David Frum's problem is still obvious.

David Frum is unhappy about Ron Paul and his supporters. This is not new, but on the plus side, it gives me an opportunity to recycle a favorite graphic I first used in November 2007. I suspect I'll have the opportunity to use it again between now and the Republican convention.

Ron Paul holds a very special place in the psyche of David Frum. Frum fancies himself on the vanguard of a modern intellectual conservatism. But when Ron Paul is the topic, he is reduced to incoherent, bile filled rants in both his writing and televised appearances.

Carnival of Divided Government Octâvus et Vîcênsimus (XXVIII) Special Halloween Edition

Welcome to the 28th edition of the Carnival of Divided Government- The special "Scary Halloween Edition" . As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this, the Carnival of Divided Government Octâvus et Vîcênsimus (XXVIII), as in all of the CODGOV series, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in DWSUWF reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions.

Scary!

It is Halloween, only days away from the election, and I cannot think of anything scarier than One Party Rule with a Democratic Party government. Well, except for One Party Rule under the Republican Party banner. But we killed that monster in 2006. Now a new One Party Rule monster is looming over the horizon. I feel like a resident of Tokyo. We no sooner finish killing off Godzilla, and here comes Rodan two years later. Sheesh. We're still cleaning the rubble out of the street from the last monster.

I see that John McCain and the GOP finally started to really push the divided government argument this week. That is really great guys, but a little late don't you think? After all, I have only been telling you that this argument was your only shot for... oh... about... TWO F*****G YEARS!!!

The potential for this argument was obvious the week after the midterms. I know because I said so. Right here. Then I explained why the GOP need to nominate someone who would appeal to moderates and libertarians - like Hagel. Last year I even changed party affiliation to try and effect change from the inside the GOP. Finally, early this year, I diagnosed the GOP as terminal:

"We are now on board a hell-bound train rocketing down the rails toward single party Democratic Government, with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama controlling the levers of power for the expanded unitary executive designed by Dick Cheney, complemented by increased Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature and a real possibly of a 60 vote filibuster-proof plurality in the Senate. God help us."

"Hope" is the tag line of the Obama Axelrod campaign. My hope for the future? I fervently hope that the Democrats will not have time to do as much damage in two years of one party rule as it took the Republicans to do in six. My only remaining hope for this election cycle is that the GOP does not lose the filibuster.

However, if there is any hope for McCain between now and Tuesday, it is to be found in the traction clearly evident for the Divided Government argument. As we can see in BlogPulse...

... we are in the midst of a big spike of "divided government" activity in the blogosphere, which you might infer (correctly) is being driven by a lot ink spilled in the mainstream media. FWIW, the percentage of total blog posts mentioning divided government now is very close to the percentage in 2006 on the eve of the election that restored divided government. And there are a lot more blogs now than there were in 2006. Ok, I am grasping at straws. Hope springs eternal.

Another indicator of the potency of the argument, is that the Obama Axelrod campaign and supporters have taken notice. Suddenly there are many posts and articles making the case against divided government from Obamites and surrogates. Although it has only been 10 days since our last carnival (not my fault - the Blog Carnival site was down for three days), we have more material than I can summarize here. For this carnival, I will focus on rebutting some of the better counter arguments against, while disregarding partisan arguments of the form"Democrats are Angels, Republicans are the spawn of Satan".

Carnival

Main Stream Media

Princeton professor Julian Zelizer writing for the Washington Independent kicks us off by propping up and knocking down a straw man in "One Party Government does not equal Extreme":

"Republicans have unveiled their closing argument. Desperate to prevent a huge Democratic landslide, Republicans warn that one-party government under Democrats would surely mean liberal extremism...The argument is based on a misreading of American history. For, during periods of one-party government, when Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress, history demonstrates that they have not shifted radically toward a leftward agenda."

