What Differentiates Republicans and Democrats
I saw this chart from Cato a while back (click to enlarge)
With the proviso that it is super dangerous to analyze this sort of data by eyeballing a scatter chart, it sure looks to me like the difference between Republicans and Democrats is mainly on economic rather than social issues. This is surprising, I suppose, because Democrats and the media focus most of their criticism on Republicans for being social dinosaurs, but it looks like the social issues are not as much of a discriminator. I also find it surprising given recent the Republican affinity for what strike me as liberal economic ideas, including Trump's protectionism and the strong vote for a minimum wage in red-state Arizona.
I will say however that Bryan Caplan has been on this for years. As he reiterated the other day,
I regretfully invoke my Simplistic Theory of Left and Right. The heart of the left isn't helping the poor, or reducing inequality, or even minority rights. The heart of the left is being anti-market.... The second half of my Simplistic Theory says: The heart of the right is being anti-left.
I like the way he puts the last bit, because I SURE would struggle to call modern Republicans pro-market.
In this post, by the way, Caplan is skeptical about the feasibility of progressive-libertarian concerted action on certain issues. I know my friend Brink Lindsey is working on a book to be released in the fall which will make a case for such areas of cooperation.
I will say from my personal experience that as a libertarian I was able for years to make common cause with the Left on certain issues and on the Right for other issues. I found, starting a couple of years ago when I tried to participate in the leadership of a pro gay marriage effort, that it was increasingly hard for me to work with the progressive Left. To work with me, they demanded not just that I agree with the issue at hand, but that I also had to pass any number of other litmus tests unrelated to the issue we were working on -- ie I could not be allowed to work for gay marriage given that I had expressed skeptical opinions on the minimum wage and catastrophic man-made climate change.
Yep, there is no classification system that works for all. One classifies only if the classification is more useful than not. If everyone is held to have their unique view, then one will have no idea what might boil up out of the confusion.
Obamacare is the counter example to your generalization that the left wants "the government in charge of healthcare as much as possible."
Your tax argument proceeds from the very wrong premise that all taxation is theft. If that were true, then the only way to eliminate government theft is to eliminate taxation which eliminates government which is the definition of anarchy. I am assuming you are not an anarchist and that there is some degree of taxation that you agree is justified. Who pays that tax is left to an argument over fairness. Since I consider the current distribution of taxes to be unfair to the poor (as Warren Buffet argued, "why should I pay a lower percentage of my income in taxes than my secretary"), Trumpcare's major shift of the tax burden from the rich to the poor is even more unfair.
We are not seeing the same thing out in the field. I live in Maryland, full of Democrats, and get the news about Virginia, full of Republicans. The Maryland Democrats are a garden party compared to the shootout among Virginia Republicans.
Politics is largely a local phenomenon.
I have seen some hatred - some of the rabid Trumpers were pretty angy, and as I said, the #NeverTrump folks have largely gone around the bend. But... this is also a sign that Republicans simply do not hold their membership in uber-politically correct jails, unlike Democrats.
And if you really want to see fighting, watch the libertarians.
Saying that progressives hate markets is too strong. They distrust capitalism in the abstract. But they really, really love farmer's markets. I live in Ann Arbor, where progressives are thick on the ground and approximately none of them think that all restaurants or grocery stores or auto companies or plumbing contractors or apartment buildings, etc, etc, etc should be government owned and operated. They mostly dislike corporations, but there are major exceptions there for for-profit firms that support progressive politics or enter partnerships with government (NY Times Co, Tesla). But there are certain industries (health care and education particularly) where progressives think for-profit businesses should have NO role at all. Health care and education are, in the progressive view, sacred and profit is profane.
The bill that a large portion of a political group wants to pass and the reality of a bill that is able to get passed are two different things. It is disingenuous to contend that Obamacare is exactly the bill the "left" (however that is being defined) wanted. It was the "best" they could squeeze through.
With regards to taxation as theft, I am merely using the terminology, "rob", that you used. I don't personally view taxation as theft, per se, however, it is quite clear that taxes are forcibly taken.
