“Tax Cuts Are Good”

November 7th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

In the debate about why Sen. John McCain and Republicans in general lost the elections bigtime this week, some conservative bloggers have argued that the main reason was because the GOP was unable to articulate a clear conservative message. They then proceeded to explain what they believe conservatism should stand for and how it should be communicated to voters.

One such conservative is Ace of the Ace of Spaces blog, a highly popular conservative blog.

Ace started off by writing that the main difference between McCain on the one hand and George W. Bush and especially Ronald Reagan was that the former did not have a clear vision. “Everything with him is personal gut,” Ace wrote, “principle-free, just an instinct, an impulse, which often takes him in wildly contradictory places.”

Although the conservative blogger is correct in his criticism, for McCain lacked a clear vision for America, making it impossible for him to articulate a message that would stick with voters. But he then goes wrong by arguing the following: “He wants to lower taxes. Sorta. Sometimes. Maybe. In election years.”

This seems to imply that a conservative should always support tax cuts, which is a silly idea, and a disastrous one when put into practice.

Relatively low taxes are part of conservatism, but Edmund Burke himself would be the first one to tell Ace that a conservative should not support tax cuts at all times. Sometimes, cutting taxes is unwise, for it could cost the government revenues for essential programs. Sometimes, say in times of crisis, lowering taxes could be unwise, because the government will try to intervene in one way or another in the economy in order to prevent it from collapsing entirely. Supporting tax cuts at all times is ludicrous.

McCain did indeed fail to articulate a clear vision and message, but the examples given by Ace imply that he too does not quite understand what a conservative vision should be all about.

Conservative leaders should articulate a clear message, yes, but one that is rooted in tradition, pragmatism and realism above all else. McCain should explain why tax cuts are sometimes good and sometimes wrong, why government spending is important in certain areas, but counterproductive or useless in others.

Running on a ‘tax cuts are always good’ platform will result in an even bigger debt and deficit than the U.S. currently has.

Conservative politicians should stop being opportunists and start being statesmen. Responsible governance should come first and foremost. That is what American conservatism should be about, and which will bring victory to the Republican Party.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Interested
    November 7th, 2008 at 00:57
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I think the why was pretty clear – at least to me.

    Obama had a better message, clear, distinct, repeated.
    McCain found his stride way too late. narrowing polls as time went on confirmed his message was getting out – he just needed more time (the time he already wasted). The Maverick theme was good and many liked it – but it also says where are the base values you will not stray from and do I identify with those.

    I think if the economic institutions had not failed it would have been much closer election. But times like these people want a mommy.

  2. TerjeP
    November 8th, 2008 at 17:53
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Conservatives should always offer tax cuts. The electorate should decide if it wants them.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.