Right. But "liberal extremism" is not the primary problem with One Party Rule, professor. The real problem(s) is(are) concentration of power, abuse of power, undermining constitutional protections, erosion of freedom, faster growth of government size and spending, lack of oversight, excessive secrecy and more corruption. these problems occured to a greater extent under all modern era Single Party Rule administrations that lasted longer than two years (and some less).

John Judis, blogging at The New Republic, makes a peculiar argument in "Down With Divided Government":

"...let’s look at the more disastrous moments in the history of American administrations - where charges of impeachment were brought, and recriminations paralyzed the government. That would have to include the administrations of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton - all instances of divided government... So if you look at America’s moments of glory and ignominy, the conclusion is inescapable: divided government is a curse, not a blessing, and should be avoided, if at all possible."

John seems to be an arguing that malfeasance by a Chief Executive should not be challenged by the Congress, apparently because the conflict might look bad or appear "ignominious". Bill Clinton perjured himself. Richard Nixon abused the power of his office. Determining whether these offenses rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is the purview of the Senate. Impeachment is a vehicle to make that determination and an important element of the checks and balances in our Constitution. If John is suggesting that impeachment will never occur under One Party Rule, then that is an argument for, not against, divided government.

Jacob Levy also rebuts the Judis argument at TNR.

Andrew Romano from Newsweek makes a repeat appearance in the carnival, following up his interview with Morris Fiorino with "Will America Vote Against a 'Dangerous Threesome'? ":

"McCain's basic premise is sound. Right now, Democrats narrowly control both chambers of Congress, and experts estimate that they'll pick up between 23 and 28 seats in the House and between seven and nine seats in the Senate. So if Obama wins, it's all donkeys all the time. That said, I'm not sure how well McCain's "divided government" argument will work from a political perspective. Why? Because it has to accomplish several difficult tasks at once..."

Andrew does not argue against Divided Government per se, but offers an analysis of why it may not be effective in moving the electorate at this late date. I agree with Andrew's analysis. It'll be tough. I've never thought of this as an argument that can move more than half of what Cato identified as the centrist, libertarianish, swing vote. Which is to say 5-6% of the electorate tops. That means this argument can only be effective if McCain kept the election close and it does not look like that is going to happen. We can only hope.

In the category of laughable partisan nonsense, Michelle Malkin notes that Chuck Schumer was "Against One Party Rule Before He Was For it":

Charles Schumer - FOX News Sunday, 4/10/05
“...you can’t just have one-party rule here.” “The point is that there have to be checks and balances here."
Charles Schumer - ABC News Wednesday, 10/29/08
“Our view is very simple, and that is Republican senators, Republican incumbents aren’t for checks and balances. They’re for blocking change..."

Of course, we should also point out that Michelle Malkin was for One Party Rule before she was against it. DWSUWF, on the other hand was for divided government in 2006 and he is for divided government in 2008. The Welshman also took note of Schumer's flop. Glenn Reynolds and Jon Henke find a similar hypocritical pair of John Dean quotations. In 2006 Glenn was like Michelle. In 2006 Jon was like DWSUWF. So it goes.

The Polls

Gallup suggests that McCain's closing argument may be having an effect:

"...McCain has tried to remind voters that electing Obama as president to go along with a Democratically-controlled Congress would give the Democratic Party control of the federal government. That argument appears to resonate, as voters appear reluctant to want to give one party full control of the government regardless of who is elected president."

Temple University suggests Pennsylvania voters also prefer divided government, but may not vote for it:

"...the Pennsylvania electorate, one in which McCain trails Obama by 9 percentage points, supports the principle of a divided federal government. A majority of likely voters in the Commonwealth—51 percent—believe control of the presidency and Congress should be split between the parties, while just 18 percent believe one party should control both branches. Twenty-eight percent say it does not matter whether or not government is divided."

Maybe they should vote for it. Maybe they will.

In this Keith Obamaman interview, Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post describes an older poll finding Americans did not care about divided government, in direct contradiction to the two more recent polls above. Movement as we approach election day?




Hope floats.

Bloggers and New Media

Yid With Lid quotes Charles Krauthammer and sums it up perfectly in "Obama + Pelosi + Reid + Frank =ECONOMIC DANGER FOR AMERICA":

"America's founding fathers built a government based on checks and balances. The Idea is to prevent this country from over-reacting to temporary swings in public opinion or worse to fall in line behind one demagogue. If Senator Obama wins the presidential election we are in danger of eliminating most of the checks and balances that have protected this country from the whims of one political leader. Based on polls we may have a Democratic President and a filibuster-proof Senate and a majority in the House. This democratic party "perfect storm" is a danger to the future of this country."

Well said, but he may be overreacting a bit. If the Republicans keep the filibuster, grow some balls, and regain the Senate majority in 2010, the damage will be minimal.

John at 2008Central has some more to say on divided government. In a prior post, he invented a new definition for Divided Government because he found the actual definition used by economists, historians and political scientists to be inconvenient. Since then he has also parroted John Justis' flawed reasoning (see above), and made an argument based on judicial appointments quoting Jeffrey Rosen in "The Judicial Question":

"A simplistic look at divided government always only looks at President and Congress. In all likelihood, the economy will continue to have problems in the next few years, and at some point, Republicans will be able to take advantage of that, at least in the House and possibly Senate elections. But what can’t be undone are Supreme Court appointments."

A simplistic look at the risk of McCain Supreme Court appointments (such as Jeff and John make here), pretends that the large Democratic majority in the Senate does not exist and will have nothing to say about confirming a McCain appointment. A simplistic look will completely ignore John McCain's moderate record in the Senate with Judicial appointments of both parties. A simplistic look will completely ignore the fact that John McCain led the "Gang of 14" bipartisan moderates in the Senate against George Bush and the GOP leadership, earning him the enmity of his own party to preserve the filibuster in the Senate for the minority Democratic party on Judicial picks. A simplistic look will ignore that he did so at the risk of his presidential amitions, for no other reason than because it was the right thing to do for the country. And - oh yeah - force the GOP's hand on more moderate judicial selections.

Len Burman at The Tax Policy Center questions EconomistMom's assertion of the historical basis showing fiscal irresponsibility under One Party Rule, and asks "Does Divided Government Guarantee Fiscal Responsibility?":

"The effect of divided government thus depends on whether McCain's promise of bipartisanship trumps his promise to wield a ruthless veto pen—something that's impossible to predict a priori."

Oh for god's sake, Len. Of course divided government does not "guarantee" fiscal responsibility. Of course it is impossible to know a priori exactly what will transpire in a McCain administration with a Democratic congress. This is politics after all. Are you really wasting ink electrons on these vacuous statements? The point is that there is a documented historical basis for expecting that we will have a lower spending growth rate and more fiscal responsibility under divided government, as shown by Niskanen, Slivinski, and others exactly as EconomistMom said. Len's post can be distilled to exactly this: I choose to pretend the historical precedent showing greater fiscal responsibility under divided government does not exist.

Whatever.

Kbliss at WhatShouldBe.com links David Frum and suggests "With Divided Government Unlikely, Let’s Minimize The Loss":

"It is time that the focus of proponents of divided government and centrists in general be turned from the Presidential race, which is lost (McCain is not going to win), to the Congress and particularly the Senate. While a significant Democrat victory in the Senate and the House is assured as well, efforts can be made to limit the scale of the Republican defeat. Efforts need to be made to minimize Republican losses, particularly but not exclusively of those in the rational middle... Following the principles of triage, the place to logically focus is with Senate Republicans, where saving a few Republican Senators will yield more bang for the buck. A 60 vote Democrat majority in the Senate would not be healthy for the country..."

Kbliss makes a good case. I'd much prefer to see McCain wielding a veto pen, but the damage can be contained over the next two years if Republicans have a filibuster and are willing to use it aggressively. I have been a bit critical of David Frum in past posts. He is one of the enablers that pushed the Republican Party to the brink of the abyss. But I concur with Kbliss that he is making a good argument now.

