« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Chamber of [Government Run] Commerce

Recently, some of my friends have expressed shock and dismay over the Chamber of Commerce’s endorsements of big-government establishment Republicans like Dick Lugar and Jon Bruning.  After all, they suggest, isn’t the Chamber a bastion of free-market, pro-growth policies?

The answer is really simple.  It is no enigma.  The Chamber of Commerce is not conservative, pro-free-market, or even necessarily pro-growth.  They support the special interests of big business.  Period.  When those interests intersect or overlap with free-market, pro-growth policies, such as advocacy for tax cuts and lower regulations, they will side with conservatives.  But when those interests require the stewardship of big government intervention, they will side with the forces of statism.  Hence, they are not paragons of free-market commerce; they support government-run commerce, albeit with tendentious policies towards their interests.

Chamber of Commerce Republicans are the embodiment of “big-government conservatism.”  They support lower taxes and regulations, but have no desire to limit the size of government.  In fact, a powerful and officious federal government is part and parcel of their special interest agenda.  When they desire to tilt the playing field towards their special interest, big-government is their friend and the free-market is their enemy.

It is for this reason that the Chamber joined with the AFL-CIO in supporting a massive expansion of federal transportation spending.  Instead of allowing each state to pay for its own infrastructure needs, the Chamber wants unlimited federal funds flowing to contracts with their clients.  In fact, they were even willing to go against their tendency to oppose tax increases, by calling on Congress to raise the federal gasoline tax to do so.

It is for this reason that they support expansion of the Export-Import Bank, which keeps taxpayer-backed risky loans flowing to their special interests.

It is for this reason that they lobbied for TARP, auto bailouts, and stimulus.

They also view a broad federal government role in education as beneficial to their interests.  That’s why they supported No Child Left Behind and continue to support a massive federal footprint in education.

They also view green energy subsidies as “tax cuts” for businesses.  That’s why they support the extension of the Production Tax Cut credit.

They believe that it is necessary to have an endless flow of cheap labor.  That’s why they need the federal government to ensure that states are precluded from cracking down on illegal immigration.

They believe that the government must protect their cyber interests.  That’s why they supported SOPA, a terrible big-government solution to a legitimate problem.

As noted previously, the Chamber does some good work on certain tax issues and advocacy for domestic drilling and reduction of the regulatory regime.  But those views are born out of self-interest more than an intrepid conviction for free-market capitalism, despite the rhetoric they use to vouch for those positions.

It is for this reason that the Chamber doesn’t back conservatives, nor does it back pure liberals.  The Chamber backs big-government Republicans like Lugar and Bruning.  Lugar’s record matches almost perfectly with the Chamber agenda.  Their support of him is par for the course.  Hence, a deeper understanding of the Chamber’s agenda illuminates the broader schism within the Republican Party between free-market conservatives and big-government “conservatives”.

Let’s remember that the distinction between the two agendas for the Republican Party also has political ramification in addition to the policy differences.  For all too long, the left has been tainting Republicans – with some degree of success – as the party of big business – one that is out of touch with the little guy.

As we all know, the truth is just the opposite.  Liberals are the ones who support the interventionist policies of the big special interests to the detriment of “the little guy,” who is forced to pay more for vital goods and services due to the market distortions.  We are the ones who support a level playing field for all.  Unfortunately, crony capitalist Republicans muddle that distinction by supporting their own special interest interventions, which may or may not overlap with those of liberal special interests.  Both the left and the Chamber support government-run commerce; the distinction lies in who stands to benefit from those policies.

We will not win the political arguments with pale-pastel policies from those who support government-run commerce.  The Chamber of Government Run Commerce represents the Republican Party of the past.  We must look to the future for a cadre of new free-market conservative leaders – ones who are unvarnished of the policy and political baggage of crony capitalism.

COMMENTS

  • renl57

    This is an issue to be tackled after Election Day.

    Right now, the GOP needs to be unified in order to have the best chance to win in November.

    For all their faults, the Chamber of Commerce can be counted on to back Romney against Obama. (In fact, they can be counted on more than some in the GOP base who continue to grumble about Romney.)

    And Romney needs all the help he can get, if he’s to oust Obama in November.

    We don’t need any “RINO hunts” between now and then. We need unity.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      It’s not about “RINO hunts;” it’s about picking those who best represent Republican values during elections. In fact, elections are the exact time to get involved. Elections are times for choosing.

      • stevebaldwin

        When I served in the California Legislature, the state Chamber of Commerce sold us out on a regular basis. They supported tax hikes, big federal education programs like Goals 2000, and corporate welfare. This is a fact of life. They are not part of the conservative coalition. As one of the few conservatives in the legislature, I had to fight them all the time. And yes, Chambers are often breeding grounds for RINO candidates. I have little doubt they have played a role in strengthening the liberal wing of the GOP.

