What is Republican economic policy?

[bedstuy]

Republican economic policy has been in a weird place for a long time.  They seem to disavow George W. Bush, while basing their core message on naysaying and disagreeing with Obama.  I can help but think that Republicans don't actually have much of a philosophy at this point.  Rather, their position is to sabotage the economy and use a far right economic platform as a bargaining chip in budget fights.  That's more of a tactic rather than a philosophy. 

So, what is the mainstream Republican philosophy on the major economic issues?  Taxes?  Spending?  Is there any continued life to the Ron Paul economic philosophy of being anti-Federal reserve and cuckoo crazy?

Thoughts?

[IceSpear]

You answered your own question in the first paragraph.

[Blue3]

What's their policy in anything, at this point?

They only have vague positions, like pro life, anti ObamaCare, anti tax, anti regulation, pro gun, anti spending, anti immigrant, etc. but how would they base policies around them? No idea

[King]

Do things in the short term that stimulate 51% of Americans to vote for you again.

[tik 🪀✨]

Keep our donors happy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Right now?  Oppose whatever Obama is for.  That seems to sum up what it's become.

[Redalgo]

So, what is the mainstream Republican philosophy on the major economic issues?

Well, I'd assume the Republican Party's platform would be a fair representation of whatever semblance of equilibrium can be discerned betwixt the organization's conflicted, competing factions. It has been awhile since I last read it but these kinds of documents are usually long-winded and flowery even by my rambling standards. It might be worthwhile for you to consult, however, if you are curious?

To break Republican economic policies down to their foundations though I will try filtering their perspective through a Haidtian lens.

- Violence is unacceptable and some folk deserve some help but most of us can usually care for ourselves.
- Rules must apply equally to all, fraud is unacceptable, and each person deserves to keep what they earn.
- Government is a source of oppression to beware; the onus should be on statists to justify intervention.
- We fit into hierarchies of superior and inferior statuses; privileges and deprivations can both be justified.
- Outsiders are suspicious and possibly malign, so it is crucial to encourage loyalty and in-group solidarity.
- Some ideas and institutions are so sacred that their opponents are surely enemies of the public interest.

Republicans also tend to believe the United States is an exceptional country, its Constitution inspired in no modest part by the will of God, and human beings (including those elected to office) are sinners who cannot be trusted to unwaveringly do what is right for the people as a whole. They are not altogether opposed to making changes to the status quo but tend to be uneasy about it - feeling that the old ways of doing things are adequate and tinkering with them could lead to harmful consequences.

Thus we find Republicans willing to accept some forms of welfare but also going on about moral hazard and the prospect of rotten apples gaming the system. We find them devoted to capitalism yet willing to make exceptions for patriotic causes, national security, and well-established pieces of the public sector. They are fine with many regulations yet also willing to let people make stupid choices, subjugate each other to some extent, and be abused by corrupt figures in the private sector as a tradeoff for guarding themselves from the greater threat of government overreach. Policy considerations are affected by a sincerely-held faith in a "national myth," or glorified and somewhat distorted interpretation of how the United States developed, which gives them an unshakeable commitment to private property rights, free enterprise, and the principle of self-reliance. Their economic views cannot be understood out of context.

Are some party officers and representatives corrupt in their motives? Of course. But to grasp the logic of generally decent, sensible people who stick to conservative policy planks you need to look at the world through their eyes. Without considering how they substantively differ from mainstream Democrats in looking at moral dilemmas and the human condition it becomes all too easy to misinterpret their intent. There are plenty of biases to go around, really. None of us are exceptions to those kinds of influences!

Right now?  Oppose whatever Obama is for.  That seems to sum up what it's become.

In part, yeah, though this probably has more to do with how lots of Republicans reject the legitimacy and respectability of the President's authority. They get so distracted by a perception of Pres. Obama being a foreign and traitorous usurper that they are thinking about economics in a less than strictly rational way, reacting to him with a blend of emotion and reason. It has become so spectacular of a sideshow that the priority in Congress seems to be reinforcing the us / them symbolism of the situation and defeating their common enemy. For better or worse, this is a reflection of Republican desires for a more "American" leader to follow. There is no specific ideology in political economy that motivates their voting behaviour right now.

[AggregateDemand]

Republican economic policy has been in a weird place for a long time.  They seem to disavow George W. Bush, while basing their core message on naysaying and disagreeing with Obama.  I can help but think that Republicans don't actually have much of a philosophy at this point.  Rather, their position is to sabotage the economy and use a far right economic platform as a bargaining chip in budget fights.  That's more of a tactic rather than a philosophy. 

