2012
Ann Coulter is the new David Frum
Reading Ms. Coulter’s column today I can’t help but think of another “Republican” who contorts logic and the traditional understanding of words to make the case for squishes, David Frum.
Take, for example, this ridiculous paragraph:
To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as “Romneycare” is just a word game, on the order of acting like a “gun” has the same properties as a “gunny sack,” or “fire” is the same thing as a “firefly.”
Question: If I impose an immoral piece of legislation on 6.5 million people, and then another imposes the same basic legislation on 310 million, does the legislation affecting “only” 6.5 million people become somehow moral because it affects less people? Of course not.
The individual mandate is what conservatives rightfully find absolutely appalling, and it is the keystone in both Romneycare and Obamacare.
Continues Ann,
While we’re on the subject, the nation’s leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage’s senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.
I like the Heritage Foundation as much as anyone. But if the Heritage Foundation woke up one day and supported abortion, would I support abortion? No. Would Ann? What if Romney did, again?
The problem, Ann, is that when you lose all mooring to principle you lose the ability to think straight. You’ve twisted yourself into so many knots you’re not sure which way is up. Matter of fact, so low your standards have fallen that you’re now quoting the unfunny, unserious, creep Jon Stewart to attack Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, “when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],” but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging “the Establishment” — because, again, “the Establishment” is anyone who opposes Newt.
Quoting a liberal icon to attack Romney’s opponent is as pitiful as Romney’s opponents attacking Bain Capital. To nominate a liberal Republican to run against President Obama (a Marxist of the first order) would be dangerous, stupid, and ridiculous.
And I don’t even support Newt. My candidate is Santorum.
Ann Coulter, Conservative. May that career RIP.
Nicely done William, I couldn’t agree more regarding your comments on Coulter. I am disgusted by her, Hume (not David), Kudlow, Grant, and Dole. I find it hilarious that people like Coulter attack Newt, yet Michael Reagan and Art Laffer both endorse Newt. Thomas Sowell does so implicitly in the article he wrote after the SC primary.
I do want to address this sentence you wrote:
“My candidate is Santorum.”
As someone who (presumably) lives in NY, I do not understand how you can write those words. The first step to fixing the problems we have in this country is to promote economic freedom. Santorum will do no such thing. I urge you to consider the fact that he voted against Right to Work and offered the same defense as Mitt did when explaining RomneyCare, “The people in my state wanted it”. He then proudly boasts that he has no problem with the government picking winners and losers by choosing one part of the economy (manufactoring) to pay 0% corp tax, while others pay 17% (under his plan). This is no different than Obama picking winners and losers! He then has the audacity to propose a top tax bracket of 28% and invokes Reagan in doing so?! Reagan brought the rate down from 50%, that’s a decrease of 22 percentage points. A comparable decrease by Santorum would be a rate of 13%. By having more than one tax bracket you immediately fall into the Obama class warfare trap. Who is Santorum to decide which families are punished and must pay the 28%? Who is Santorum to define “rich”? This is what Obama does! Does he realize that an income of X in NY means something different from an income of X in say, Montana? In a time when our president makes a disgusting comment in his state of the union address like “No one making a million dollars or more should pay less than 30% in tax”, the last thing we need is another republican who doesn’t understand lower taxes for all equals growth. I am continually stunned when I hear people (like Levin!) who support Santorum despite his weak plan for the economy. Has Obama’s class warfare nonsense penetrated this country so deeply that a conservative candidate thinks a 28% tax bracket is justifiable? This may be the only time in our lives we have the opportunity to pay a low flat tax. Newt may be imperfect, but we cannot let this opportunity pass us by. Unless you, like Obama and his followers, subscribe to the fallacy that income inequality is caused by low tax rates or that the gov’t can spend our money more efficiently that we can, there’s no reason in the world to have more than one low tax rate for everyone. Do you honestly believe the Warren Buffet illogic? That because he pays 17% in taxes and his secretary pays 31%, that he should pay more? I ask you, how would that help his secretary? Suppose Buffet paid 50% or 75%, his secretary still pays 31%! Suppose he paid 99%, his secretary still pays 31%! You cannot help person A by raising taxes on person B. Every dollar you collect in taxes is a dollar taken out of someone’s hands and put into the hands of the gov’t. Santorum is better than Romney, I will grant him that. And obviously he is better than Obama and I’d vote for Santorum in a heartbeat against Obama. But his tax policy won’t help us the way Newt’s will and by having a high 28% tax bracket, voting against Right to Work, and favoring one industry over another, it is PAINFULLY CLEAR Santorum himself does not fully understand supply side economics and that income inequality has NOTHING to do with low taxes rates for the so called “rich”. Rick seems like a good dad and an overall nice guy, but I urge you to get behind Newt if you understand and value economic freedom.
Anthony,
Look, if you’re going to write polemic against Rick Santorum, accusing him of being a less than pure advocate for the free market, you really should consider the bizarre stances that Newt Gingrich has taken in the past. On a couch with Nancy Pelosi promoting a carbon tax? Attacking Paul Ryan’s plan as right wing social engineering? Supporting the individual mandate in 2005? Sure, Santorum has Medicare Part D to explain (and he has), but that pales in comparison to the above.
My problem with Newt is that he always seems to be after the next best thing, and as a conservative, that’s not how I think. I don’t want a candidate who comes across as gimmicky. Give me a solid Constitutionalist who sticks to the principles and makes the best case for the times. I see that in Santorum.
I like Newt – I like Newt a lot and would enthusiastically vote for him for president. I don’t accuse him of anything other than what he said. You, meanwhile, accuse Rick Santorum of class warfare because he wants to drop the corporate tax rate to 0% on manufacturing? Are you kidding me? I may not agree with it on purely theoretical ground; I favor a consumption tax, in an ideal world. No ideal world exists, only this one. It’s smart politics, and undercuts the entire notion that only Obama and the Democrat party support “the little guy.”
There’s a term “energy in the executive.” Newt strikes me as the energetic executive type. I don’t necessarily want that. I want a sober, judicious, serious-minded president who fulfills his duties comprehensively and stops there. Furthermore, as we’re teetering on economic and (thus) societal collapse, I feel strongly that a man of character such as Rick Santorum is the most prudent choice for high office. If I may be candid, the way I see Newt, I’m not sure how he’d handle a nation that’s ripping at the seams. I have in mind what we’ve seen with the Occupy crowd – rioting, violence, widespread civil disobedience. And we’re really, really flirting with disaster given the tremendous debt, unemployment, money printing, entitlement culture… to say nothing of the mess of foreign policy, which is in complete and total disarray from the Middle East to Russia and China to Latin America. That’s scary, and it’s why I want someone in the Oval Office who always seems to be on a steady keel.
Hey William,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I see two areas where we disagree:
First:
“Sure, Santorum has Medicare Part D to explain (and he has), but that pales in comparison to the above.”
I love Paul Ryan and was annoyed by Newt’s comments. So don’t get me wrong, I’m not a blind advocate of Newt. Where you and I differ, it seems, is how we score their mistakes. You say this:
“You, meanwhile, accuse Rick Santorum of class warfare because he wants to drop the corporate tax rate to 0% on manufacturing? Are you kidding me?”
To me, that’s unforgiveable because this is government picking winners and losers. Don’t we have a problem with Obama doing this with green energy? What, it’s ok when it’s our guy doing it? Granted, lowering taxes is not the same as directly handing over tax payer money, but fundamentally, why not just have a low corp tax rate for all businesses? I.T loses plenty to outsourcing overseas so please don’t repeat the “walmart isn’t moving to china” line…
If Rick thinks a corporate tax rate of 0 for manufacturing is all that’s needed to help that sector, he’s wrong. He’d be much better off proposing a low rate for all businesses and then go after the harmful unions and regulations. Even with 0 taxes, manufacturing can’t get better if the union stranglehold is there.