        Conservatives need to quit giving them credibility and businessmen who are truly conservative should withdraw their Chamber membership and form real free marketed- oriented groups.

    • Frederick

      …that you think we should be worried more about Party Unity than offering a primary challenge to our statist Senators from Maine, Utah and the like? That, for the sake of “Party Unity”, we should go-along-to-get-along with statist and liberal Republicans and not try to find someone better?

      The reason so many people misunderstand Conservatism is because we don’t self-police out these hacks to begin with. If we did a better job putting conservatives up in primaries and putting them into office, people wouldn’t conflate everything that George W. Bush, Mitt Romney and John McCain ever did with “Conservatism”. They just assume, “The Republicans are for it, that must mean it’s Conservative, but I disagree with it, so I must be liberal.”

      Party Unity in the general, sure. But in the primaries, let’s find real conservatives if we can. Even if that means a familiar face goes away.

      • renl57

        This is not a time to be opposing ANY Republican seeking to defeat ANY Democrat.

        Because remember, if the GOP can keep its House majority and get a Senate majority, that will be great no matter who wins the Presidential election.

        A majority means that party controls the committees. It doesn’t bother me if that includes a few Republicans who are further to the left than I am. They will be part of that majority. They can cut out paper dolls for all I care.

  • philhoganjr

    Rino hunting? We’re not talking about Scott Brown or Susan Collins here. The primaries in Nebraska, Indiana, Texas, etc, have nothing to with Romney. Nada. Zip. Zero. It’s a total non sequitur. The Governor will be fine.

    Here’s a more apt term…freerolling. It’s a poker situation in which you have the same hand as your opponent, but you have the possibiltiy to improve your hand while your opponent does not. That’s where conservatives are in places like Nebraska, Indiana and Texas. There’s no shot Republicans lose any of those general elections contest, so the point is to nominate the most conservative candidate out there. Needless to say that’s not Jon Bruning, Dick Lugar or David Dewhurst.

    The initial post couldn’t be any more spot on. It’s past time to call out The Chamber and other “right leaning” special interest organizations.

    Keep up the good work, Dan.

  • philhoganjr

    I’ll be fair and point out that his twitter account is about as dated as The Chamber itself, but interestingly his avatar is of him and former speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    And sadly, it doesn’t appear to be a joke. He looks happy as a clam.

  • drfredc

    The Chamber isn’t precisely about business owners and business these days. Depending upon the local situation, the Chamber may also have various government workers as members. There’s also a fair number of business owners who have a collectivist bend of some sort — not all are conservative oriented.

    What seems to frequently happen is the collectivist membership tends to attract more of the same. They can be Dems or RINOs. Theses folks tend to be the sort who like to run for ‘higher offices’ in the Chamber, which means as one goes up the Chamber hierarchy, there may be more collectivist types involved, particularly in big city Chambers. It’s sometimes used as a jumping off place into politics…

  • renl57

    If your party has a comfortable majority in the House or Senate, you can afford to take a few risks by primarying legislators of dubious principle.

    But if you’re trying to WIN the Senate and hold onto the narrow majority in the House, then you care ONLY about raw numbers. You want 51 Republicans in the Senate, regardless of their views. Failure to understand that is why we ended up with Harry Reid one more time instead of Sue Lowden.

    We keep saying how critical the upcoming election in November is. Well, just what is so critical about it?

    What’s critical about it is NOT about conservative principles. What’s critical about it is taking POWER away from those who currently wield it–Harry Reid and Barack Obama. And about winning POWER for ourselves.

    And I don’t understand why that’s such an alien concept around here.

    Without POWER, you can’t do anything with your principles.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      If you think for a minute that Sue Lowden was more electable you weren’t following the election. She is not a good example to support your thesis.

  • checkmate2012

    right now!

  • demsaresatanic

    “Chamber of Commerce Republicans are the embodiment of ?big-government conservatism.? They support lower taxes and regulations, but have no desire to limit the size of government. In fact, a powerful and officious federal government is part and parcel of their special interest agenda. When they desire to tilt the playing field towards their special interest, big-government is their friend and the free-market is their enemy.”

    Excellent post.

  • dajeeps

    I don’t expect much else. It’s the obligation of the policymakers to do what’s right by all the people even among the interests that are trying to sway them that most often is neglected.

    I have a copy of the notes from the quasi-constitutional convention held by Virginia in February 1861 where its delegates presented an amendment proposal for consideration. One of the delegates from NY was there solely to represent business interests, and the speech he gave to the convention was pretty much to the effect that Virginia should be given whatever it wants to calm the markets. It would be interesting to ponder what the world would be like today if they had listened to him.