So, what is the mainstream Republican philosophy on the major economic issues?  Taxes?  Spending?  Is there any continued life to the Ron Paul economic philosophy of being anti-Federal reserve and cuckoo crazy?

Thoughts?

Republicans disavow W and HW because they were both appeasers. HW was an appeaser by his nature. W was an appeaser because the appeasement parts of his platform were about the only initiatives that made it through the pork-loving Republican Congress.

The Republican economic platform is nuanced and difficult for people without formal education to understand. For instance, Republicans loathe the system of graduated tax rates. It creates sociological, socioeconomic, and economic inequalities that erode the social-fabric of the US and the notion of American unity. People are divided according to their life-choices or circumstances and encouraged/discouraged according to the arbitrary revenue needs of the treasury. Worse still, graduated rates are not the only way to have a progressive tax system. Naturally, Repubs push flatter income tax brackets, many want a flat marginal rate within a progressive tax system.

Republicans also want decentralized decision-making, which is something Bush actually achieved. Repubs and Dems both tax around 20% GDP. The difference is that Democrats put the money in the hands of bureaucracies that provide services and cut checks. Republicans create systems of refundable credits, deductions, and rate cuts to redistribute tax collections with the IRS. Since the IRS redistributes/refunds wealth in the Republican system, official data sources record lower overall revenues.

Republicans want to fund military, roads, education and other productivity initiatives. Dems are generally lovers of the healthcare handout (relatively productive), public pension, food stamps, and welfare checks.

In the arena of economics, Republicans vs. Democrats is like Mohammed Ali vs. Woody Allen. The optics are not good for Republicans because it looks like competent shrewd operators are just mocking the incompetence of the "little guy". Furthermore, the economic arguments on the Republican side are so nuanced that the electorate can't really understand. Republicans become fatalistic, which leads to unbecoming self-destructive behavior.

[Indy Texas]

Never, never, never raise taxes on the people who donate to your campaigns.

That's pretty much it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I...

I can't even...

Wow.

[King]

Despite AD's usual drivel, I have no doubt Republicans close their eyes and picture themselves as Muhammad Ali.

[Antonio the Sixth]

F**k the poor. That's their economic doctrine.

[AggregateDemand]

Some day you guys will understand neoliberalism, and its effect on US politics, particularly the Republican Party.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Do things in the short term that stimulate 51% of Americans to vote for you again.

More like 25%. Remember, only half of Americans' actually vote in presidential elections. Even lesser numbers vote in other elections. Hardly a mandate.

[Angel of Death]

The following just about sums it up:


Everything burns.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

What their donors want. Public statements by public figures are utterly irrelevant to political discourse.

[Person Man]

So, what is the mainstream Republican philosophy on the major economic issues?

Well, I'd assume the Republican Party's platform would be a fair representation of whatever semblance of equilibrium can be discerned betwixt the organization's conflicted, competing factions. It has been awhile since I last read it but these kinds of documents are usually long-winded and flowery even by my rambling standards. It might be worthwhile for you to consult, however, if you are curious?

To break Republican economic policies down to their foundations though I will try filtering their perspective through a Haidtian lens.

- Violence is unacceptable and some folk deserve some help but most of us can usually care for ourselves.
- Rules must apply equally to all, fraud is unacceptable, and each person deserves to keep what they earn.
- Government is a source of oppression to beware; the onus should be on statists to justify intervention.
- We fit into hierarchies of superior and inferior statuses; privileges and deprivations can both be justified.
- Outsiders are suspicious and possibly malign, so it is crucial to encourage loyalty and in-group solidarity.
- Some ideas and institutions are so sacred that their opponents are surely enemies of the public interest.

Republicans also tend to believe the United States is an exceptional country, its Constitution inspired in no modest part by the will of God, and human beings (including those elected to office) are sinners who cannot be trusted to unwaveringly do what is right for the people as a whole. They are not altogether opposed to making changes to the status quo but tend to be uneasy about it - feeling that the old ways of doing things are adequate and tinkering with them could lead to harmful consequences.