Jacob Sollum at Reason is voting for Bob Barr, but takes a long way around to come to the right conclusion about choosing between the lesser of two evils in "You Choose, You Lose":

"The crucial question is which matters more: a president's theory of executive power or the political environment he faces. If the former, Obama is the less risky choice. If the latter, McCain is, since he would face a less compliant Congress. In that case, the Republicans' sorry performance during their six years in charge of the executive and legislative branches, by highlighting the virtues of divided government, may be the best argument for their nominee."

This is similar line of reasoning to Dyre42, a co-blogger at Donklephant, and Rojas at The Crossed Pond who are also voting for Bob Barr, but sympathetic to the divided government voting heuristic. This is only anecdotal of course, but reading Jacob, Rojas, and Dyre's rationale, I wonder whether Bob Barr may actually be pulling more support from Obama than McCain, contrary to conventional wisdom.

"I placed my vote for what could be called a straight divided government ticket in that I voted Libertarian for president, Republican for Senate, and Democratic at the state level."- Dyre42

"In any era, Barack Obama would be an impressive advocate of all the wrong ideas. In an era in which the US faces $54 trillion in unfunded obligations, as well as an impending demographic crisis for which the bill is imminent, his agenda is simply insane. And for conservatives to support that agenda in their Presidential candidate at a time when the Congress is virtually certain to feature a massive Democratic majority beggars belief. Respect for the concept of divided government alone ought to rule Obama out from any conservative’s perspective." - Rojas

I respect those votes. OTOH, I cannot understand a self-described fiscal conservative or libertarian voting for Obama and One Party Rule.

Miscellany

Traditionally, we conclude this Carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Off-topic in this context meaning - no mentions of "divided government" or gridlock. For this edition - f*ck it.

And with that we conclude this edition. Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for all of the submissions (on-topic or not). we will once again attempt to increase our CODGOV posting frequency between now and the election. Look for the next edition of The Carnival of Divided Government XXIX - Special Thanksgiving Edition sometime around - um Thanksgivng. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

Carnivalingus

Some recent carnivals and compilations of note:

• Jill presents the "Carnival of Ohio Politics #140 posted at COOP.
• Billspaced presents "Rants -- Oct 23, 2008" posted at Rants n' Reviews.
  

UPDATED: 11/01/08 - Fixed typos / Added post

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, CODGOV,blog carnival, 2008 Election, John McCain, Barack Obama

You are very welcome, Ron. [Note to David Frum: Your problem is obvious.]

From my e-mail inbox Monday:

"Thank you very much for your donation of $100.00 to the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign. Your donation will allow us to expand and grow our campaign.We depend on donors like you to help us spread the message of freedom, peace and prosperity through Ron Paul’s candidacy. Thanks for being a part of the campaign!"

After returning from a weekend abalone dive adventure, the Ron Paul "money bomb", timed for Guy Fawkes day, got my attention. It was time to put my money where my mouth is, and contribute to the Paul campaign. I would have preferred to send it to Chuck Hagel, but since he is AWOL, Paul gets my primary contribution. Turns out I was a below average contributor.

From Tuesday's inbox:

"Amazing! I have to admit being floored by the $4.2 million dollars you raised yesterday for this campaign. And unlike the fatcat operations of the opposition, the average contribution from our 36,672 donors was $103. I say "you raised," because this historic event was created, organized, and run by volunteers. This is the spirit that has protected American freedom in our past; this is the spirit that is doing so again. Some of the mainstream media have sat up and taken notice. Others have pooh-poohed our record online fundraising. But the day is coming--far faster than they know--when they will not be able to ignore our freedom revolution."

