If Republicans want to win, they have to repudiate the 'rule of 65 percent'
Back in my days as a Libertarian activist, a colleague referred to the rule of 65% to describe the ever so slight difference between Democrats and Republicans — which he lumped together as "Republicrats." He said the only true difference between them was that, rather than soundly denouncing Democrat boondoggles, Republicans only wanted to pare down the price of such endeavors to 65% of their proposed cost. He later became a professor of economics.
My lingering skepticism of this rule was seriously diminished in 1996 when I watched a vice presidential debate between the incumbent, Al Gore, and the conservative rising star, Jack Kemp. The moderator threw out the subject of government-mandated paid family leave. Gore simply gushed with enthusiasm over such a concept. I lurched to attention, realizing that Kemp had just been served up on a silver platter a marvelous opportunity for a Reaganesque reply. I was expecting Kemp to say something like: "Well, there you go again. It's as if, for thousands of years of human history, folks couldn't raise their families without some kind of government assistance." But instead, he did the 65% shuffle and endorsed the concept...but at a reduced price.
My, how times have changed. As I write, Congress is in turmoil over massive spending proposals, one called reconciliation and the other called infrastructure. Yeah, there are still a few Republican "Mossbacks" stuck in the mud of 65%, but the real tension is between the stark urban Progressive Democrats and those Democrats from elsewhere who want to get re-elected next year. The Republicans are smelling blood, and it's not their own. Obviously, many of these characters are waiting to see the results of Tuesday's elections — particularly in Virginia.
For the Republicans, Trump and the Tea Party have finally made their mark. Finding new ways to dispose of the taxpayers' hard-earned money is no longer as politically sexy as it used to be. Then there's the frequent mentioning of a once forbidden word: inflation. Biden's toadies are constantly saying price jumps and empty shelves are only "temporary." And there is some truth in that...but that doesn't negate the fact that folks are really feeling the squeeze.
Some supply chain problems are fixable, near-term, but others aren't. We can't just open up a new can of truck drivers or computer chip factories. And the damage done by excessive government borrowing is particularly long-term. Meanwhile (ahem), the lapdog news media have squandered much of their credibility and are not as able to protect their cohorts as they once were. But what really takes the cake is how uncareful the Democrats have been in exposing their weaknesses. Take Terry McAuliffe, for example. Bad-mouthing ordinary parents in order to defend his teachers' union ATM. Yeah, they can ship boatloads of money to him, but they can vote only so many times without getting caught.
Welcome to the current situation. Far-leftist public policies are being hammered while the public is getting ever more angry. Beneath all of this is the lead-up. History is a serious influence on the present. How does, say, AOC explain Trump's presidency? Better ask a more cognizant being...but are there any?
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.