Though I am glad to see you pivot to making an actual argument. However, it is weak. Warren Buffet's secretary that you mention makes well over $100K annually. I'm not sure anyone would categorize that as "poor". It does make for a nice sound bite though. If one looks at actual numbers, nearly half of Americans don't pay any income tax. Workers do pay payroll taxes, however, on average, inflation adjusted payback is higher than what was paid in. And in general, lower income workers do better in this regard than higher income workers. I clearly have my own opinion and biases, but when nearly half the country is getting more money from the federal government than is being taken out of their paycheck I have a hard time seeing how that it unfair to poor. Unless the argument is that the middle class should pay more to assist the truly poor. I could probably get behind that argument.
You also appear to be defining "tax burden" to mean less money received from the government, which while a bit odd, I guess if you get $5K from the government instead of $7K that could be defined as a burden.
My personal opinion is that whatever you believe, make arguments on the merits. For example, if you think the tax code should be used to redistribute wealth, just argue specifics and why that is an effective policy (ie. what is "fair" and why is that better overall for society). #Fairness or misleading talking points about Warren Buffet's secretary don't make for compelling arguments. Unfortunately #WeAreThe99% is pretty effective for many, though many require more. For example, I've shifted my position regarding more funding for drug rehabilitation and recovery vs say locking up non-violent drug offenders and that was through reading compelling arguments.
Regardless, I have enjoyed our discussion.
Some of the left wanted single payer and some did not. They came to an agreement on Obamacare. If they can do that, then it is inaccurate to say that the left wants "the government in charge of healthcare as much as possible."
When you argue that lowering a tax on the rich "is 'less robbing' the rich," you are endorsing lowering taxes on the rich all the way to zero "robbing of the rich." You can compare absolute and relative tax burdens and net outflows and inflows of benefits (please count tax deductions and credits for the rich), but you cannot rationally deny that the rich are getting more of their share of benefits from government than do the poor. You also cannot deny that the Republican health bill makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Making unjustified inequality worse is a bad thing to my way of thinking.
"After 8 years of calling for "repeal of ObamaCare", we found that the Pubs had no bill ready to go under Trump. There had been no dicussions, working groups, focus groups, data analysis, or economic scoring."
If you believe in individual liberty and free markets the last thing that you want is for the GOP to use focus groups or data analysis to create their own version of ObamaCare. What you want is to get the government out of the delivery of health care because the markets are far better at allocating scarce resources than politicians. I am sorry my friend but I think that you are confused.
"The hard truth is that the Pubs (and Dems) didn't think a non-Uniparty candidate like Trump would be elected, so there was no need to work on a plan in the past 8 years. The only reason the Pubs are proposing anything is that they are a bit frightened of Trump's election and what may happen in the future."
But Trump has his own problems. He does not have any principles that he is willing to defend. He seems to be a moral relativist and a populist in search for what people want so that he can market to them more effectively. While a much better option than Hillary, Trump is not what one would want in a president from a philosophical point of view.
"The Dems will resume their march into the Socialist-Utopia future. The Uniparty will continue to live comfortably off the American people. All will be well as it was in the past."
You are far too pessimistic. I see Wile E. Coyote having run off the cliff with his legs turning but the full effect of gravity not yet in effect. You guys live in a country that is broke. Your Social Welfare programs have too many obligations but there is no way to keep the promises without massive restructuring in the way that government works. That means that the parasites will not continue to live off the taxpayers for much longer. I see an effective default by a devaluation of the currency. I see a future in which government employees are seen as thugs that deserve no respect from taxpayers and one in which government payrolls go down by 80% or more. Perhaps you will need to burn down some of your cities before this happens. Perhaps Trump will need to declassify all of the NSA data so that the taxpayers can see how they live in one giant prison. Perhaps you will need to see the shale companies confess that they have been unable to generate any positive free cash flow because their operations are not economic outside of a few small core areas. Perhaps you will need to see a major failure in an energy sector where maintenance budgets have been cut so that the producers could stay in business until the entire Fed driven alternative and unconventional bubble bursts and reality can take hold again. Perhaps it will take a failure of the electric grid or the revelation that the futures markets have been rigged in favour of the companies on Wall Street. I have no idea what the catalyst will be but there will be a material change in the way that Americans see reality.