The reaction in the blogosphere and MSM was amusing and interesting. I caught Ron Paul being interviewed on Tucker. Paul seemed genuinely bemused by the success of the effort. Tucker Carlson couldn't believe that Ron Paul had never met the individual who instigated the one day Guy Fawkes "Money bomb" effort. I'll link the video if/when I find it. The MSNBC video link appears to be broken, but here is the transcript:

"CARLSON: Now, this fundraising success took place on what in Great Britain is Guy Fawkes Day, which was the day foiling the plot to blow up the house of Parliament in the 17^th century. Why that day. What is the significance for you?

PAUL: No significance to me. Other than fact that now I know that November 5^th is an important day in fundraising. But I wasn‘t too much aware of that particular point in history, nor the movie that they recite and refer to.

And I have not met the individual who put this all together. All I know, it‘s been spontaneous, it wasn‘t driven by the campaign. We certainly didn‘t discourage it but we had nothing to say about it because the individuals were organizing on the Internet. I think it shows the power of an idea.

CARLSON: What do you mean. You never met the guy responsible for organizing more than $4 million in money for you?

PAUL: If I did, I don‘t remember it. Somebody said, we ought to get his telephone number now that it‘s over, you ought to probably call him. I plan to do that. But if I‘ve met him it was pretty casual, but I don‘t think I have to met him to tell you the truth. But this is part of the campaign. The fact that we have over 1,100 meet up groups is rather significant, they‘re coming from around the world.

So the message I think is very important and the people are responding to it. But to me it‘s just message which is something that I‘ve been talking about for years. It‘s a message of what has made America great, our Constitution, important of individual liberties and self reliance and self responsibilities. So it‘s not a strange message. A lot of Americans have forgotten about it now we‘ve revived the interest all of a sudden we found out that it‘s a very exciting message."

Justin Gardner at Donklephant has a great reaction roundup post as does Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice. Most fun is the sniping between Andrew Sullivan and David Frum.

Sullivan:

"A $4.3 million haul in 24 hours. Good enough to rattle Frum. Frum tries to belittle the achievement by comparing it to Ralph Nader's $8 million fundraising in 2000. But over half that in mere hours? The Ron Paul phenomenon is real. The Christianists and neocons will decry it because it affects their power over the GOP. And because when a conservative stands for freedom again, it resonates and threatens them."

Frum:

"Just noticed that Andrew Sullivan opines that I am "rattled" by Paul's haul. Personally, I think it is Andrew who has been "rattled" by being caught in yet another of his careless or reckless errors and inaccuracies. But for the record, he's [SIC - snicker - DF is accusing AS of being careless on the same line with a typo -mw] my view on the Paul candidacy... It would be interesting to know how many of today's Paul donors were Nader donors then... Of course I am saddened to discover that many thousands of Americans have rallied to a candidate campaigning on a Michael Moore view of the world... Ron Paul is Nader, not Perot."

I've just got to say, Frum’s post is one of the odder things I’ve read in a while. In a short post he manges to compare Ron Paul to Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean, but draws a distinction between Paul and Ross Perot. Well, I guess I have to be happy with the last. I always thought Perot was a few bricks short of a full load. James Joyner at Outside the Beltway attempts to sort it all out.

The only way one can make any sense out of whatever the hell it is that Frum is attempting to say, is by assuming that Frum thinks that anyone who is against the Iraq war, regardless of their views on other issues like constitutional protections, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedom, is a Nader/Moore Liberal. If that is indeed what he is saying, then Frum is my designated poster boy for the new Intellectual Bankruptcy of the Right. “You are against the war? Well, that defines you as a liberal Democrat.”

David Frum is either confused or deluded about who is supporting Ron Paul. Let's try to help David. I am one of the very Ron Paul supporters that saddens Frum, and no - I never contributed to or voted for Ralph Nader. Don’t particularly agree with Michael Moore either. Or Howard Dean. Fact is, Paul is as close to a polar opposite of a Nader/Moore liberal as one can get. Just to try and ease David Frum's fragile emotional state regarding RP's supporters, - this particular Ron Paul supporter is committed to voting for the Republican nominee regardless of whatever piece of shit the GOP eventually nominates. How is that as an endorsement for your party and candidate, David? I'll even vote for your favorite Giuliani, although he does not make my top 10 stack ranking.

