Republicans for Bernie Sanders?

Eric Andersen Eric Andersen 12 Comments


EricAs I write, a few friends are posting pictures with Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) (Heritage Action Scorecard 65% and below the Republican average of 68%). I’m not sure that’s a good idea. In academia when we only understand the subject matter 65 percent of the time, we get a “D”.

If Congress chooses Rep. McCarthy as the next Speaker I think we’re going to see more of the likes of Bernie Sanders.

“Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.”

From where does that timely analysis come? Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848. Those words offer an uncanny insight of the danger to Marxprosperity when our natural rights are encroached by our elites. The farther we proceed down the path of allowing Democrats and faux Republicans to socially engineer our economy, the more we will see the debt-ridden middle class and labor unite behind support for candidates like Bernie Sanders. Just this month and over the pond in Britain we saw Jeremy Corbyn, a veteran of the hard Left of British politics, a man who looks forward to the end of capitalism, rose to become the powerful leader of the Labor Party.

Ideas have consequences.

When the fundamentals of markets are compromised, the machinery of capitalism breaks down. We still call it “capitalism,” but is it? We still see the shiny exterior of a red 1967 Chevrolet Corvette but a look under the hood reveals decades of abuse and deferred maintenance. Where once existed the most prosperous nation in 5,000 years of human history now sits a stagnant economy despite nearly seven years of near zero interest rates and trillions of dollars of quantitative easing (fancy term for printing lots of money). Drive down a typical San Diego street and you will see nice homes with two cars in the driveway but you will not see the consumer debt levels that are tenfold what they were in the 1940s or know that real wages have been flat for decades.

McCarthyWant to help politicians with the values of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) get elected? Continue to increase poverty by promoting politicians who only uphold limited government and free market values 65 percent of the time. Elect Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as Speaker of the House, and elect a man whose proclivity for Jeffersonian values is below average and uninspiring. Go ahead Washington. Send us the message that you can’t hear us and it is business as usual for the Republican Party.

If House Republicans continue to neglect their limited government playbook and fail to use their majorities in both houses to fulfill their role of being a “check and balance” on the executive, the public sector will continue to grow at the expense of the private. More Americans will become unemployed and underemployed and more will become vulnerable to the siren song of Uncle Bernie.

Watching friends in our party innocently post their pictures with McCarthy communicates that the root of our problem is local. It makes it appear we are more enamored of those with whom we are seen than the boring and ordinary machinery of prosperity. Ideas have consequences.

Until our party recommits to treating all men as equals and protecting property, and has leadership which passionately upholds these ideas, there will be no reform. We might as well allow Congress to pass legislation making all future triangles six sided. Until reforms are addressed upholding free markets, issues like immigration and a $19 minimum wage, the likes of what we saw last week in Berkeley will continue to appear and opponents the likes of Bernie Sanders will flourish.

Let’s stop pointing at the other side of the aisle and start looking in the mirror. Reform begins with our house. Reform begins with me. No McCarthys. No Sanders. One is a reaction to the other.

Eric Andersen is a member of the San Diego County Republican Party Central Committee and is the Co-Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus of San Diego County and In 2012 he was the Rock Church Citizen of the Year. He holds other crazy ideas like all men are created equal and believes in life, liberty and justice for all.


Comments 12

  1. ” If house republicans continue to neglect their limited gov. playbook”. When Bush had the house and the senate the federal govt. grew at a rate never seen before.
    Who do you want? Louie Goemert? The one thing hard liners like you forget is that Reagan knew how to work WITH the other side.The new breed of Republicans want their way or we’ll shut ‘er down.
    McCarthy got a weak rating because of his immigration stance. His district is 30% Hispanic.

  2. Question for Paul: were the Democrats of Reagan’s era–the Tip O’Neills of the Senate– easier to work with than today’s lot? Have today’s Democrats swung so far to left that compromise with them would be tantamount to capitulation?

  3. Post

    Paul – you are correct. Bush grew the government and in the process put to shame many a Dem. Point taken.

    I think the difference between your position and my own is that you may be more concerned with retaining power than me. Compromise has not produced reform. Productivity and prosperity are functions of ideals that by nature are not to be compromised and which these legislators took solemn oaths to uphold. I would never compromise the unalienable rights or freedoms of Paul Therrio. When we begin moving from that capitalism breaks down.

  4. Eric,” The most prosperous nation in 5,000 years” was a result of the New Deal, strong unions, and protectionist economic policies.So called free marketeers have sold out the American worker. Thanks for owning up for the Bush era. This right wing blog is unique in that respectfull disagreement is not met with all caps repetition of Rush or Seanisms.
    Bye the way, can any of you explain to me how we grew the greatest middle class in history during an era of 90%+ tax rates?
    I surely can but I’m interested in your perspective. Thanks again for not calling me a libtard. I’m actually quite conservative however my views tend to be fact based. Modern Republicans would be well served to call B.S. on their own. Football fans are their team’s biggest critics.

  5. Paul Therrio, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs (your protectionist economic policy in action) was a major factor in the Depression.

    If you think protectionist policies are beneficial to an economy, then we should not allow free trade between states. Or even cities. That we we’ll all be fabulously wealthy, right?

    BTW, the New Deal, with high taxes, central planning, crop destruction, and continuing isolationist policies — stretched out the “Great Depression.” Every previous depression/downturn in our country’s history lasted 18 months or so — recovering quickly without government intervention.

    Roosevelt’s policies didn’t help — they hindered recovery. But the myth of the benefits of the New Deal endures.

  6. Post

    “Bye the way, can any of you explain to me how we grew the greatest middle class in history during an era of 90%+ tax rates?”

    Two questions. What period are you referring and if you are for a 90% tax rate please share why all men should not be equal under the law? In other words what ethic justifies taxing one individual at 30% and another at 90%?

  7. Post

    I’ll assume you are referring to Roosevelt’s 94%.

    If you own a Home Depot and you dropped a bomb on every Loews and True Value your sales would increase too. Let’s not forget our history. The U.S dominated world production because Europe and Japan had their infrastructure crippled by WWII. Quite a boom to U.S. exports and labor.

    The second myth of the 90% tax is the “Effective Marginal Tax Rate” is not the real tax rate. The U.S. tax system uses an “Effective Marginal Tax Rate” model. The EMTR is applied on ranges of earned taxable income. So, to calculate a person’s “Real Rate” you must average (in a manner of speaking) what he or she pays in overall taxes on earned taxable income.

    The third myth of the 90% tax is that it was the “real tax rate”. Taxes are paid on “taxable income” not “earned income”.

    In 1944- 45 the top marginal rate was 94% but the write offs were more generous. You could take a spouse on a business trip and not only write her trip off but the three martini lunch that went with it.

    The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944. We simply didn’t count much of the compensation as taxable income.

    Your belief and faith in FDR is frankly shocking. Most depressions before his term lasted no longer than four years. Because of FDRs harmful policies the Great Depression lasted three times that. One must take a pretty myopic view to find something good in FDRs economic policies and volumes have been written about his mistakes.
    FDR did do something good. He repealed prohibition.

  8. Eric, First of all I think you are being a little defensive in assuming that I had “belief and faith in FDR”. I just asked for your opinion because modern conservative hard liners would say that a tax policy that once existed would be the death of the country now. You are right about the write-offs. These write offs also encouraged companies to re-invest, raise wages, offer unheard of benefits and start new companies to avoid taxes. I’m not suggesting that we go back to that scenario, I’m just stating historical fact.

  9. If I remove the names from the comments, it looks like you’re both seeking the same thing; a tax policy which encourages capital accumulation and business formation.

    One approach treats all of us equally– you pay a chicken for every 10 chickens you own. One approach taxes people who own more chickens more, but allows the wealthy chicken owners to hide some of their chickens when it comes time to count them.

    The latter relies on an omniscient “council” of sorts, trying to “plan” a more prosperous society. The former assumes that people, when left alone, can do just that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.