Thus we find Republicans willing to accept some forms of welfare but also going on about moral hazard and the prospect of rotten apples gaming the system. We find them devoted to capitalism yet willing to make exceptions for patriotic causes, national security, and well-established pieces of the public sector. They are fine with many regulations yet also willing to let people make stupid choices, subjugate each other to some extent, and be abused by corrupt figures in the private sector as a tradeoff for guarding themselves from the greater threat of government overreach. Policy considerations are affected by a sincerely-held faith in a "national myth," or glorified and somewhat distorted interpretation of how the United States developed, which gives them an unshakeable commitment to private property rights, free enterprise, and the principle of self-reliance. Their economic views cannot be understood out of context.

Are some party officers and representatives corrupt in their motives? Of course. But to grasp the logic of generally decent, sensible people who stick to conservative policy planks you need to look at the world through their eyes. Without considering how they substantively differ from mainstream Democrats in looking at moral dilemmas and the human condition it becomes all too easy to misinterpret their intent. There are plenty of biases to go around, really. None of us are exceptions to those kinds of influences!

Right now?  Oppose whatever Obama is for.  That seems to sum up what it's become.

In part, yeah, though this probably has more to do with how lots of Republicans reject the legitimacy and respectability of the President's authority. They get so distracted by a perception of Pres. Obama being a foreign and traitorous usurper that they are thinking about economics in a less than strictly rational way, reacting to him with a blend of emotion and reason. It has become so spectacular of a sideshow that the priority in Congress seems to be reinforcing the us / them symbolism of the situation and defeating their common enemy. For better or worse, this is a reflection of Republican desires for a more "American" leader to follow. There is no specific ideology in political economy that motivates their voting behaviour right now.

You make the Republican Party sound like a strange mix of Confucianism, Divine Right and the Hindu Caste System.

Republican economic policy has been in a weird place for a long time.  They seem to disavow George W. Bush, while basing their core message on naysaying and disagreeing with Obama.  I can help but think that Republicans don't actually have much of a philosophy at this point.  Rather, their position is to sabotage the economy and use a far right economic platform as a bargaining chip in budget fights.  That's more of a tactic rather than a philosophy.  

So, what is the mainstream Republican philosophy on the major economic issues?  Taxes?  Spending?  Is there any continued life to the Ron Paul economic philosophy of being anti-Federal reserve and cuckoo crazy?

Thoughts?

Republicans disavow W and HW because they were both appeasers. HW was an appeaser by his nature. W was an appeaser because the appeasement parts of his platform were about the only initiatives that made it through the pork-loving Republican Congress.

The Republican economic platform is nuanced and difficult for people without formal education to understand. For instance, Republicans loathe the system of graduated tax rates. It creates sociological, socioeconomic, and economic inequalities that erode the social-fabric of the US and the notion of American unity. People are divided according to their life-choices or circumstances and encouraged/discouraged according to the arbitrary revenue needs of the treasury. Worse still, graduated rates are not the only way to have a progressive tax system. Naturally, Repubs push flatter income tax brackets, many want a flat marginal rate within a progressive tax system.

Republicans also want decentralized decision-making, which is something Bush actually achieved. Repubs and Dems both tax around 20% GDP. The difference is that Democrats put the money in the hands of bureaucracies that provide services and cut checks. Republicans create systems of refundable credits, deductions, and rate cuts to redistribute tax collections with the IRS. Since the IRS redistributes/refunds wealth in the Republican system, official data sources record lower overall revenues.

Republicans want to fund military, roads, education and other productivity initiatives. Dems are generally lovers of the healthcare handout (relatively productive), public pension, food stamps, and welfare checks.

In the arena of economics, Republicans vs. Democrats is like Mohammed Ali vs. Woody Allen. The optics are not good for Republicans because it looks like competent shrewd operators are just mocking the incompetence of the "little guy". Furthermore, the economic arguments on the Republican side are so nuanced that the electorate can't really understand. Republicans become fatalistic, which leads to unbecoming self-destructive behavior.

The way you wrap the mechanics of Government and Business in moralistic layers sounds like neoliberal economist are simply trying to provide the Mathematics, Psychology and Physics needed to discern God's will.

It seems like Scientology tries to take the Republican History, Platform and Philosophy and replace ancient astronauts with God. Could make a good Stargate episode. Idea for fanfiction- a Republican Goa'uld. 

[muon2]

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

[Person Man]

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

There is, of course, Federalism but the Republican Party still has to have a national platform and when they are in power, they don't necessarily advance the cause of Federalism. It definitely feels like Republicans support state's rights right now because they are doing well down ballot and not so hot at the top.

