Trump can’t redefine conservatism
Percentage is highest among those ages 18-23
Congressional Democrats have announced the return of earmarks. That occasions a revisiting of the legacy of Jeff Flake and John McCain. And the meaning of conservatism before the Trump corruption of the term.
Earmarks are when a member of Congress inserts into an appropriations bill money designated for some local project or organization.
Now, the federal government is deeply into the business of funding purely local projects that have no national or even regional impact. That’s a violation of federalism properly understood, and some of us futilely cavil against it from time to time.
There are, however, structures and systems put in place for the funding of local projects through various federal programs. It usually works like this. The agency in charge of the program gets a wad of cash to dole out. Local governments make applications to get some of it. The agencies evaluate the applications and give out the money to the worthiest projects.
This puts all
local governments on equal footing in competing for the dollars. And it theoretically results in the dough being doled out based on merit rather than political muscle.
Earmarks circumvent these structures and systems. The dough is doled out based purely upon political muscle.
Earmarks proliferated in the aughts. They were banned by congressional rule in 2011. Arizonans Flake and McCain were chiefly responsible for their demise. Both had waged a long battle against earmarks, Flake in the House and McCain in the Senate.
While their case against earmarks overlapped, there did seem to be a difference in emphasis in their arguments.
For Flake, the emphasis was on reining in spending overall. Once a member of Congress got an earmark, he or she had to support whatever the total appropriation came in at, or lose the earmark.
Earmarks were a re-election tool. They were bacon brought home in an unambiguous way, compared to winning a competitive bid through the usual agency process.
Appropriators used earmarks to purchase votes for overall spending higher than might otherwise be approved. As a fiscal conservative, Flake wanted to rein in spending. He fought an often lonely battle against earmarks for several years.
McCain, who was a deficit hawk, shared this concern about macro fiscal effects. But he also seemed particularly offended by the unseemliness of it all, turning the U.S. Congress into a bazaar of sorts.
It was the success of the tea party in the 2010 election that turned the tide for Flake and McCain.
Those on the left tend to view all populist movements on the right as undifferentiated. Social conservatives, immigration restrictionists, tea partyers, Trumpeteers — all the same basket of deplorables, to cite Hillary Clinton’s offensive description.
There is considerable overlap. But the tea party movement had a decidedly libertarian hue. It was a protest against big spending and bailouts. To virtue-signal to the movement, congressional Republicans, who had been only slightly less enthusiastic earmarkers than Democrats, adopted the earmark ban.
Since then, Republicans have at least one chamber of And the ban has stuck.
Now that Democrats are in charge of both chambers and announced the return of earmarks, congressional Republicans face a dilemma: Refuse to ask for them as a statement of fidelity to fiscal conservative principles? Or join in so as to not unilaterally disarm in the bring-home-the-bacon political game? controlled Congress.
Standing against earmarks may again become a lonely undertaking.
The ban on earmarks was an important conservative victory, and it was owed to Flake and McCain.
Flake was, and is, a principled libertarian conservative, willing to fight for those principles even against long odds.
McCain was center-right on most things, and more pragmatic and flexible than Flake. But he was a deficit hawk and willing to take a staunch stance against the political winds on spending.
Donald Trump generally governed in a conservative direction. But he wasn’t, and isn’t, a principled anything. It is always a political calculation about what best serves his interest.
Trump’s last big cause was matching the Democrats in giving away $2,000 in COVID-19 relief to individuals irrespective of whether their income had been adversely impacted by the pandemic. That was a deficit-swelling, Keynesian stimulus idea. And Trump was all for it.
Conservatism isn’t whatever Trump deems to be in his political self-interest at the moment. That fiscal conservatives such as Flake and McCain are pariahs in Trump’s Republican Party says more about the party, and its relationship to true conservatism, than about them.
Just watched President Biden address the nation on CBS about the latest developments in the COVID-19 pandemic. After that I listened to a talking head discussing it while likening Biden to Franklin D. Roosevelt. I couldn’t help comparing this to the treatment President Trump got from the networks. Bias? Nah!
Ken Doerfler, Glendale
A record number of U.S. adults – 5.6% – identify as LGBTQ, an increase propelled by a younger generation staking out its presence in the world, a poll to be released Wednesday shows.
The survey by Gallup marks more thana1percentagepointjumpfrom the last poll in 2017, in which 4.5% of adults identified as LGBTQ.
The estimated 18 million adults who identify as LGBTQ represent an upward trajectory since Gallup started tracking identification in 2012, Gallup senior editor Jeff Jones said.
“It reflects what we are seeing in society and the way society is changing,” he said.
One of the biggest headlines in the 2020 poll is the emergence of Generation Z adults, those 18 to 23: 1 in 6, or 15.9%, identify as LGBTQ. In each older generation, LGBTQ identification is lower, including 2% or less of respondents born before 1965.
For the first time, Gallup queried respondents on their precise sexual orientation rather than a simple yes or no on whether someone identified as LGBTQ, which allowed more insight into identity, Jones said.
Among LGBTQ adults, a majority, or 54.6% identify as bisexual, the poll shows. About a quarter, or 24.5%, identify as gay, 11.7% as lesbian and 11.3% as transgender.
Among those in Gen Z, 72% of those who identify as LGBTQ say they are bisexual.
There are also gender differences:
Women are more likely than men to identify as LGBTQ (6.4% vs 4.9%).
Women are more likely to identify as bisexual than men (4.3% vs 1.8%).
Advocates are not surprised to see more young people identifying as LGBTQ. Ineke Mushovic, executive director of the Movement Advancement Project, cited “generational shifts in awareness and acceptance” that have reshaped how LGBTQ youths are embraced by families and peers.
“I have had conversations with many older LGBTQ people who break down in tears when they share their coming-out stories of decades ago – heart-wrenching stories of family rejection, losing parents, losing siblings, losing jobs,” she said. “Older generations grew up during those times when being LGBTQ could land you in jail, or alone or jobless.”
Parents have created environments
where not only do young people feel safe in coming out, but those on the cusp of adulthood can also map futures packed with possibilities, something not seen even a generation ago, Mushovic said.
LGBTQ representation in communities, media, politics and beyond in recent years is significant, said Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force: “Children are taught prejudice, and when LGBTQ people are part of their lives from the beginning, they understand that they can be themselves and are not alone.”
Renna cited a better and “more nuanced” grasp of sexual orientation and gender identity that has enabled LGBTQ youths to celebrate their full selves.
“Young people do not want to check off a box; they want to be able to express themselves authentically and acknowledge all their identities,” she said.