Do you really believe that government can protect you? Would 9/11 had happened if the American government minded its own business and stayed out of Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region? Which country has been a greater threat to your freedom than your own? It is the NSA, not the Russians who are reading your emails and keeping your phone calls. France cannot confiscate your property because you are carrying $2,000 in cash with you. Thugs from the Australian government are not telling you how big your toilet tank must be, what the pressure drop in your shower head has to be, or how many air bags you must have in your car. That too is your own government.
I am sorry to point this out but both the Right and the Left are beyond redemption. The only people worse are the Centrists who adopt the worst ideas from the two sides.
You commit a common logical fallacy: since the government failed to protect us in one or another case, then government cannot protect us at all. That is so, so silly.
Then you list a few things the government does wrong, so government must be all bad. Another logical fallacy.
In other words, your arguments are simply silly.
Oh, and you don't offer an alternative, of course. Just a rant.
To Vangel:
(1) You miss the point. The Pubs did nothing to support their announced goal of repeal. You hate focus groups, but policy has to be sold, and focus groups are a way to learn how to sell it. Free market policy especially has to be sold, as it is criticized as "doing nothing".
(2) Trumps flaws are irrelevant. He promised that the mainstream Pubs would deliver on their promises. Now, they are scurrying to deliver something, anything that isn't called ObamaCare.
(3) I don't see that you are optimistic. Give an example of a society which collapsed economically and emerged as supporting a free market. Politicians blame markets on the way down and take control during the reorganization. See Russia, Zimbabwe, and Venezuella.
In particular for Venezualla, the masses are starving, but they call for a better socialism rather than free markets.
"You commit a common logical fallacy: since the government failed to protect us in one or another case, then government cannot protect us at all. That is so, so silly."
Not at all. I merely point out that you are much more likely to be harmed by your government than to be saved by it from harm.
"Then you list a few things the government does wrong, so government must be all bad. Another logical fallacy."
Government is based on theft and force. That is what makes it bad. I prefer a society based on voluntary association.
"In other words, your arguments are simply silly."
Not at all. Look at what government does in your country. It consumes more than 50% of the productive output of the private sector. That used to be called slavery. It has saddled your children with massive liabilities that they will be asked to pay for. It has robbed savers, workers, and investors while it has transferred wealth to the financial system. Where exactly is the 'good' that it does?
"Oh, and you don't offer an alternative, of course. Just a rant."
My alternative is a society with as little government as possible. Start by firing 99% of the federal employees and privatizing most of the things that would be left. Do you really need the federal government to own 90% of Arizona and Nevada? Why should the government tell me what size my toilet tank has to be? Why does it have to force automobile manufacturers to make cars that they don't want to make and consumers would prefer not to buy? Why does the government have to force consumers to subsidize corn growers by placing mandates about adding ethanol to gasoline? Why do American patients have to pay $850 for a pill that I can find for $0.25 in England, Barbados, or India? Why can't I grow and use my own pot? Why can't I brew my own alcohol or buy it from my neighbours? Why does my barber have to have a license to cut hair? Why can't a nurse perform simple medical procedures or a pharmacist sell me medication without a prescription? Why does the federal government get to tell businesses how many women they must hire or what type of bathroom policies they must have? Why does the government encourage universities to discriminate against Asians so that more black students with lower grades can get in?
If you can't see the problem, you are hiding from reality.
Much more likely... no, you did not demonstrate that at all. Your anti-government attitude only works in a world that is not full of hostile countries and people much poorer than us who would like to take what we have.
Democratic government is *not* based on theft and force. It does require the ability to use force, for the common defense at a minimum.