And Rick voting against Right to Work is just as bad (if not worse) than Newt’s support of the mandate. Again, his reason for doing so is as weak as Romney’s (for supporting Romneycare).
Like you, I too would like to see the fair tax implemented (specifically, The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13)). But a necessary first step is a low flat tax. How do we go to a fair tax with a top rate of 28%? You can’t. How on earth do you combat Obama’s class warfare nonsense with a 28% tax bracket? You can’t. The mere presence of that rate suggests that Santorum thinks there’s something “unfair” about low rates for everyone (and he basically said this in the last debate). Which leads to our second, and bigger difference:
“It’s smart politics, and undercuts the entire notion that only Obama and the Democrat party support “the little guy.” ”
This is the Obama trap! Why should we defend “the little guy” when that’s not even a well defined term? Why not defend everyone? Also, if you are a supporter of economic freedom then you know the most effective way to help the so called “little guy” is to let the market do it, not the government! Don’t you think the “little guy” is helped with a corp tax rate of 12.5% for all business better than a 17% corp tax rate? Don’t you think individual spending, saving, donations, and investment increases at a much larger rate with a 15% tax for all, rather than a 28% for the arbitrarily unlucky? Why subscribe to the class warfare rhetoric, when you have an opportunity to correct it? Is a family of 4 making 300k in NY not little? How about a business making 250k a year. They are little too. Why are we allowing Obama to shape what we consider “the little guy”? Why are we allowing Obama to convince us into thinking the government can help the so called “little guy” better than the market can? Santorum is not going to win the “little guy” debate with a 28% top tax rate. You win that debate by showing it is a fallacy and having low taxes for EVERYONE or you win the debate by mimicking exactly what Obama wants to do (a-la the coward Romney). What we need to do is be honest with American voters and explain to them that income inequality is due to inequality in skill, intelligence, timing, ambition, etc… not tax rates. We need a candidate that can defend low rates for everyone, not be embarrassed by it.
“I feel strongly that a man of character such as Rick Santorum is the most prudent choice for high office. If I may be candid, the way I see Newt, I’m not sure how he’d handle a nation that’s ripping at the seams.”
Well William, this is a judgment call, so no need to debate you on that. We all view the world differently. I feel Newt’s previous experience balancing the budget with a democratic president, working with Reagan, and understanding that you need growth AND cuts to balance a budget can’t be undervalued. That Michael Reagan and Art Laffer endorse Newt can’t be undervalued. That Nancy Reagan stated (saw this on youtube) that “Goldwater passed the torch to Ronnie and Ronnie now passes it to Newt and the republicans” can’t be undervalued. Doesn’t hurt that Perry, Cain, Thompson, and (essentially) Palin endorse Newt. And in his last article about the SC primary, Thomas Sowell of all people (!) essentially backs Newt (perhaps more honestly, I should say they he basically says Newt is better than Mitt – no mention of Rick). I think there’s a very good reason that the rinos and the establishment frauds are attacking Newt. I don’t know either candidate personally, so won’t speak to who would handle the pressure better, but at the very least we can say Newt’s been there and done that. I don’t quite recall where the quote came from, perhaps it was Edison who said, “People don’t respect you for the things you are going to do. Respect is gained for what has been done.” This is how I see it.
In the end, what bothers me most is the desire to defend “the little guy” when no good definition exists and even if it did, the best way to do that would be to let people do it (via lower taxes/regulations for all), not the government through coerced fairness of high tax rates.
I don’t have the time to write a full response now, but if your main gripe with Santorum is that he wants to reduce the corporate taxes in one struggling sector to 0%, I may suggest that my main gripes with Newt Gingrich are more substantial. Again to take 2: support for a carbon tax and the individual mandate. Two MAJOR transgressions, one which is certainly unConstitutional (the mandate) and the other which just nuts (taxing carbon dioxide).
