Michael Lind: Why do the Republicans nominate blue bloods?

[Winehole23]

In the 19th century, the Republican Party was founded by Abraham Lincoln and others, devoted to the Henry Clay’s idea of the “self-made man.” But in spite of conservative rhetoric about small business, today’s Republican economic orthodoxy does not promote the interests of entrepreneurs or industrial capitalism. Instead, it promotes the economic interests of rentiers — families with inherited wealth and Wall Street investors — the kind of people who make money in their sleep, in the words of the 19th-century classical liberal economist J.S. Mill, who despised them.

The GOP crusade to abolish the estate tax — the “death tax” — does nothing for American business in general, even as it chiefly benefits the trust fund babies of a few super-rich families. A lower tax rate for capital gains than for earned income means that the idle rich, and the hedge fund managers who manage their assets and are taxed at the capital gains rate, pay a much lower tax rate on their income than the majority of Americans who depend on wages or professional fees for a living. Self-made entrepreneurs? Hardly.


Nor does Republicanomics serve the interests of captains of industry.

If the Republican economic plan were drafted by CEOs of American-based companies that actually make things, rather than rearrange money, it would not necessarily please liberals but it would bear little resemblance to the rentier-friendly plans pushed by the Wall Street right. The emphasis would be on a permanent R&D tax credit, lower corporate taxes, depreciation allowances, public infrastructure investment, policies to lower the costs of energy and other inputs, dollar devaluation and other policies to promote the inshoring of production in America. Genuine captains of industry would not assign priority to estate tax relief and low capital gains taxes for the benefit of the trust fund set like the Bushes and Romneys.


The conclusion is inescapable. The Republican Party is not really a pro-business party at all. It is a pro-hereditary wealth party. Its platform serves the interests of those few Americans who are born into wealth and seek to preserve their fortunes, not those who start new companies or invent new technologies. Naturally, therefore, the party’s presidential candidates are chosen nowadays from among the pedigreed, hereditary social elite who are the chief beneficiaries of its policies.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/singleton/

[Winehole23]

Old or new, Jacksonianism has always combined the pretense of egalitarian rebellion against privilege with the reality of domination by upper-class rentiers and crony capitalists.

[101A]

I agree with most, however, the estate tax issue (as one involved in a family business) can be tricky for those of us non blue bloods, as well.

With onerous estate taxation, there is often not liquid assets available to pay the tax on the valuation of a business as it passes from one generation to the next - without liquidating the asset (small business) itself. Large life insurance policies are the solution. There's a reason, IMO, W. Buffet is so in favor of the inheritance tax.

[Winehole23]

I agree with most, however, the estate tax issue (as one involved in a family business) can be tricky for those of us non blue bloods, as well. the selective emphasis given here reflects ill on Mr Lind's fair-mindedness, but I think he's at least part right, too.

It's a very simplistic take and the equation is well worn: the GOP as the money party. The novelty of the OP is Lind using Andrew Jackson a a modus for ideology critique. It kind of works, because it points to a place in US history when Americans were keenly aware of the threat posed by financial combinations, and the threat this awareness posed in turn was coopted by political populism.

[cheguevara]

meh, Obama is a blue-blood dipped in chocolate

[Winehole23]

compared to Kerry and Gore? hardly.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs are the party of the 1%/Haves, always defending/enriching them, while attacking the 99%/Have-nots.

They sucker Have-nots into voting Repug and against the Have-nots' best interests with social issues like Guns, God, Gays, Abortion, and illegal immigrants.

[Winehole23]

Repugs are the party of the 1%/Haves, always defending/enriching them, while attacking the 99%/Have-nots.

They sucker Have-nots into voting Repug and against the Have-nots' best interests with social issues like Guns, God, Gays, Abortion.except for the part about about "God, guns, gays and abortion," that's a fair restatement of the article

[Winehole23]

lol boutons bait

[EVAY]

There are lots and lots of areas for agreement and disagreement in Mr. Lind's opinion piece. Enough for two or three threads, imo.