You offer a society with as little government as possible and fire 99% of the federal employees. The next day, Mexico invades and conquers us, since we no longer have a military.
Bye.
"1) You miss the point. The Pubs did nothing to support their announced goal of repeal. You hate focus groups, but policy has to be sold, and focus groups are a way to learn how to sell it. Free market policy especially has to be sold, as it is criticized as "doing nothing"."
I think that you are missing the point. I don't need a government policy on breakfast cereal or computer keyboards because the market can provide me with what I want and need much better than central planners. The Republicans love big government and are not very different than Democrats. Neither party stands for liberty yet both are hypocritical and claim that they love freedom.
"2) Trumps flaws are irrelevant. He promised that the mainstream Pubs would deliver on their promises. Now, they are scurrying to deliver something, anything that isn't called ObamaCare."
What did he promise again? When he was running he said that he would REPEAL Obamacare. It was only after he was elected and many GOP voters cried about how they loved subsidized care that he insisted on a replacement. He is a pragmatist and has no principles.
"3) I don't see that you are optimistic. Give an example of a society which collapsed economically and emerged as supporting a free market. Politicians blame markets on the way down and take control during the reorganization. See Russia, Zimbabwe, and Venezuella."
Look at Russia. It is much freer today than it was when it was communist. Look at Poland and you see the same thing. Most Eastern European countries are far more inclined to support liberty than Americans. I lived in China and in Yugoslavia. Both are much more oriented towards economic liberty today than they ever were under Mao or Tito. What your system needs is an enema that flushes away both the corrupt politicians and the idiots who elected them.
"Your tax argument proceeds from the very wrong premise that all taxation is theft."
Income tax is theft. Excise tax is theft. Which tax isn't theft? And if it isn't why not make it voluntary?
"If that were true, then the only way to eliminate government theft is to eliminate taxation which eliminates government which is the definition of anarchy."
Anarchy does not mean that there are no rules; only that there is no ruler. I notice that you communicate in English. Who was the person or what was the institution that developed the language? I think that you need to read your Hayek and learn about spontaneous order and voluntary society. Or better yet, read Rothbard. He is clearer and easier to follow.
"I am assuming you are not an anarchist and that there is some degree of taxation that you agree is justified."
What do you have against voluntary association?
"Who pays that tax is left to an argument over fairness. Since I consider the current distribution of taxes to be unfair to the poor (as Warren Buffet argued, "why should I pay a lower percentage of my income in taxes than my secretary"), Trumpcare's major shift of the tax burden from the rich to the poor is even more unfair."
This is stupid. The poor don't pay income tax. Most of the money comes from the top ten percent and the amount is disproportionate. Note that the tax eaters are the poor. A rich neighbourhood does not consume much in the way of police and fire resources. It consumes less in health care and education. It gets less in food stamps, social welfare, etc. Where some of the rich get welfare is through bailouts, subsidies, and mandates but that is only made possible due to support of idiots in the underclass and the virtue signalling middle class and left intellectuals. Elon Musk would not destroy billions in taxpayer revenue in a free market. Buffett would not be able to make extraordinary gains because the government builds moats around his businesses.
I prefer liberty. The question is why you reject it.
"The bill that a large portion of a political group wants to pass and the reality of a bill that is able to get passed are two different things. It is disingenuous to contend that Obamacare is exactly the bill the "left" (however that is being defined) wanted. It was the "best" they could squeeze through."
The Democrats controlled all of the government. They wrote the bill and voted for it without the support of a single Republican. That means that they own Obamacare. Where the GOP went full retard is trying to wrestle ownership over a sinking ship.
"Some of the left wanted single payer and some did not. They came to an agreement on Obamacare. If they can do that, then it is inaccurate to say that the left wants "the government in charge of healthcare as much as possible.""
How is that inaccurate? The Left wants government to run healthcare and detests a free market system. That is what you have. (Note that the GOP is not all that much better.)