My rationale is familiar to readers of this blog. I vote for objectives like good governance and fiscal responsibility. Those objectives are documented to be accomplished by divided government, and divided government can only be maintained into 2009 by electing a Republican President. A shit Republican president with a Democratic majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, will govern better than a great Democratic President and a united Democratic Congress (see LBJ). So on February 5th, 2009 - I'll be voting in the California Republican primary for Ron Paul, and hoping for the best.

Let us dig a bit more into the mind of Frum. This from a Cato Unbound series six months before the midterms, initiated with a David Frum essay and concluding with his summary:

Future of the GOP: It’s Up to the Democrats

Ross’ question about the future of “fusionism”—the longstanding alliance between libertarians and social conservatives—is a very profound one. Let me suggest a couple of thoughts that may help us think it through together.

1. While strict doctrinal libertarians have always been a vanishingly small minority in America (cocaine vending machines anyone?), the libertarian disposition or tendency is large and strong.
2. So long as the Democrats (or anyway the Democrats’ northern leadership) remained effectively a social-democratic party, libertarian-leaning voters had no choice but to support the GOP."

Not really. As documented in a prescient Cato Institute Policy Analysis and post-midterm election observations, the libertarian swing vote did indeed have a choice. It chose to elect a Democratic Congress and a divided government. As Frum correctly points out, the libertarian "disposed" swing vote is small. However, it is large enough to swing national elections in our evenly divided polarized political electorate. The libertarian swing vote is now supporting Ron Paul. It is not big enough to get him the nomination. It is big enough to cost the Republicans the White House, if the Ron Paul Republicans do not stay in the Republican fold. Captain Ed gets it right:

"What does this tell us? The libertarian impulse may have stronger legs than anyone recognizes. It certainly seems more individually vibrant than the "values voters" segment of the Republican Party, which hasn't even produced a candidate in this election, let alone this kind of impromptu grassroots effort... Beyond Paul and his flaws, the Republicans had better start paying attention to these voters. Like it or not, they represent a passion that seems to have left the GOP in recent months, and even if they skew young and may not vote as promised this cycle, they will eventually. Rather than continue to write them off, Republicans have to find a way to address them..."

Let us correct David Frum's essay title -

"The Future of the GOP? It is up to the libertarians"

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, Chuck Hagel,2008 election, libertarian, Republican,Rudy Giuliani,David Frum,Ron Paul.

Hand-wringing Libertarians.

"Woe, woe is me! What words, or cries, or lamentations can I utter?"
The Chorus in Hecuba by Euripides

Update appended May 18, 2006
I had a dalliance with the Libertarian party in my youth. She seemed dangerous, but so radiant, so pure, so exciting, so ... so right. As I matured, became more practical and yes, more cynical, we drifted apart. Since then, I have settled into a comfortable long term relationship with the Cato Institute - a Libertarian think-tank. I have tremendous respect for the organization and their product. They generate tons of great research, clear hard-number analysis, and are relentless advocates for libertarian principles. They have done more to "change the debate", to introduce and defend libertarian ideas into mainstream politics any other libertarian organization, including the party. They have earned the highest compliment I can give them - They have made a difference.

Coincident with the start of this blog, Cato Unbound (a monthly single topic interactive blog) launched a dialog on the topic "The Gop and Limited Government - Do they have a future together?".

"The era of big government is alive and well. You might think that after dominating all branches of the federal government for more than a half decade, Republicans, who like to talk big about lean and limited government, might have taken Leviathan down a few notches... Republicans under Bush have tallied up a budget deficit of historic proportions, added an enormous entitlement to an already unsustainable system, created a vast new security bureaucracy, and strengthened Washington's grip on local schools. Are Republicans selling out ..."

