By Kaleena Fraga
Sometimes, it seems that the lure of tax cuts is all that is keeping the Republican party going. The House Speaker, Paul Ryan, has consistently tuned out the political storm around him–Russia! Collusion! Roy Moore!–holding instead a feverish focus on his goal of cutting taxes, half-joking that it’s what he wanted to do since he was drinking from kegs.
Ryan duly follows the Reagan era wisdom that a tax cut, largely benefitting the richest Americans, will drive economic growth for all. In his plan, 80% of the benefits would go to the top 1%. The average tax cut of the top tenth of the top 1% would be $1 million dollars annually. The plan would additionally slash the corporate tax rate, even though corporate profits are at an all time high. Although there is some feeble insistence from the White House that this is a tax cut for the middle class, it clearly has its roots in ideology from 1980s.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran on the idea of a large tax cut in order to spur economic growth after a lagging decade. His opponent in the primaries (and future vice president) George H.W. Bush, labeled this idea “voodoo economics” during a debate at Carnegie Mellon University. As a candidate for vice president, Bush had to backtrack. He later got in trouble himself when, as president, he promised to not raise taxes (the infamous “read my lips” statement), but felt so strongly that they were necessary that he went back on his word.
After the Reagan tax cuts were passed in 1981, the U.S. government developed huge deficits. In fact, one of Reagan’s advisors and an architect on the 1981 tax cut recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post to warn that tax cuts do not equal growth.
In addition, the country can look to Kansas as a canary in a coal mine. Similar trickle-down tax cuts in that state slowed growth, produced less than expected revenue, and forced cuts to government programs.
The GOP–desperate for a legislative win–seems determined to push the cuts through. Democrats are united against the plan, but would need Republican support to stop their passage. Until then, it would be prudent for President Trump to look to history, to a living member of his exclusive club, to see just how tricky voodoo economics can be.
By Kaleena Fraga
On Wednesday, Senator Jeff Flake did a remarkable thing–he stood up in front of his colleagues and denounced the president of his own party. Flake called President Trump’s policies “destructive.” He declared he would no longer be “complicit or silent.” And Flake said he hoped that his words would have the same effect as Jack Welch in 1954, when Welch turned to Joe McCarthy and asked the question that ended McCarthy’s career–“have you no sense of decency?”
Welch expressed what many in government thought but feared to say and his words carried weight with Americans who’d watched the McCarthy hearings on TV. McCarthy’s popularity quickly dried up. He was censured by his colleagues in the Senate and died three years later at 48, an alcoholic. It was a spectacular downfall for a man who’d once cowed Eisenhower into dropping remarks praising McCarthy enemy John Foster Dulles.
For Flake to say he hoped his words would produce a similar reaction seems to suggest that Flake is gunning for impeachment. He joins his colleagues John McCain and Bob Corker in their outspoken disapproval of the president’s behavior (if not, judging by their votes, his policies). Flake seems to think that his words may encourage others to voice their opinions, since it’s widely acknowledged that many GOP senators share Flake’s view but are not willing to air their grievances in public. After all, aside from their dislike of the president, Flake, Corker & McCain have one other thing in common–none of them are running for reelection.
Flake’s words could turn the tide. He could be the Jack Welch in this saga. Or he could be the Nelson Rockefeller.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater won the Republican nomination through tough talk, endorsements of extreme methods, and his blasé attitude toward using nuclear weapons–he was the inspiration for LBJ’s “<a href="http://”Daisy” ad and he once said the U.S. should “lob one into the men’s room at the Kremlin.” The Republican party faced a struggle for its soul over his nomination but given the ferocity of his popularity among many Republican voters, no one wanted to speak out against him. Nelson Rockefeller, who’d run but lost the nomination tried. During the GOP convention in which Goldwater declared, “extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice,” Rockefeller denounced “extremists” in the Republican ranks.
His words were drowned out by boos.
It’s too early to tell if Flake will encourage his colleagues to speak out or if he’ll be shunned by Republican voters. It certainly seems that two kinds of Republicans are emerging from the Trump presidency. But then again, maybe this all started in 1964, when a Republican had to decide if s/he were a “Goldwater” Republican, or something else entirely.
By Kaleena Fraga
Former FBI Director James Comey made some social media waves Monday morning when he posted a picture of himself on Twitter. This was remarkable for a couple of reasons. The internet had long speculated that the twitter handle “Reinhold Niebuhr” belonged to Comey–the photo seemed to be an outright confirmation. Secondly, the picture depicted Comey standing among the corn in Iowa, wearing athletic shoes. Twitter responded with: “he’s running.”*
Regarding Comey, is it really that crazy of an idea? Many Americans are sick of both parties, as evidenced by the strong trend toward third party and outlier candidates during 2016. If Comey were to run in 2020, he could present himself as someone who always puts country first–and he certainly has the enemies on both sides of the aisle to prove it.
Comey could, in theory, try to create an Eisenhower like aura around his candidacy. He is someone who is accomplished in his field, who is seen by most as trustworthy and honorable, and he knows the ins and outs of Washington as well or better than other possible 2020 candidates. He is seen as steady and straightforward (a contrast to the current administration) and has the history to prove that he’s not partisan. Comey stood up to George W. Bush, refused to be rattled by Hillary Clinton, and kept his cool around Donald Trump.
Of course, he does have enemies. Democrats blame him for throwing the election to Trump by reviving Clinton’s email issue in the waning days of the campaign. Many Republicans see him as a “showboat” (Trump’s word) and disloyal for his conduct during his time in the Trump administration. But if Comey’s campaign were able to spin this as a positive, as an indication that he has always gone with his country over his party, no matter the consequences, he could be an appealing candidate for Americans tired of partisan rancor. And they’re sure to see plenty of that during the 2020 campaign.
It’s early. Still, stranger things have happened.
*For those who don’t know, the twitter comment “he/she’s running” is used ironically, and can be posted about almost anyone doing almost anything. It’s a mockery of the rampant speculation surrounding 2020.
By Kaleena Fraga
Political ads have come a long way since the Eisenhower era. This jingle is impossible to forget–even the most stalwart Democrat will find themselves humming it.
A lot of things contributed to Ike’s victory in 1952–fatigue among Americans of the Democratic party (after all, Dems had been in power since 1933), a feisty and well defined campaign by the Republicans (Ike’s VP pick, Richard Nixon, was able to emphasize the three “Cs”–China, Communism, Corruption), and the disdain of Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic nominee, toward ads like Ike’s. Stevenson refused to be “sold like soap.”
Although this ad is the most famous, Eisenhower also utilized television to reach out to Americans by producing dozens of 20 second videos called “Eisenhower Answers America,” in which he’d respond to a question posed by a sympathetic citizen.
In this way, Ike was way ahead of the curve when it came to using television to advertise and promote a political campaign. Who knows what he might have done with Twitter.