit. 

And that's just one example. 

The Difference A Party And A President Make

It's often said that there's no significant difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. People who don't vote or who support a third party candidate often make that claim. I've addressed the subject many times in the past, but I want to point to an illustration that's currently prominent in the news.

Think of the progress the movement toward homosexual marriage has made in recent years. Which party has, by a wide margin, been more responsible for that change? Think of the significance of Barack Obama's endorsement of homosexual marriage last year. Think of the long list of individuals and organizations who followed his lead, and ask yourself which party they were primarily affiliated with.

The Republican party may change its position on homosexual marriage in the future. If it does, that change won't alter the fact that there had been, and still is, a significant difference between the parties on homosexual marriage. And the future lack of difference, if there's going to be a lack, will be hastened by people who don't vote or who vote for a third party candidate for no good reason.