[Redalgo]

You make the Republican Party sound like a strange mix of Confucianism, Divine Right and the Hindu Caste System.

It can seem like that, sure. Most authoritarian elements of the U.S. population are in the Republican Party but are conditioned by society from early on to express their values in ways that fit into the framework of liberal democracy. Republicans are alright with people shifting in class but there are still plenty of lines along which supremacy is sought over groups felt to be "other" and inferior. Egalitarian values are not integral to American conservatism.

The Divine Right aspect is there to some extent insofar that a lot of Republicans reject moral relativism. There is objective good and evil - a sense that people cannot just amend the Constitution however they like to hand out popular entitlements with each passing generation. Rather, the prevailing thought is that there is something borderline holy about the Founders and their ideas, and that those ideas are in line with the social teachings of Christianity. If their emphasis was truly individual liberty they would think a lot more like libertarians on hot-button controversies. But, as you are well aware, that is not that case and in practice Republicans tend to vocally oppose attempts to separate their religion from public policy.

This applies to patriotic rituals, marriage, adoption, abortion, sex education, media censorship, gender norms, how science is taught, who is trusted around children, suspicions about Muslims and secularists - in the latter case especially those of whom are atheist, etc. Their politics are not decided solely by faith but it plays an enormous role when compared to the reasoning of social liberalists among Democrats. Many of them are influenced by religion too, but the difference is that Dems' political ideals do not really depend on being right about whether any deity exists or whether it wants us all to live in a particular way.

The Republican Party undoubtedly cares about God, discipline, ambition, loyalty, community, and reverence more than their Democratic counterpart, especially if you set aside the so-called RINOs and DINOs when comparing them.

This is not to say mainline Republicans do not have a lot of redeeming qualities. They do, and even those we may dislike happen to have a lot of strengths and advantages that go almost entirely unappreciated. I am just shedding light on some things that folks tend to overlook when they act like politics is all about reason rather than feelings, moral convictions, and subjective interpretations of reality.


As an aside note, I agree with your take on federalism in this thread. Democrats would likewise be strongly in favour of state's rights if the historical trend at the national level was instead in favour of traditionalist policies.

[muon2]

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

There is, of course, Federalism but the Republican Party still has to have a national platform and when they are in power, they don't necessarily advance the cause of Federalism. It definitely feels like Republicans support state's rights right now because they are doing well down ballot and not so hot at the top.

Federalism was very popular among Pubs during W's administration, too. Much of it was masked by the nationalism, patriotism and exceptionalism of his first term after the 9/11 attacks. It showed up again in his second term, as for instance conservative talk radio was prone to bust W's chops as well as the DC Pubs over any number of statist initiatives.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

1. Filter wealth upwards
2. Being poor is wrong and you will be punished

[AggregateDemand]

The way you wrap the mechanics of Government and Business in moralistic layers sounds like neoliberal economist are simply trying to provide the Mathematics, Psychology and Physics needed to discern God's will.

It seems like Scientology tries to take the Republican History, Platform and Philosophy and replace ancient astronauts with God. Could make a good Stargate episode. Idea for fanfiction- a Republican Goa'uld. 

It's about Pareto, not God.

[AggregateDemand]

It can seem like that, sure. Most authoritarian elements of the U.S. population are in the Republican Party

I understand what you're saying, but the people who expect government cheese every time they extend their hand are as authoritarian as the conservative Republicans who want to see SWAT teams night-sticking crowds of libertine hippsters. Liberals also birthed the hybrid-cars-only movement, carbon-caps, strict school lunch menus, punitive taxation, etc.

Conservative Republicans are usually okay with the police/military state. Liberals are usually fine with the PC nanny-state complex. They are both authoritarian arrangements, but one wears sheep's clothing.

[Indy Texas]

It can seem like that, sure. Most authoritarian elements of the U.S. population are in the Republican Party

I understand what you're saying, but the people who expect government cheese every time they extend their hand are as authoritarian as the conservative Republicans who want to see SWAT teams night-sticking crowds of libertine hippsters. Liberals also birthed the hybrid-cars-only movement, carbon-caps, strict school lunch menus, punitive taxation, etc.

Conservative Republicans are usually okay with the police/military state. Liberals are usually fine with the PC nanny-state complex. They are both authoritarian arrangements, but one wears sheep's clothing.

I'm pretty sure the first ones don't exist; as for the second, are you confusing hippies with hipsters?