"Economically Republican"

Have you ever talked to a social moderate who's a Republican and asked why? You probably received the answer "I'm economically Republican." (I have heard an inordinate number of gays say this) I thought I'd break down what this means; the answer is not easy anymore.

Back in the day, it was clear what Democrats and Republicans wanted to do economically. I probably don't need to remind you, but Democrats were generally known as "tax and spend", wanting a big government but raising taxes to offset the costs. Republicans, on the other hand, were the "small government" party -- cutting taxes but also relegating power to the states to cut costs for the federal government.

Now what? Well, Bush has developed into a "borrow and spend" president, cutting taxes while spending enormous amounts of money he doesn't have. We know what Nobel laureates in Economics think about this: "[Bush has] embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation." Kerry, on the other hand, has promised to cut taxes for most Americans while raising taxes on the rich to offset the deficit -- he has even pronounced it: "I'm a fiscal conservative."

So we have a social reactionary with a policy of fiscal nonsense versus a social moderate-to-liberal who's fiscally moderate-to-conservative. Where does this leave these so-called "economically Republicans"? One of them, Andrew Sullivan (his site is highly recommended) puts it this way:

"... Conservatism as we have known it is now over. People like me who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people's lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Just remember all that Bush promised [at the RNC]: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president. On this issue - on which I couldn't agree more - I have to say I don't believe him. Tax reform goes against the grain of everything this president has done so far. Why would he change now?"