I do believe that Mr. Lind has some historical issues going on. It is certainly a fact that the GOP has tended to nominate so-called 'blue-bloods' as president much more than middle or lower middle class candidates, at least in the recent past, but to see why that is potentially contradictory to the populist movement in the current GOP is to miss the big change that Nixon (a non-pedigreed candidate) and Reagan (another non-pedigreed candidate) brought about in the modern Republican Party.

Nixon consciously began (and Reagan continued) the courting of the southern white lower-middle-to-working-class voting bloc. Nixon did it because he saw in that voting bloc a way to pick up electoral votes that had previously gone democratic from the 'dixiecrats' who were so ticked off at the democratic Party of JFK and LBJ and their civil rights agendas.

One of the characteristics of that same voting bloc was a deep evangelical christianity that had characterized that population for well over a century.

So you have the core of the populists of the current GOP. Reagan expanded on that base by courting the non-southern evangelicals through the 'social values' agenda.

It is this core of populism that is relatively new to the GOP (new as opposed to pre-Eisenhower).

The 'pro-business' Republicans of old are the Robber Barons of the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries, who were so upset with Teddy Roosevelt
for trust-busting and who backed the Hardings and Tafts and Hoovers of the pre-FDR days.

That old core's opposition to FDR and all of his social contracts and heavy hand with taxation, etc. is what set up the Robber Barons against Democrats. The opposition to the social agendas of the '60 and '70s Democrats brought in the blue-collar workers and evangelical Christians that had previously been either Democrats (the union guys) or Dixiecrats (the southern evangelicals).

Thus, the myth of the current GOP as being pro-business is merely a harkening back to earlier positions that have become part of the institutional memory of 'establishment' republicans. Simultaneously, the populism of today's Republican base is a function of the more current move to attract disaffected Democrats who disliked the social policies of the mid-20th century Democratic Party.

THUS, (LOL) you have a Republican Party 'establishment' that claims a mantle of being Pro-Business (because their grandfathers who made the family fortunes were) and who nominate from 'their own ranks', and a rabble-rousing populist group that wants the social and religious agendas that are consistent with their century (ies)- old value set.

Right now, the establishment has been winning the nominating battles. But the populists are becoming more and more powerful within the party. And they don't like the establishment guys anymore that they like democrats.

That is one of the reasons why the current Republican Party is so fractured.


The entire Jacksonian thing is another matter.

[EVAY]

^^^imho. Lol

[Winehole23]

Thus, the myth of the current GOP as being pro-business is merely a harkening back to earlier positions that have become part of the institutional memory of 'establishment' republicans. Simultaneously, the populism of today's Republican base is a function of the more current move to attract disaffected Democrats who disliked the social policies of the mid-20th century Democratic Party.Enter, Ron Paul?

[Winehole23]

I appreciate the degree of historical nuance there, EVAY. Not that I agree or disagree, but not everyone takes so much care to say what they mean.

[boutons_deux]

"the myth of the current GOP as being pro-business"

MYTH? are you joking? MYTH!!! :lol

your tea bagger/Repug so-called populists' main points of Taxed Enough (when actually lowest taxed of all industrial countries) and "destroy Big Govt" are profoundly, primarily pro-business (and financed by Kock Bros, etc) and pro-wealthy.

[EVAY]

"the myth of the current GOP as being pro-business"

MYTH? are you joking? MYTH!!! :lol

your tea bagger/Repug so-called populists' main points of Taxed Enough (when actually lowest taxed of all industrial countries) and "destroy Big Govt" are profoundly, primarily pro-business (and financed by Kock Bros, etc) and pro-wealthy.

Sorry, the reason I wrote "myth" of pro-business was in relation to the author's distinction between the Republican's PR of being pro-business, as opposed to the author's insistence that they were actually NOT pro-business per se, but instead were "pro-inherited wealth".

That does not imply that the Republicans today are not beholden to Corporate Interests, but that they are not the FOUNDERS of those businesses in the same way that Republicans were prior to and during the tenure of FDR.

The entire point of the author and the discussion was whether or not today's Republican Party is more interested in advancing businesses or maintaining their wealth.

[EVAY]

Enter, Ron Paul?

Well, imo, Ron Paul takes the 'limited government' role of the traditional Republican platforms and drives straight off a cliff with them.

I happen to like the guy personally because I think he is so sincere. But his policies are not exactly practical in 21st century America.

[boutons_deux]

"more interested in advancing businesses or maintaining their wealth."

what's the difference? the "or" is bogus. Both are equally targeted and simultaneously achieved.

The Repugs defend, protect, enrich, "tax-expend" the UCA which is heavily "owned" by wealthy investors and stock speculators (like Congressmen as insider traders).

[Winehole23]

I happen to like the guy personally because I think he is so sincere. But his policies are not exactly practical in 21st century America.neither is the plain meaning of the US Constitution but it's still the constitution, isn't it?

[EVAY]

neither is the plain meaning of the US Constitution but it's still the constitution, isn't it?

Indeed.

Therefore???

What is your suggestion?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Republicans used to cultivate the black vote up until the 1970s when the Dixiecrat exodus happened. its hard to get a good feel for the policy shift that occurred because of the Democratic domination from the 1930s to the 1960s but the likes of Nixon and Bush are a far cry from Lincoln and the first Roosevelt.

i would have been a Republican 100 years ago, no doubt about it. These current homogenized incarnations of pluralism just make me sick. The baby boomers push for the primary system in the 1960s and 70s was so unbelievably misguided.

[Winehole23]

Indeed.

Therefore???

What is your suggestion?More of an observation to my mind, but there are things to be prized and cherished, even though they are sometimes very inconvenient and not too au courant. Like due process.

[EVAY]

More of an observation to my mind, but there are things to be prized and cherished, even though they are sometimes very inconvenient and not too au courant. Like due process.

I agree totally that due process has been almost destroyed in the last two administrations, and our nation is all the poorer for it. My issues with Paul have to do with his extreme (imo) positions on wanting to get rid of so many cabinet level departments because he believes that the Constitution means
not only smaller government than what we have, but virtually no government at all. For example, Perry wants to get rid of three departments...Paul wants to get rid of 5 of them.

Paul wants to seriously get rid of the Fed. I believe that the Fed has become overly politicized in the last few decades, but getting rid of it all together would be akin to Jackson getting rid of the the National Bank.

The solution to the Fed being politicized is to change the Fed, not destroy it.

[EVAY]

^^^When Carter was president, the Fed (under Volcker) put in extreme measures to combat inflation. The economy suffered, but the result was a stronger economy.

When GHW Bush was president, the fed again tightened money, and the economy again suffered. MANY people blamed the Feds actions for his loss to Clinton (particularly and significantly, Bush Jr.).

Subsequent to that, the Fed has been reluctant to ever 'take the long view' monetarily, thus pouring money into the economy in order to ease recessionary times (remember after 9/11 when we went into a recession and the Fed kept piling on money until we got out of it?). It is as though they don't ever want to be accused of hurting any given presidency, so they just keep the money rolling.

That needs to change (or the Fed guys need to grow a pair), but Paul considers the Fed unconstitutional. I think that position is clearly impractical in this day and age.

[boutons_deux]

"When Carter was president, the Fed (under Volcker) put in extreme measures to combat inflation."

Inflation and the corresponding anti-inflationary Volcker high interest rates didn't really become pre-occupying until the Iranian oil-shock of 1979 was fully felt in late 1980 thru 1983.

[EVAY]

"When Carter was president, the Fed (under Volcker) put in extreme measures to combat inflation."

Inflation and the corresponding anti-inflationary Volcker high interest rates didn't really become pre-occupying until the Iranian oil-shock of 1979 was fully felt in late 1980 thru 1983.

I understand your point, b-d, but I remember all too painfully getting my first mortgage in 1975 and paying 14% interest on it.

I was sort of preoccupied by it.