Hey William,
Take your time and write a full response, I’d love to hear your thoughts – I’ll be back online around 10pm tonight. If I have time I’m going to try to call in to Levin’s show and ask him the same questions because I know he supports Santorum as well.
To clarify my position:
Class warfare will be the theme of the general election. We need a candidate to explain to the American people that Obama is lying to them when he tries to tell them all their problems are due to other people not paying enough taxes or that the gov’t is the most effective option to helping people from an economic perspective. Santorum is arbitrarily punishing families with a 28% tax bracket. There is no good reason to have more than one low tax bracket. He plays into Obama’s hands with this tax bracket. That is my main gripe along with the the favoritism of manufacturing and voting against right to work. The points you bring up against Newt are well noted, but these are certainly not his positions now and imho, are less important than being able to mount a counterattack against the class warfare garbage. I don’t see how one can defend against the Obama class warfare rhetoric when one proposes a high tax rate. If you can’t help people see that Obama is wrong on taxes, how can you help them see he is wrong on solyndra, obamacare, etc….? That’s my main gripe.
I would also add that your posts suggest a decent understanding of economics… and with respect to Newt, he’s hardly been Friedrich von Hayek.
I’ll add, for the record, that I adore Tom Sowell and respect his opinion enormously. I also respect Sarah Palin. I imagine they see Newt as more viable than Santorum, and appreciate his fiery rhetoric (and I even may agree). Yet I don’t take my cues even from intellectual scions and brave political leader. In a primary you should vote your heart, and as I said, I just don’t see Newt performing AS WELL AS Santorum in a potential crisis situation.
Having said that, anyone is better than Obama; Newt and Romney are better than Paul; and Newt is better than Romney.
fyi, Reagan’s top bracket was 28%. I don’t think he was ever accused of class warfare.
“Yet I don’t take my cues even from intellectual scions and brave political leader.”
That’s good, I wish more people felt that way. I only brought it up to point out there there are some very good people backing Newt and there’s a reason why clowns like Coulter and other establishment republicans are not. But your point is understood and appreciated.
“In a primary you should vote your heart…”
Fair enough. In matters of the heart there is no arguing, is there?
I think we can stop our “debate” at this point. I will make a final remark (you can get the last word if you wish).
I see you threw Santorum’s Reagan line at me. I’ll ask you to keep in mind that Reagan brought the rate down to 28 from 50. A comparable reduction by Santorum would be a top rate of 13. Also, I feel the bigger point may have been missed, which is: How do you combat Obama’s class warfare nonsense (the heart of which is high tax rates) if one proposes an arbitrarily high tax rate oneself? Low taxes across the board is not only the quickest approach to prosperity but to refuting Obama’s rhetoric as well. With the current congress in place, Obama will not get the tax increases he cries out for. So the top rate will remain at 35%. Santorum proposes a top rate of 28%. There’s really not much difference there, so I don’t see how the class warfare debate can be won. If you understand it is not government’s place to ensure equality of results, why not have a lower top rate? If you understand that lower taxes creates the most jobs, why not have a lower top rate? If you understand that individuals spend their money more effectively (and with better results) than the government spends their money, why not have a lower top rate? You see, my feeling is that Santorum doesn’t quite understand this and he feels his rate will impose a sense of “fairness” that he finds morally satisfying, but I find disturbing since it will create fewer jobs than the rates Newt proposes and does nothing to combat Obama’s misguided fairness doctrine. The way to dismantle the Obama high tax fallacy is to propose low rates for everyone, be proud to stand behind said rates, and (most importantly) be able to articulate why these rates produce the best results for everyone (which may be counterintuitive to some, but is nevertheless true).
Ok, that’s my 2c.
You can have the last word if you wish, I look forward to your future blog posts William and thanks for your thoughtful responses (even though we disagree).