The hand-wringing, cries, lamentations and rending of garments in this series are quite remarkable. Some samples from both the initiating essays and responding Libertarian leaning blogs are excerpted and linked below. They are similar in form, with each complaining bitterly about how the Republicans have made things worse, and then offering up a few "straws to grasp at" for the aggrieved and betrayed supporters of limited government.

Great articles all, and well worth the read. Still, the series reminds me of a humorous commercial currently running on television: In the ad, a group of bankers are hiking through the jungle, and one falls into quicksand. The group forms an "emergency" discussion committee to develop alternative responses to the crisis, while the guy sinks out sight.

My contribution and advice to worried libertarians:

Your "limited government" patient is lying unconscious on the ground bleeding to death. Yes, the patient's leg was blown off by a Republican roadside bomb, and we are all angry at the Republicans and feel really bad about what happened. But this might not be the time to discuss where to build a hospital and how to equip a surgical suite to treat the patient. Right now, we really need to apply a tourniquet and stop the bleeding.

Fortunately, there is a tourniquet in easy reach, from William Niskanen, one of Cato's own. The tourniquet is the election of a divided government in the 2006 election. Apply it first, and once the bleeding is managed, we have an opportunity to help the patient with more advanced treatments.

-------------------

Republicans and the Flight of Opportunity by David Frum

"The goddess was Opportunity and conservatives and Republicans today can appreciate the poignancy of the poet’s description of her departure... deficits in the $400 billion range not only preclude future tax cuts but also raise real doubts about the sustainability of the Bush tax cuts... Meanwhile, the pressures for even further expansion of government are gathering... The state is growing again and it is pre-programmed to carry on growing. Health spending will rise, pension spending will rise, and taxes will rise...The second possibility is that conservatism will live on as a tendency within both parties rather than as a compact and self-conscious movement in control of one of them.... Might not the same be true of the small-government conservative beliefs championed by Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich? It may not be the future we expected for ourselves but what future is?"

-----------------

The Forecast is Grim - So What Are We Going to Do About It? by Bruce Bartlett

"I am very pessimistic about the prospects for conservative/libertarian reform... my friends must think I have totally thrown in the towel on bigger government. This is not so. What I have discussed thus far is simply a forecast of what I see coming... I would welcome a serious debate among libertarians and small government-types on a realistic political strategy for achieving their goals. Simply damning the existing system and withdrawing from it is just a prescription for accelerating the trend toward bigger government.

------------

Where There Is No Vision, the People Perish by David Boaz

"Republicans used to accuse Democrats of setting up a nanny state, one that would regulate every nook and cranny of our lives. They took control of Congress in 1994 by declaring that Democrats had given us government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. After 10 years in power, however, the Republicans have seen the Democrats’ intrusiveness and raised them.... Where there is no vision, the people perish. Or at least the party and its principles... The first task for advocates of limited government is to develop and advance that vision. The Founders, the abolitionists, the free-traders, the Progressives, the Reaganites all honed and advocated their ideas long before they saw political victory. And we must translate that vision into policy proposals, organizations, and political movements... We don’t have to resign ourselves to a counsel of despair. "

---------------

The Volokh Conspiracy - George W, Richard Nixon, and Big Government Conservatism - Ilya Somin

"By now, it is no secret that Bush has presided over a massive expansion of government, even if one sets aside the increase in defense spending since 9/11... In the posts cited above, Bartlett and Frum produce some strong arguments showing that Bush's big government policies might prove to be more lasting than Nixon's did (Goldberg is less pessimistic)... Make no mistake - the growth of government is a very powerful trend, and Bush has done a great deal to exacerbate it. But we should not be too quick to assume that the trend is irreversible."

================

Update: 17-May-06

In "The Democrats and Small Government", Ross Douthat adds to the Cato Unbound conversation by explicitly acknowledging the immediate benefit to be derived from Divided Government:

"Divided government, maybe, is a way to rein in spending."..

But then with a bit intellectual sleight of hand, quickly dismisses the notion by saying you can't support Democrats, well, because they are Democrats.