"When you argue that lowering a tax on the rich "is 'less robbing' the rich," you are endorsing lowering taxes on the rich all the way to zero "robbing of the rich.""
Why should anyone pay income taxes? You own your own body and should have the right to use that body to earna
living through your thoughts and actions. Why should the government get a cut?
"You can compare absolute and relative tax burdens and net outflows and inflows of benefits (please count tax deductions and credits for the rich), but you cannot rationally deny that the rich are getting more of their share of benefits from government than do the poor."
I can. The rich pay most of the income taxes and pay far more as a percentage than their share of earnings. They use far less of the social welfare resources than the poor. Note that I am not saying that the poor benefit from being forced to be a part of a permanent underclass that depends on the bureaucrats that are extorting money from the rich so that they can buy votes from the poor. All Ponzi schemes end and when they do, I expect that the poor will suffer a great deal more than those in the productive class.
"You also cannot deny that the Republican health bill makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Making unjustified inequality worse is a bad thing to my way of thinking."
It does not. The GOP bill is still getting in the way of better and cheaper healthcare that is delivered by the free market. If the GOP had the stones to stop bowing to the insurance companies and hospitals the way that the Democrats do, Americans would have access to far more choices and far cheaper care options. If a free market system were allowed to work you would see companies like Costco, Walmart, Walgreens, etc., offer very cheap access to their customers and would see an explosion of concierge services where doctors offered more access at lower prices. And if the GOP got rid of the FDA imposed burdens and the patent monopolies you would see much more effective allocation of resources in the pharmaceutical space where costs fell even as the reliance on drugs was lowered.
Free markets work. Central planning doesn't. If you don't believe me, look at Cuba, USSR, China, Venezuela, India, etc.
"Much more likely... no, you did not demonstrate that at all. Your anti-government attitude only works in a world that is not full of hostile countries and people much poorer than us who would like to take what we have."
There are always hostile countries. But if they are poorer they can never be a threat. You have two oceans protecting you. Which nation do you think can ever challenge you again? How do you suppose that nation will be able to carry out its dastardly plans?
And let us not imagine hostility but look to real hostility. Japan only attacked at Pearl after your country cut off its oil supplies. Your government had broken the codes and knew what was happening but chose to let the attack be carried out because it wanted an excuse to enter WW II so that the people could be distracted from the never-ending depression that the governments of Hoover and FDR created. Since then, the taxpayers have been fleeced to support a permanent military that is used to intervene abroad so that those with connections can profit from it. Would 9/11 have happened had your government not trained, armed, and financed al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia?
"Democratic government is *not* based on theft and force."
Sure it is. I hate to use a cliche but democracy is two wolves and a sheep vote to see what is for dinner. And don't you know your history? You are supposed to have a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
"It does require the ability to use force, for the common defense at a minimum."
I seem to recall a collection of rebels fighting off the greatest military in the world without a central government that called all of the shots. Individual states can have provisions for their own defense as decided by their citizens. You don't need a King in Washington to call the shots. And you are not supposed to have a standing army.
Why is it that most Americans are totally unfamiliar with their own history? Didn't you guys take civics? Didn't you read the texts of the discussions at the ratifying conventions?
"Your anti-government attitude only works in a world that is not full of hostile countries and people much poorer than us who would like to take what we have."
I have an attitude against the State, not governance. I have no problem with voluntary association. I have a problem with the bikers moving in next door and voting on who owns my television. Why don't you?
"Democratic government is *not* based on theft and force. It does require the ability to use force, for the common defense at a minimum."
It always has been. Behind all regimes are political insiders pulling the levers from behind the curtains. The fact that you do not see the strings does not mean that you are not a marionette.
"You offer a society with as little government as possible and fire 99% of the federal employees. The next day, Mexico invades and conquers us, since we no longer have a military."
I once went to a talk in which the guy who was advising Antropov had to admit to one of the pro-Reagan types that the state of Texas had more people who knew how to use automatic weapons than were in the Russian army. I suggest that you educate yourself because the level of ignorance is astounding.