Hi Anthony,
I’d just say that the progressive income tax has been a reality since what, 1913? To think that this election is going to be about the nature of taxation seems to me somewhat quixotic.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses as well. It’s not a matter of getting the last word – there’s no such thing with political debates, really
I also believe that we desperately need to close our deficit and begin paying back our debts. Dropping the income tax to 13% across the board would mean that, to pay back our debt, we’d need to reduce federal expenditures to something less than 13%, correct?
The federal government spends approximately 25% of GDP, an outrageously high number to be sure. (Frankly, I think it could be halved, and then some). But to expect it to drop to 10%, 11%, or 12% in the next one or two years is just not a realistic scenario.
Gradually, over a period of 10-20 years, we could safely reduce spending through entitlement reform and curtailing the growth of bureaucracies. This should be the broad goal of modern conservatism, and we must develop legislation and policies to advance our agenda. Yet we need a transition period that is rational and in touch with reality. And reality dictates that we must begin with significant yet prudent spending and tax reform, and not expect to cut government by two-thirds overnight whilst replacing the entire tax code.
That’s how I’d sum it up. We need serious reform, but that reform needs to be implemented in a way that is practicable and possible. Right now, the progressive income tax is a dubious relic. However, it will only be eliminated by gradual extinction. Sadly, no silver bullet exists.
UPDATE:
See, told ya so…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/02/for-coulter-against-levin.html
Truly disgusting:
“Because of the Affordable Care Act, near-universal health coverage is coming at last to the United States. That’s not a clock that can or should be turned back. The conservative task ahead is to reform that new social commitment so that it is affordable and sustainable, so that it is financed in ways that do not discourage work, saving and investment.”
You see, this is the problem with narcissism. Frum thinks he’s smart enough to call himself a conservative writer/journalist (whatever he does for a living) without having the requisite background knowledge. When you read his stuff, do you think he even knows who Bastiat is? Think he ever read Friedman? Of course not. His comment is just so very typical of someone who is incapable of applying analytical thought to a problem. Ok Frum, we have universal coverage, what does that do to quality of care? Ever think about that? What does that do to wait times? There’s no denying health care is expensive in this country, but he thinks universal coverage (a’la the government is the answer?!). You’d be insane to think another country provides faster medical service or better care than the US.
The Canadian or European model are NOT ones we should mimic.
The he says, “The conservative task at hand is to reform…”, is this guy serious? The conservative task at hand is to try a market based approach FIRST, Mr.Frum! How about letting doctors compete? How about buying insurance from any state, regardless of where you live? How about removing the tax credit employers get for offering insurance? What’s stunning about Mr.Frum is he is apparently unaware of the nightmare stories so commonly heard all over Europe and Canada.
If a market based approach fails, then fine, universal approach it is. Until we try a market based approach, why would a conservative writer support Obama care?
Btw, wanted to comment on your Jan 31 response. I think it’s important, particularly when people are “on the same side”, to recognize differences even if you can’t resolve them. You put your views out there and I do not want to debate them, but I would like to state my positions regarding (only) what you wrote on the 31st.
> I’d just say that the progressive income tax has been a reality since what, 1913?
> To think that this election is going to be about the nature of taxation seems to me somewhat quixotic.
Glad you wrote that. This is our fundamental difference. You look at years after 1913, I look at years before to the 16th amendment being ratified. For me, there’s no bigger issue than taxes – particularly given the current president and given the fact that we’re dangerously close to having 50% of all Americans who pay zero federal income tax.
Class warfare is at the heart of the Obama misguided ideology and sadly, many Americans are falling for it.
> I also believe that we desperately need to close our deficit and begin paying back our debts.
I do to, we just think disagree on the best way to do it. I don’t expect it to drop in a year or two, as it took Gingrich 3 (or 4?) years to balance the budget in the 90′s – so it will take at least that long this time around.
> This should be the broad goal of modern conservatism, and we must develop legislation and policies to advance our agenda. Yet we need a transition period that is rational and in touch with reality.
Agreed.
> And reality dictates that we must begin with significant yet
> prudent spending and tax reform, and not expect to cut government
> by two-thirds overnight whilst replacing the entire tax code.