"... as long as the Democrats are the party of unions, minorities, big-government working-class voters, and converted Rockefeller Republicans... they will never offer a plausible home to anyone who cares about reducing the size of the federal budget...."

"...The Cato Institute and the Christian Coalition are never going to see eye to eye on everything, but they still have a lot of common ground —and a common enemy."

By this conclusion I assume that Douthat is advocating libertarian fealty to the Republican party, supported by the "enemy of my enemy" argument. This is nonsense. To support the acknowledged benefit of divided government by voting Democratic in the 2006 election, is not the same as "finding a home" in the Democratic party. It is simply tactical support to obtain an immediate and desireable result: Fiscal restraint and better federal governance through the mechanism of divided government. To continue to support Republican single party control of the Federal Government in the face of what has actually transpired over the last five years can only be read as a naked appeal to "pay attention to what Republicans say, but ignore what they do."

In fact, by achieving the result of divided government through the support of Democratic candidates in 2006, the supporters of limited government will have a stronger foundation for supporting the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, with the enhanced hope that the next Republican President will actually "walk the walk".

For limited government advocates in 2006:

Republican vs. Democrat is a false choice.

The real choice is Divided Government vs. Single Party control.

===============

Update: 18-May-06

Ryan Sager author of The Elephant in the Room almost gets it right in a couple of interesting posts over at RCP. These quotes from "Hot-Tub Libertarians" and "Out of the Hot Tub, Into the Frying Pan":

"As the Republican Party abandons its commitment to small government, how politically impotent are libertarians? ...no one ever said that libertarians were organized -- or that, when it comes to politics, they have much in the way of brains... But what if they did? How powerful a voting bloc could they be? It's a tough question, and one libertarians have spent far too little time effort researching, but there's a quick and dirty answer: somewhere between 9 percent and 20 percent of the electorate.

"Libertarians need to get serious. And getting serious means organizing. And organizing means within one of the two major parties. I believe that can only be done within the GOP, that there is still a natural logic to fusionism. But I'm happy to hear arguments otherwise."

Okay, Ryan - here is an argument otherwise. Let us deconstruct:

"Libertarians need to get serious." Right.

"Serious means organizing." Right again.

"Organizing means within the one of the two major parties" - hmmm - almost right. I'd put it this way: Organizing means within the existing two party structure.

"Only be done within the GOP"? Wrong.

As pointed out in Ryan's article, libertarian organization is going to have to look different than traditional politics, after all, it is something we will have to be able to accomplish while sitting in the hot-tub.

What is needed, is an organizing principle. Ideally, a principle that is so obvious, so logical, and so clear-cut, that no leadership is needed, no parties are needed, no candidates are needed, and no infrastructure is needed. Ideally it is this easy: You think about the principle, and you know how to vote.

That organizing principle exists. It is Divided Government. It is absolutely clear-cut and easy to understand. Divided Government is documented by Niskanen et.al. to work in a practical real-world manner to restrain the growth of the state. As a voting strategy it can be implemented immediately. More importantly, it can collectively be implemented individually as we sit in our hot tubs and ponder the sorry state of the world.

Whatever the percentage of the electorate that libertarians represent, whether it is 9% or 20%, if they vote as a block for Divided Government, they immediately become the brokers of an evenly split partisan electorate. They arguably become the single most most potent voting block in the country, specifically because they are willing to vote either Democratic or Republican as a block. Specifically because they are not fused to one party or the other.

It means, libertarians must ignore what the politicians say and look at what they actually do (Niskanen again). It means ignoring spurious invitations to fuse with a big tent party that no longer stands for anything meaningful. It means voting straight Democratic in 2006, and (if successful in establishing Divided Government) voting Republican for President in 2008. It means the difference between libertarians being a completely impotent political force, and libertarians having the biggest swinging political "hammer" in town.

And it can be done from the hot tub.

And it can be done this year.

Just Vote Divided.