by John H. Horst
Candidate, California’s 52nd Congressional District
As the race for the Republican presidential nomination comes to a head, it occurs to many of us in California that we may likely have a crucial say – something we are not used to with these things usually being wrapped up by our June primary election.
Regardless of who gets the nod, the rift between the ‘rank-and-file’ voter and the Establishment has been thrust to the forefront. And no one has captured the rift better than Marco Rubio. It is puzzling how concession speeches are often the best speeches of a campaign. I suspect this is because they come from the heart instead of from the ‘profession’. This was certainly the case with Rubio. As I listened I heard him strike a theme I wish he had struck from the very start; things might have turned out differently. Here is the part of his concession speech that struck a chord:
In 2014, [the] voters gave Republicans a majority in the Senate and, still, nothing changed. And I blame some of that on the conservative movement, a movement that is supposed to be about our principles and our ideas. But I blame most of it on our political establishment… a political establishment that has grown to confuse cronyism for capitalism, and big business for free enterprise.
It’s that last line that I wish Rubio had built his campaign around from the start. He might have been able to give a different voice to the anger felt by the electorate. Instead that anger is voiced by Donald Trump – and here we are on the cusp of a fractured Republican party.
What we as conservatives have to remember is Trump is mostly a political personality. He is certainly not philosophical in any substantial way. Neither does he represent a recognizable point of view in terms of policy, be it fiscal, monetary, national security, or otherwise. Our problem is we are talking entirely too much about him and almost not at all about the underlying dynamic (the voters’ anger) which has kept him in the race.
We have created this problem for ourselves. We have created it by failing to understand the distinctions made by Rubio in his speech. I have called this the distinction between adding wealth to the economy and extracting “economic rent.” Rubio’s turns of phrase leaves me wishing: “Man, I wish I had thought of putting it that way.”
Nonetheless I remain encouraged and excited about this year. Great things are in store for us if we conservatives end up – even if we have to be dragged to this place kicking and screaming – asking ourselves whether Rubio has just put his finger right on the real problem.
And that problem has nothing to do with Trump and his antics. It has to do with why the voters are so angry that they are perfectly fine with Trump as their voice. For me, the source of that anger is simple. We are tired of being lied to.
We are told that unemployment is five percent. But that stat only comes by way of dropping those who have been out of work for more than four weeks. Once you pass that magic four week marker, you literally do not count to your government! An honest counting would put the unemployment rate at 9-12 percent! Do we really need any further explanation for the anger?
The broader labor force participation rate is at lows not seen since 1977. We are blithely told this is because of Baby Boomer retirements. Yet the labor force participation rate among those 55 and older is soaring! With interest rates at all but zero, this should be no surprise. Potential retirees look at their savings, interest rates, and come to the conclusion that the promise of retirement was nothing but a cruel joke. If the lies about unemployment were not enough, do we need more than watching retirees forced to re-enter the workforce to explain the anger?
The contretemps we are aiming at Donald Trump ought to be aimed at those running for Congress – including myself. Do we have the backbone to assume the mantle of conservative leadership in Congress even with a Republican president lacking in conservative convictions? There are a number of “hills” to charge in the coming years. Personally, I believe no hill is more important than the hill of the national debt. Do we have the courage to charge that hill on our own – with or without presidential leadership – even to our own political death? I am running to be part of that charge. And if I die my political death on the hill of the national debt, fighting for true conservative principles rather than a hot mess of corporatist, rent-seeker’s pottage, I will come home to my boys with honor, able to look them in the eye and say I left it all on that hill so they might have a prosperous future.
Comments 6
“Lies about unemployment” are you kidding me ? Have the metrics changed ? I think the last administration to change the metrics was Bush 1. I’m amazed that conservatives are changing their tune about crony capitalism and pay to play politics. You are finally figuring out that you’ve been screwed by your own party. They are really good at cutting taxes for the wealthy while running up the debt. Every one of your candidates has promised more war. I say NO MORE WAR unless you raise taxes to pay for it. No more hiding behind war as an excuse.
Paul… Yes, the metrics have changed. And yes, both parties have played this game. Those you call ‘conservatives’ are, in many instances, those who I might call ‘corporatists’. We heard Senator Mike Lee (UT) speak the other day and in a meet and greet I put it out there: our party does not seem to know the difference any more.
A tax is – and always will be – the price of a transaction. The reason why we insist on lower taxes overall is simple: You cannot make something (transactions) more expensive (higher taxes) and then expect to get more of it (economic growth). A higher price on transactions will result in fewer transactions… that is not how you grow an economy.
Now on the debt I think we are closer. Income inequality is a function of the corporatist debt loop: Make promises which cannot be kept – Paper over the deception with T-Bills – Wall Street buys the bonds, trades them, and rakes in billions in fees and commissions – and then uses those billions to fund the campaigns of the same politicians making promises that cannot be kept. This is the “hot mess of corporatist, rent seeker’s pottage” I am referring to.
We will not fix this until we get our economy back to creating wealth again, not extracting rents and transferring wealth.
John,
“We will not fix this until we get our economy back to creating wealth again…”
Seriously? Please let me know of a time in our history, or the history of any other country, when there was more wealth.
HQ, you are right. The problem is the wealth got re-distributed to the wealthiest. John: The most prosperous time in our history, when the middle class emerged, had the highest tax rates in history for the wealthy. They avoided taxes by paying higher wages and providing health care and pensions to attract the brightest and the best for their enterprises. They did it without complaint because they knew their bacon was saved on the backs of the feds and the soldiers of WW2.
No thanks to IBM, Henrey Ford, and Prescott Bush…all Nazi supporters. Could you imagine the right wing shit storm if Obama’s grandfather had worked for Hitler’s war machine?
Paul,
You are of course correct about the accumulation of wealth at the top, but I doubt that John was complaining about the government transferring wealth TO the rich.
The govenment’s relation to small business is like the story of the little red hen. The government doesn’t want to help make the pie. and nobody who makes the pie gets to eat the pie.
Thus the moral of that story is that those who say no to contribution to a product do not deserve to enjoy the product: “if any would not work, neither should he eat.
The government declares those who helped make the pie aren’t getting their “fair share.” Then charge administrative costs to those who sets out and make the pie.”
Moral of this story. Why should anybody make the pie in the first place.