Conservatives approach the New Year	

By W. James Antle III
web posted December 24, 2001

It is customary for the conclusion of each year to be marked by
predictions about what is in store for the New Year. Given the
volatility of politics during the last decade, observers should be
reluctant to play the role of political Nostradamus.

The year 2001 ends with George W. Bush enjoying
unprecedented approval ratings and leading an apparently
successful anti-terrorism campaign. Yet Republicans have lost
governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia, states won by the
GOP since 1993, and a close mayoral election in Houston. The
only significant Republican victory was Michael Bloomberg's
stunning upset in the race for mayor of New York City, hardly a
major boost for the right given the billionaire's long-standing
liberal sympathies.

Notwithstanding President Bush's razor-thin 2000 presidential
victory and his ability to unite a great majority of Americans
behind him following the terrorist massacres of September 11,
American conservatives have to some extent suffered the plight
of the right throughout the Western world. As the advocates of
democratic socialism we now commonly call left-liberals have
accepted in some degree the market economy, they now
effectively present themselves as more compassionate custodians
of capitalism. Leaders like Tony Blair, Jean Chretien and Bill
Clinton do not preach unadulterated socialism and are willing to
allow the private sector to deliver services during some instances
of public sector failure.

By resisting the right's characterization of them (and to a large
extent adopting their policies), the left has revived its political
fortunes only a few short years after conservative commentators
were triumphantly writing their opponents' obituaries. So we see
Democrats effectively resisting Republican calls for further tax-
rate cuts even as such reductions are more economically justified
with each passing quarter (in the last quarter, the economy
contracted at a 1.3 percent annual rate). Democrats still criticize
the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s and warn that President Bush's
tax policy will similarly cause deficits and other economic
unpleasantness, yet none of them dare call for returning to pre-
Reagan tax rates.

Indeed, our present situation with a majority of the federal tax
burden being paid by a minority of taxpayers empowers the left.
Any meaningful tax reduction with any prospect of improving
investment returns or increasing incentives for productive
economic behavior can easily be presented as a "tax break for
the wealthy." Consider that one-third of the incomes taxes that
prop up the federal welfare state are supplied by the top 1
percent of taxpayers. Though a dangerous situation for both the
economy and the rule of law, a country in which the majority can
vote itself benefits paid for by the wealth of the minority is a
boon for statism.

Before the Reagan administration, middle and working-class
families were constantly pushed into higher tax brackets by
inflation, a form of bracket creep that resulted in unlegislated tax
increases. Marginal tax rates were well above today's top
statutory rate of 39.6 percent. Today, tax rates are lower
(thanks mainly to conservative policies) and "real income bracket
creep" is a less obvious phenomenon - being penalized for
progress by having reasonable gains in income push your family
into a higher tax bracket is economically counterproductive, but
not as painful as higher taxes accompanying stagnant or declining
real income. This makes tax rate cuts seem less urgent and the
Democratic argument for "fairer" targeted tax cuts to benefit
"working families" seem more reasonable.

Liberals governments continue to expand the role of the state,
but do so more incrementally, with promises of efficiency and the
retention of certain key Reaganite, Thatcherite and even
Mulroneyite reforms inherited from conservative predecessors.
The left claims less the ability to manage the economy than to
promote harmony amidst diversity and use government edicts to
solve a variety of national problems, ranging from the
environment to anything dangerous to "the children."

Although more successful than their contemporaries in Canada
and Great Britain, US conservatives in the Republican Party
have been ill-equipped to deal with neo-liberal political
innovations. Republicans have been unable to cope with
Democrats presenting themselves as guardians of the surplus and
are generally impotent in the face of arguments that equate
defending traditional morality with attacking pluralism. On issues
that some commentators summarize as the "national question,"
ranging from sovereignty to immigration policy, even
conservative Republicans are often hesitant to assert themselves.

It should thus come as little surprise that the Constitution is
seldom consulted when new expansions of federal power are
considered, as it has been hijacked by ideologues offended by
Christmas trees. If the revival of patriotism and other trends
hospitable to traditionalists following September 11 presents
opportunities for conservatives, few have shown any indication
they know how to take them.

This doesn't mean that 2002 spells doom for Republicans. A few
isolated off-year elections may not be representative of any
meaningful national trend. During the 1990s, we saw the
Republicans' 12-year lock on the presidency broken in one
election cycle, followed by the end of the Democrats' 40-year
domination of the House of Representatives in the very next
election and then saw a Democratic president win a second term
for the first time since 1936 and a Republican Congress
reelected for the first time since 1928 in the same election cycle.

Who in 1995 would have predicted that on the eve of 2002,
Newt Gingrich would no longer be in Congress but Strom
Thurmond would, or that Donald Rumsfeld would hold a high
government position but Al Gore wouldn't?

Syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock recently rattled off the
accomplishments of outgoing New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani: a
57 percent drop in crime, a 65 percent reduction in the homicide
rate, a 53.4 percent decrease in public-assistance rolls and the
abolition of a 20 percent minority set-aside program. Municipal
employment fell 17.2 percent overall even though 12 percent
more police officers and 12.8 percent more teachers were hired.
City-owned apartments were cut by 70 percent and many city
assets were privatized. Giuliani cut or abolished 23 taxes,
including a 21 percent cut in the city income tax. He held annual
budget increases to 2.9 percent while his fiscal 1995 budget and
fiscal 2002 forecast actually decrease nominal spending.

These accomplishments are worth repeating not simply as
another tribute to Rudy. They are a testimony to the effectiveness
of conservative ideas when promoted by officials willing to
implement them. Giuliani governed a liberal city where
Democrats outnumbered Republicans 5 to 1 among registered
voters and 45 to 6 on the city council. And he was no flaming
right-winger; consider that everything Murdock mentions was
accomplished by someone frequently criticized by conservatives
for being too liberal, a mayor elected with the support of New
York's Liberal Party just like the last Republican mayor before
him, John Lindsay.

Tempting though it may be to make predictions, politics in recent
years has been stubbornly unpredictable. Perhaps a more
productive enterprise would be to seek opportunities and seize
them.

W. James Antle III is a senior writer for Enter Stage Right and
can be reached at wjantle@enterstageright.com.

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com