Gallup: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Conservative Economic Policies

Written by Sam on June 29th, 2008
As the GOP in Congress appears about to be taking an “every man for himself” strategy for the fall elections, Gallup has just given the Republicans another gift (Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy). The results of this poll show that if the GOP ever gets back to preaching and adhering to the simple message that they used to have — one that they’ve previously ridden to victory on — they’d be shoe-ins in 2008. Whether or not the Republicans have cleaned their own house enough to take advantage of something like this remains to be seen.Barack Obama is running on an economic platform that promises to “restore fairness to the tax code”. On the same page of his campaign website that that quote came from, Obama also refers to Bush’s “Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class”. Put the two of them together and the message that Obama is sending to the public is that he wants to take money from the wealthy and give to the middle class - the very definition of the “Income Redistribution” that this Gallup poll measures public opinion on. Obama doesn’t even have to actively do much for this redistribution to happen - all he has to do is let the Bush tax cuts expire.The numbers in this poll are staggering. Overall, Americans are against the core principle behind Barack Obama’s domestic economic policy — income redistribution — by an astounding 84% to 13%. Republicans oppose it 90%-9%, Independents oppose it 85% to 13%, and even Democrats oppose it 77% to 19%.

American Thinker

It’s really no mystery why 1994 was the year that it was for the Republican Party.  Americans want less taxes.  They want less government.  They want people to be responsible for their actions and the Republican Party gave them that option that year and the voters ran with it.

Unless I’m mistaken, all of these results show support for - dare I say it - Reagan-brand conservatism. Even after all this time — after all the liberal garbage that the Democrats and the media relentlessly shove in our faces — when the public is faced with an economic crisis, Reagan’s conservative message of low taxes and limited government still wins.

So the question remains, why then are so many voters flocking to Barack Obama when he clearly doesn’t represent their beliefs?  I think the answer to that is simple.  The GOP no longer represents those beliefs either.  Bush flushed all our success down the toilet and the Congress joined in so it’s also no mystery why in the past couple of years people have been running from the GOP screaming.

Think about it.  In 1994 the Republicans promised to cut entitlement spending and they did.  Bush expanded entitlement spending by historical numbers.  Republicans promised a balanced budget and delivered.  In fact, the national debt was decreasing during the 1990s.  Bush has almost doubled the debt.  In 1994 Republicans promised less government and a more open government.  The Bush administration has grown government by record levels and has been one of the most secretive administrations in history while the GOP Congress during his administration has been rife with corruption.  Why would any rational thinking person want more of this?

Obama isn’t doing so well because Americans want to turn to Socialism as a cure.  He is simply the “anything but another Republican” candidate.  I don’t know what’s going to happen in November, but the odds are against McCain winning unless something really damning comes out against Obama.  What I do know is that the Republican Party needs to take advantage of the next few years and start pulling itself back together and rebranding themselves with that 1994 image that we all fell in love with.  People want fiscal conservatism and personal liberty.  They don’t want wreckless spending and gay marriage amendments.  The Republicans need to build again from the ground up in places that used to be fertile GOP territory, but now where scarcely a Republican can be found.  There is one Republican House member in all of New England and he is a poor example anyway.  They’re down to only a handful of Congressional seats in New York and California and the party hasn’t been competitive in Presidential races in those two states in 20 years.  They’re beginning to slip in the south and the west and starting to lose suburbia.

I have no doubt that if Obama wins he’ll be a one term wonder.  He’s going to completely bomb just like Carter did.  In fact, his administration won’t be any different than Carter’s other than Obama won’t have a retarded brother running around embarrassing him in public.  If the GOP can get its act together they can make some gains back in 2010 and then go for the full monty in ‘12, but it’s going to have to happen from the ground up.  The folks in leadership aren’t going to do it so it’s up to the people on the ground to start making the noise.

6 Comments so far ↓

  1. Jun
    30
    8:30
    PM
    Ryan

    I do not understand what is so hard to figure out about this stuff: Republicans do best when they are reformists not status quo politicians.

    People like limited government, but the Republican leadership and the consultants who advise them do not get it. I am convinced so much of this big government conservatism has to do with two factors: Republicans representing too many poor districts compared to their former suburban strongholds and the Republicans listen way too much to consultants. I say throw the consultants in the political equivalent of the poor house by firing the whole lot of them because they do not seem to be providing good advice.

  2. Jul
    1
    6:23
    PM
    Joseph T. McCarthy

    Winning a war is more important than keeping the national debt down just to make you feel good about yourselves.

  3. Jul
    1
    7:16
    PM
    Sam

    You can’t finance a war if you have no money.

  4. Jul
    1
    9:16
    PM
    Ryan

    Joe, the war spending is not the reason we are running deficits. The explosion of domestic spending under Bush is the primary cause of our deficit problems. We would be at even or close to it if domestic spending was kept at the rate of inflation minus 1 percent. If the American people cannot make such a tiny sacrifice, they probably deserve to lose the war.

  5. Jul
    1
    9:34
    PM
    Langley

    Sam, I read this when it was posted but just wanted to comment, this is a great post. Relates a lot to my post about the Young/Huckabee problem in the GOP.

  6. Jul
    1
    9:43
    PM
    Ken

    We wrangle endlessly over war spending. I wonder what proportion of the war spending is spent within our own economy and how much abroad? Where do we get the aircraft, the hummers, the ordinance, the communications equipment - home or abroad? Where does the soldiers’ payroll get spent?

    Certainly a fair proportion is spent abroad. How does the foreign portion compare to, say, overall Foreign Aid! Or amounts paid to foreigners to buy crude oil to feed our tiger?

    How does the domestic portion of the war spending compare to the Bush stimulus package? [BTW, I just got mine and it equals almost exactly the added amount I'll pay for gas over the next 12 months (assuming an average $5.00/gallon). So W has offset the impact of my gasoline crisis already.]

    This is classic guns and butter stuff, no? A fair amount of our economic growth was driven by the ‘guns’. Let’s get real about the war spending.

Spruce up your comments with
<a href="" title=""><abbr title=""><acronym title=""><b><blockquote cite=""><cite><code><del datetime=""><em><i><q cite=""><strike><strong>
New comments are moderated before being shown * = required field

Leave a Comment