Burr is severely under the weather. We expect him back next week.
We do have an interesting on-line discussion initiated by Burr’s long-time conservative friend T. Paine in response to a piece contrasting the leadership of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Donald Trump.
From T. Paine:
Kudos to you on a very good article, Mr. Deming.
I concur with all of your assertions and findings.
I do note, with some sense of irony, how John Fitzgerald Kennedy as a comparatively economic and foreign policy conservative would never garner the support, let alone the nomination of this party for president in present day America. Such is the “progress” of the Democrat Party since his untimely death.
From Burr Deming:
Thank you, T. Paine. Valued praise from an excellent conservative advocate.
I almost hesitate at asking the obvious:
In what respect do you believe President Kennedy would differ from today’s mainstream Democrats.
Would he oppose affordable healthcare?
Voting rights?
Nuclear arms control?
I’ll go hide now, in trembling anticipation of an acerbic response that will make me wish I hadn’t asked.
From T. Paine:
I thought I had provided some insight as to why I thought that he was different from today’s typical Democrats when I stated that he was a “comparatively economic and foreign policy conservative.” Perhaps I needed more specificity.
JFK was not a reflexive Keynesian always seeing the need to prime the government pump with increased spending. He understood that targeted and appropriate tax cuts would cause “a rising tide that lifts all boats”. Today he would be demonized for his “tax cuts for the rich” by our brothers and sisters on the Left.
Further, he (perhaps more than any other president) understood the dangers of communist expansion. He was not a foreign policy appeaser and dove accordingly. This too would garner the scorn from many good folks in the Democrat party.
Also, he understood the importance of service and work rather than supporting the low expectations of dubiously necessary entitlements. “My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
That seems to be in direct contrast with the entitlement mentality that often permeates most of the mainstream Democrat thinking today.
Those are just a few examples. I wait with breathless anticipation for you to respond and tell me why I am unequivocally wrong, my friend.
From Burr Deming:
Thank you, T. Paine.
Actually, even Maynard Keynes was not a reflexive Keynesian. He, like Kennedy, like today’s Democratic policy-makers, operated on the basis of available economic evidence. Kennedy is, in fact, considered by many economists to be the first Keynesian President.
As to Keynesian economics itself, I do not think it means what you think it means. It has to do with money supply as economic stimulus, whether from tax cuts or spending. Deficits are a good thing during a recession. Surpluses are a good thing during rapid economic expansion. Kennedy bought into that on the basis of evidence.
Evidence since then indicates that the Republican version of another Keynesian idea, supply-side economics, does not work as well. More than Kennedy and Keynes, the GOP strain of Keynes seeks to target the top 1% for the largest cuts on the theory that those are job producers.
History now shows that targeting low and middle income people for tax cuts produces greater economic stimulus. That is why those groups now pay a lower tax rate than they did when President Obama inherited the Bush recession. In fact many Republicans want to target lower income groups with higher taxes.
As to the use of the military, I don’t think President Kennedy would have objected to the Obama formulation. President Obama campaigned explicitly on opposition only to dumb wars, not to all wars. His foreign policy was consistent with that.
Kennedy’s economic proposals included Medicare, opposed by Republican conservatives. His plans included more help to the struggling underclass. As he mentioned to one economist: “First we’ll have your tax cut, then we’ll have my expenditures program.” I suspect he would have wanted to expand on Obamacare.
He famously offered this moral proposal for public policy: “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”
Conservatives have forever embraced liberals after they are gone. Conservatives angrily opposed liberals Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and John F. Kennedy, for example. Some consider their later embrace as a sign of social progress because it signals conservative acceptance of earlier liberal principles.
I think of it as somewhat ghoulish. Conservatives cast upon these liberal heroes their own historical inaccuracies, then embrace them on that basis. They do this only after they, and the threats they pose to conservative orthodoxy, are gone.
US News and World Report has an interesting analysis of how that process helps conservatives hold the memory of President Kennedy. You may also be interested in the Kennedy Center’s take on President Obama and the Kennedy legacy.
I hope that helps, T. Paine.
Additional snarky wisdom from Dave Dubya did make Aunt Tildy a little nervous:
It’s inspiring how Dear Leader takes full responsibility and never passes the buck, amirite?
Let JFK speak for himself:
“If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’”
Now TP can translate this for us, because I’m pretty sure he understands more about what liberals think than we do. 😉