[Winehole23]

I agree totally that due process has been almost destroyed in the last two administrations, and our nation is all the poorer for it. My issues with Paul have to do with his extreme (imo) positions on wanting to get rid of so many cabinet level departments because he believes that the Constitution means They are extreme, but so was the growth of the theraputic-adminstrative state in the post WWII period. Maybe it's time to prune the tree.


not only smaller government than what we have, but virtually no government at all. For example, Perry wants to get rid of three departments...Paul wants to get rid of 5 of them. There's no way he could do it if he was in a position to. They might let him close one. RP would have to compromise, like any president, and he'd have a handful with this particular bunch in the House.


Paul wants to seriously get rid of the Fed. I believe that the Fed has become overly politicized in the last few decades, but getting rid of it all together would be akin to Jackson getting rid of the the National Bank.

The solution to the Fed being politicized is to change the Fed, not destroy it.I find this line persuasive, but I am also unsure that monetary smoothing is conducive to stability in the long run. Just look where we are now.

[EVAY]

They are extreme, but so was the growth of the theraputic-adminstrative state in the post WWII period. Maybe it's time to prune the tree.

There's no way he could do it if he was in a position to. They might let him close one. RP would have to compromise, like any president, and he'd have a handful with this particular bunch in the House.
I find this line persuasive, but I am also unsure that monetary smoothing is conducive to stability in the long run. Just look where we are now.

Pruning...yes. Destruction...no.

The non-political role of the Fed HAS been corroded, but the answer is not abolishing the Fed.

[Winehole23]

I don't think so either, but the Fed is problematic. In recent decades it has been too accommodating to power, as you just noted.

[Winehole23]

and now that outright oligarchy has broken out, I'm not sure how you get the genie back in the bottle.

[boutons_deux]

"too accommodating to power"

The Fed has two primary objectives: control inflation, keep unemployment low.

But as we saw, the Fed's primary goal to enrich/protect the financial sector, people from which man the Fed. (eg, Goldman's Blankfein was at the critical meeting about the TARP pkg, the only non Fed/non-Treasury person there, while exGoldman Paulsen was continually phoning Blankfein throughout Sep-Dec 08)

The oligarchy/plutocracy hasn't only recently "broken out". The VRWC has been achieving its strategies of financial/corporate deregulation, war on employees, union busting, cutting taxes on wealthy/UCA while raising taxes on the 99%, for the past 30+ years.

[Winehole23]

2008 was an inflection point. it's more upfront now than it was. it's now assumed the government backstops the major players.

[EVAY]

and now that outright oligarchy has broken out, I'm not sure how you get the genie back in the bottle.

Nor am I.

And I agree totally with the oligarchy characterization. It is actually a bit frightening, because I am unconvinced that many people recognize it or care about it.

[Wild Cobra]

^^^When Carter was president, the Fed (under Volcker) put in extreme measures to combat inflation. The economy suffered, but the result was a stronger economy.

When GHW Bush was president, the fed again tightened money, and the economy again suffered. MANY people blamed the Feds actions for his loss to Clinton (particularly and significantly, Bush Jr.).

Subsequent to that, the Fed has been reluctant to ever 'take the long view' monetarily, thus pouring money into the economy in order to ease recessionary times (remember after 9/11 when we went into a recession and the Fed kept piling on money until we got out of it?). It is as though they don't ever want to be accused of hurting any given presidency, so they just keep the money rolling.

That needs to change (or the Fed guys need to grow a pair), but Paul considers the Fed unconstitutional. I think that position is clearly impractical in this day and age.


"When Carter was president, the Fed (under Volcker) put in extreme measures to combat inflation."

Inflation and the corresponding anti-inflationary Volcker high interest rates didn't really become pre-occupying until the Iranian oil-shock of 1979 was fully felt in late 1980 thru 1983.
LOL...

You guys are talking about the double digit inflation which was to blame for the national debt increasing so much under Reagan for. It wasn't because of what the carter administration allowed, the double digit inflation and interest rates.

Do you realize that?

[boutons_deux]

"carter administration allowed"

The Iranian oil shock 79-84 was world-wide, not just USA.

It was Reagan's team that negotiated the retention of the hostages until after Carter was out in return for USA not retaliating for that act of war.

[Wild Cobra]

"carter administration allowed"

The Iranian oil shock 79-84 was world-wide, not just USA.

It was Reagan's team that negotiated the retention of the hostages until after Carter was out in return for USA not retaliating for that act of war.
LOL...

You kidding?

I knew one of the guys waiting on an airplane to go rescue them. A mission Carter never let get off the ground after the teams were in place.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

You kidding?

I knew one of the guys waiting on an airplane to go rescue them. A mission Carter never let get off the ground after the teams were in place.Well, he's lucky he didn't die like the ones who did go.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, he's lucky he didn't die like the ones who did go.
Well, if the mission wasn't called off after a few helicopters that failed, he might be dead. Hard to say. It wasn't called off because we couldn't do it though.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if the mission wasn't called off after a few helicopters that failed, he might be dead. Hard to say. It wasn't called off because we couldn't do it though.Was it the rocket plane scheme? Sounds like Wile E. Coyote came up with that one.

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons...

Reagan gave them an ultimatum, that he would take action against them once he took office. That's why they were released the day he took office. He scared them.

Besides. The Algiers Accord was just signed the day before the release. Hard to make the claim you did.

[ChumpDumper]

Boutons...

Reagan gave them an ultimatum, that he would take action against them once he took office. That's why they were released the day he took office. He scared them.

Besides. The Algiers Accord was just signed the day before the release. Hard to make the claim you did.Do you have a link to that ultimatum?

[boutons_deux]

Robert Scheer has plenty of circumstantial evidence that Repugs had secret talks with Iranians (like Repug/Nixon has secret talks with VN in 1968) to retain the hostages until after the election.

I'm sure Scheer and similar have more evidence than WC does that extreme leftist St Ronnie threatened the Iranains. St Ronnie was more for bullying Granada, Panama, and other similar world powers than he was for retaliating against Iran and slaughterers of US Marines.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have a link to that ultimatum?
The internet wasn't around then. I was. It was all over the news back then. I don't know if a link exists over that.

[ChumpDumper]

The internet wasn't around then. I was. It was all over the news back then. I don't know if a link exists over that.I watched the news back then.

Don't remember it at all.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, the timing of the release indicates that the Iranians simply didn't want to give Carter the satisfaction of receiving the hostages on his watch after his support of the Shah.

It's not like Iran had to deal with anything else like, say, a full scale war or something to that effect.

[Wild Cobra]

Seriously, the timing of the release indicates that the Iranians simply didn't want to give Carter the satisfaction of receiving the hostages on his watch after his support of the Shah.

It's not like Iran had to deal with anything else like, say, a full scale war or something to that effect.
I found a newspaper clip where Reagan was being advised to give them an ultimatum. I recall him saying he would once he took office, but haven't found that yet. Here is the newpaper clip I found:

The Milwaukee Sentinel - Jan 10, 1981 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19810110&id=4oBQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DRIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2593,1839405)

Meanwhile, I found this of interest:

R8leu0tEJ4o

[ChumpDumper]

I found a newspaper clip where Reagan was being advised to give them an ultimatum. I recall him saying he would once he took office, but haven't found that yet. Here is the newpaper clip I found:

The Milwaukee Sentinel - Jan 10, 1981 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19810110&id=4oBQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DRIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2593,1839405)Wow, a small business adviser in Sparks making page 4 of the Milwaukee paper. That's a stretch even for you.


Meanwhile, I found this of interest:

R8leu0tEJ4oExtremely interesting, given Reagan's accommodation and appeasement regarding Iran.

[ChumpDumper]

Srsly, I can just make out the word "Acme" on the side.

http://europe-virtual.com/img/29/29e/C_130_YMC_130H_Lockheed_Hercules_flight_test_accid ent_crash.jpg

lol Credible Sport