Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Republican’

According to a story from U.S. News and World Report, there’s new research showing that 4th of July celebrations boost the GOP. I have no idea if the methodology is sound, but the researchers found that attending Independence Day events influences voting behavior. Key findings include: “When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent” and “It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.”

Here’s more from the USNWR story.

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day. …”The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. …Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them. …What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.

I’m interested in how to get people to believe in freedom, not vote Republican, so I’m not sure what to think about the Harvard study. But my Republican friends can probably make a few snarky observations about whether patriotism is inconsistent with being a Democrat. My thoughts on patriotism, meanwhile, can be found here.

Read Full Post »

This blog has consistently complained about the statist policies of the Obama Administration, leading a number of people to complain that I am pro-Republican. Or they assume that I was a Bush supporter. Nothing could be further from the truth. If people have watched my videos or seen my various TV interviews, you will have seen me excoriate big-government Republicans such as Bush. And this is not something I started to do on January 20, 2009. I was an unrelenting critic of the Wall Street bailout in Bush’s final months. And I was bitterly complaining about Bush’s fiscal profligacy even before then. Here are some of the highlights of a column that I wrote in early 2007, which was titled “Bring Back Clinton”:

To paraphrase Clinton Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, George Bush is no Ronald Reagan. …on Bush’s watch, and with his signature, the burden of federal spending rose to 20.3 percent of GDP in 2006, up from just 18.5 percent when he took office. During the Clinton years, by contrast, federal spending fell as a share of GDP, from 21.4 percent in 1993 to 18.5 percent in 2001. …even when defense spending is excluded, Clinton reduced the burden of government, while Bush has expanded it. …According to the Congressional Budget Office, entitlement spending has increased from 10.9 percent of GDP when Bush took office to 11.9 percent of GDP in 2006. During the Clinton years, spending on so-called mandatory programs fell from 11.2 percent of GDP to 10.9 percent of GDP. The domestic discretionary spending numbers tell a similar story: During the Clinton years, these programs dropped from 3.4 percent of GDP to 3.2 percent. Since Bush took office, they have risen to 3.5 percent. …Take trade, for example. At best, Bush has a mixed record. The Central American Free Trade Agreement is a step in the right direction, but his steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies are examples of anti-trade initiatives. Clinton policy was unambiguously pro-trade, however, largely because of the approval and implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that also launched the World Trade Organization. Clinton gets a better grade on regulatory policy, as well. Bush signed into law the prohibitively expensive Sarbanes-Oxley law, as well as a market-distorting energy bill. The Clinton years, by contrast, saw the burden of regulation reduced on numerous sectors of the economy, including agriculture, financial services and telecommunications. Clinton also beats Bush on federalism. He signed a welfare reform legislation that ended an entitlement program and reduced the central government’s power and authority. On education, Bush went the other direction. His No Child Left Behind Act increased federal control over an area that properly belongs under the purview of state and local governments.

If people want to call me an anti-government ideologue, I don’t think that’s completely accurate, but it’s a fair observation. If people want to call me an unrealistic libertarian dreamer, I plead guilty. But please don’t denigrate me by saying I’m a Republican.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: