I always thought the Republican challenge was given voice by an elderly woman in USA
Today who said, when asked about the government "shutdown", "They can close the whole
thing down as far as I'm concerned as long as they get the Social Security checks
out."
John Samples
Washington, DC
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Close [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tue 6/25/2002 8:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Republican Reversal
Alex asks whether the "Radical Republicans" that were swept into the
House in '94 were co-opted by institutions (Hypothesis #1), or
co-opted by their constituents' softer views (Hypothesis #2)?
I am inclined to hold Hypothesis #2. Why? Two reasons: First, if the
Republican politicians softened while their constituents remained
hardliners, then in the next elections they would have lost to
challengers who castigated them for selling out.
Second, the "Radical Repubican Revolution" didn't run deep in the
electorate. Much of the "Radical Republican" strategy and image was
forged by Newt Gingrich, who convinced many freshman Republicans to
sign the so-called Contract with America.
Gingrich saw the public's anger with Clinton (re: tax hikes, health
care, and "don't ask, don't tell") as an opportunity to shoot for a
"radical Republican" agenda, but apparently misread the public, or at
least misread its support for Gingrich himself, who lost popularity
when his efforts contributed to temporary "shutdowns" of federal
services. (Remember federal buildings being "forced" to close down
for a day at a time, due to budget uncertainties?)
With the demise of Gingrich, the "Radical Repubicans" lost their
figurehead, and the so-called "Radical Republican" movement
evaporated. It evaporated because it was thin to begin with.
I don't think the above fully answers Alex's call for a way to
distinguish between Hypothesis #1 and Hypothesis #2, but perhaps it's
a good enough story to satisfy some of us.
Comments? Criticisms?
Carl
> Remember when the Republicans took control of the house in 1994 for
>the first time in something like 40 years and all the new young blood
>was talking about cutting government programs and scaling back
>everywhere? Remember all the newspaper reports about how everything
>would now change. Yeah, I can hardly remember it either. How distant
>those days seem. Notice that in recent days the Republicans have been
>proudly asserting how much *more* expensive their prescription drug plan
>is than the one Democrats have proposed.
>
> There are different ways of interpreting this volte-face. One way
>is to assert that this shows how corrupting the institutions of
>Washington are, how even people with good ideas are sucked in to the
>spending way of life etc. Calls for term limits etc. follow.
>
> An alternative interpretation, but ultimately perhaps the same
>thing, is to say that the public didn't really want what the Republicans
>said they were offering and the failure of the cut government group is
>simply a reflection of the public's desires. In this view it's the
>American people who are to blame for their government and not peculiar
>institutions.
>
>Comments? Ways to distinguish these explanations?
>
>Alex
>--
>Dr. Alexander Tabarrok
>Vice President and Director of Research
>The Independent Institute
>100 Swan Way
>Oakland, CA, 94621-1428
>Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
winmail.dat
Description: application/ms-tnef
