There are two terms - often bandied about in favor of conservative politicians and policy - that confuse divergent meanings. The first and biggest culprit is “fiscally conservative.” On one hand it can mean sound fiscal policy, of not spending more than one takes in, or at least borrowing prudently to safeguard government bond ratings. On the other hand in the popular imagination it means simply lowering taxes, regardless of the balance of the books. Clearly the current incarnation Republicans are interested in the latter, not the former.
In a New Republic polemic against the Republican’s obeisance to K street, Jonathan Chait points out another confusing term: “pro-business.” On one hand one can talk about pro-market positions, or creating an environment in which commerce takes place with regularity, efficiency and fairness. But sometimes “pro-business” means favoring specific industries, even specific firms. The Republican’s pro-business slant blinds the left to what in part has made Republicanism so powerful in this country, a pursuit of pro-business policy under the guise of pro-market ideology. But, as Chait points out,
In most instances, being pro-free market and pro-business amount to the same thing. Businesses usually want the government out of their way, which is why the business lobby threw its weight behind Bush’s efforts to cut taxes, scuttle workplace safety standards, and so on. The way you tell the difference between a free-marketer and a servant of business is how he behaves when the interests of the two diverge. And all the evidence, including the Medicare and energy bills, points to the conclusion that Bush is happy to throw free-market conservatism out the window when business interests so desire.
Of course, the Medicare and energy bills have made true conservatives uncomfortable, even mad. But they won’t bolt, and the Wall Street Journal is too ideologically opposed to the Democrats to make common cause with them to oppose any Capitol Hill porkfest. What Chait’s analysis underscores is the need for Democrats to make their case forcefully, to point out the difference between pro-business and pro-market policies (as well as policies that may be pro-market in the short term but not long-term), and to point out the hollowness of Republican “fiscal conservatism”. Now is not the time for candidates to be obsessing over tinkering tax credits and fiddling policy. I’m beginning to think the Democrats will need more than a Howard Dean to win. But we certainly can’t have any less.
No comments have been added to this post yet.