>…
> Right now, the progressive income tax is a dubious relic.
> However, it will only be eliminated by gradual extinction.
And here is the other key to our disagreement. You are more of an optimist than I.
)
I don’t think gradual extinction is possible. There are too many sheep in the country, too many people who believe in big government and imposed social justice. Class warfare is very powerful.
Without exaggeration, because Obama is so divisive, I think this may be our only chance to impose a low flat tax (for both indiv and corp) so that we can one day move to a fair tax. (And obviously I feel that lower rates sooner, rather than later, will help balance the budget more quickly because we’ll have more growth).
So there ya go – our differences in a nutshell. If you read carefully you’ll see I wasn’t trying to debate which approach is better (or whether or not I’m being pessimistic) – I simply wanted to state WHY we disagree and why I vote Newt (in part, anyway).
Well, glad you posted those comments, now I have I better understanding of your pov and if I ever go to any of the meetups we won’t have to waste time arguing these points.
One last thing about Frum….
I’ve noticed that people like Frum, those who are not very analytical – people who cannot think through a problem (ie, they only consider “that which is unseen” as Bastiat would say), like to focus on trivial questions so they can apply solutions that are simple enough for them to understand.
Many times these people pose questions like, “Since ABC should we XYZ?”. Know what I mean? Like, “Since we’re such a rich nation, shouldn’t we raise taxes on the wealthy to help the poor?” or “Since so many people don’t have healthcare shouldn’t we be happy with Obamacare?”.
As Friedman would say, these are stupid questions. The issue is not whether or not we should help; the question that needs to be asked is, “What is the most effective way to help?”. This is a deeper question and forces you to think about consequences and results down the road. This requires more thought which is why I think people like Frum and David Brooks sound silly so often. When the question is framed correctly, “What’s the most effective way to make sure everyone can afford medical care without compromising quality of care?”, you immediately realize that obamacare isn’t the answer. It’s the habit of liberals and people like Frum to focus only on that which is seen; this causes them to take such poor positions on many issues. If Frum is capable of analytic thought and thinking through problems (I don’t know the guy – maybe he is/isn’t), he would see that the smartest approach is a market based approach. If that fails, then there’s no reason not to try a gov’t run approach.
Anthony, you should attend our meetups. They’re grand.
As I write this, I have the two volume Bastiat collection sitting next to me on my bookshelf. My favorites include “The Law,” “What is Seen and What is Not Seen,” and “What is Money?” All three are superbly tight expositions of economics and classical liberal philosophy. For my money, Bastiat’s rejoinder is unmatched.
David Frum is hardly worth refuting, much less discussing, anymore. I used to appreciate Ann’s work, and it was with a heavy heart I drew the infamous parallel.
I am an optimistic person, but I’m also a realist. Reversing the ideological trend which has metastasized since the New Deal will take several decades, not just an election or two or three. Our culture has been deeply infected by class warfare (including wealth, race, sex, etc.) and now conservative thought is now very much the counter culture, meaning that we have reached a very dangerous point.
On a hopeful note, we have truth and experience on our side. If more people like you and me speak up, speak out, and spread the word we have a chance. I put my faith in the unique human quality of reason, and entrust that if the terms and choices are laid bare before the American people, they will choose wisely.
My great fear is that we’ll experience a collapse of sorts, economically, and those in power will use it an excuse to either further twist the meaning of the Constitution, or do away with our beloved document altogether. $15+ trillion plus in debt, $1+ deficits, and 11% unemployment all point to choppy waters, i.e. social unrest.
People use “too big to fail” to describe banks, but it’s misleading. The banks and the government are now intimately intertwined, and a collapse of one very well may entail the collapse of both. A formerly decentralized economy now very much revolve around a single axis, and the centripetal force intensifies with each new bond issue (see Europe).
I’ll post a new thread this week so we can chat about that. Hope to see you at one of our socials or meetings.