American politics

Be brave, Republicans

Republicans must not misunderstand the meaning of Eric Cantor’s defeat

See article

Readers' comments




Agreed that this country needs a loyal opposition. But at the same time this country needs a competent loyal opposition at the national level. This Republican party has not learned from its past mistakes and will continue to lose voters (especially younger voters) for the foreseeable futures. Why you ask? a) All they ever talk about is tax cuts. When given office like in early 2000's who benefited the most from those tax cuts? Was it the younger generations? How have these tax cuts helped our debt? Who is going to pay for this debt? b) Whenever they have the keys to the kingdom then they push through massive increases in military spending. Which btw is where the majority of gov't spending waste occurs. What has this spending done for post war generations? Have any of these conflicts benefited the American people? c) The GOP just cannot help themselves in getting involved with social issues. Really? Do we really want to debate the benefits of forced prayer in school, state sponsored abolition of womens rights (like abortion), and btw do we really want the State to force children to learn completely discredited science like creationism?

The GOP is flawed in its current form and does not deserve leadership. As much as Conservative values are an admirable goal. Conservatism is not what the modern GOP has been governing on. Actions speak louder than words.


I am a young person and while I sympathize with the notion of keeping government only as large as it absolutely needs to be, this does not seem to be what the Republican party stands for anymore. It seems to me that they no longer are interested in solving national problems, they are only interested in themselves. Their opposition to expansion of government does not seem to be rooted in bureaucratic inefficiency of heavy handed state control anymore: It seems to be rooted in their desire to maintain an exclusive society which they reap all of the benefits from at the expense of others. They ignore problems because any solution will cause them to sacrifice in some way therefore they can't even acknowledge that the problem exists. They could probably govern better than the Democrats if they were the least bit interested but they are not.


The Republican Party is not a "small government" party. The GOP will introduce and has introduced legislation that uses government forcibly to transfer wealth and power from the average worker to the owners and investors of business. They also support a vast military spending, which also rewards the owners and investors of large defense related businesses. Finally, the GOP supports controls on government regulation that allows the financial sector great leeway in the legality of their operations.

Historically, the GOP has increased government spending more than any Democrat except FDR during World War II, resulting in ever larger national debt increases. Typical of this pattern are the two unfunded wars started during the presidency of George W. Bush or the unprecedented military buildup under Ronald Reagan.

To call the Republican Party a "small government" promoter is to believe propaganda unleavened by research of the actual facts.

As someone from Gen X what I have learned is that the Big gov't vs Small Gov't debate is a lie. And the reality is that it has always been a lie. The REAL question is who does Gov't benefit? For every $1 we pay in taxes how much should we as citizens get in return? The Democratic party has failed miserably on this issue as well so it is hard to call them saints on this issue because they are not. But it is up to future generations to cut through the simple minded garbage politicians feed us. We need to demand smart accountability.

The GOP wants to cut taxes, regulations, and increase subsidies for defense contractors and farmers for one and only one simple reason. Because it benefits themselves and their donors.

RumbaClave in reply to

Sorry Pal, the deficit was created by Bush. Two unfunded wars, Medicare Part D and tax cuts, both unfunded as well.
Obama has dropped the deficit faster then any President in 0ver 50 years. You do know the difference between the debt and deficit? The debt was inherited. The deficit is current spending.


Boosting "low incomes with wage subsidies" means that we,taxpayers, will go on subsidising companies like Walmart. It is the wrong solution.


This is just wrong. There is no need for a Republican Party as it currently exists, and the longing for a return to Reaganism is goofy. Reagan and his handlers are the cause of much of the problems currently facing the US. The best thing for this country would be the disbanding of the Republican Party and the creation of an actual party of the left with the current Democratic Party being recognized as the truly conservative party that it is. I don't expect that since the Republican Party actually exists as a sham for the very rich to stoke dissension amongst those they exploit and they are generous in their funding and steadfast in their appetite for power.



Guess what, Economist: he opposes ILLEGAL immigration. He'd like to see the rule of law, not the current rule of 'waivers'.

And a lot of voters agree.

Ethan Xanderphone

The "sunny small-government" you mention that is the hallmark of the GOP is notably ascribed to Reagan, a Hollywood actor, because it is a myth of mid-century Hollywood.

And even to the extent that portions of it are true, they are suitable for the 18th century, not the 21st.

The biggest myth is that a small government can maintain a large military. Something that can only be true if the military is in charge of the government. Something it came perilously close to in that mythical mid-century America.

The other part of the myths held by the GOP is that corporations are an acceptable alternative to government. They're not, in any way shape or form. For one, business ALWAYS has to run at a profit, something government doesn't, and that citizens have no recourse to corporate entities like they do those of government.

Fortunately, most Americans understand these myths. That is why in large-voter elections Republicans generally lose. And with the marginalization they wrap themselves around on social issues, they fortunately will continue to lose for a long enough time for the Democrats who want to fix the problems of this country can do so -- while the GOP watches from the sidelines.



When have they demonstrated their conviction to small government? Certainly not under Reagan or either Bush. Repeating talking points over and over does not make them true. They may spend on different things, but a dollar pumped into wasteful defense spending costs as much as a dollar pumped into wasteful end-of-life care.


As a resident of the 7th District in Virginia and a Republican, I can tell you the single reason why Eric Cantor was defeated.
His defeat was the result of his abandoning of the people he represents. Too much time spend in Washington and not enough time LISTENING to the people he represented. He became an absentee Politician in his district. He become more important to himself then for the People.
This seems to be consistent with Politician once they arrive in Washington.


The reality, Mr. Cantor is the worst kind of crony in Congress. He clearly illustrates what is wrong with our system of government & its complete disregard for the Constitutional principles it claims to embrace. "Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely."

"The less obvious angle is that Cantor’s defeat rocked shares of Boeing. The aircraft manufacturer is down 4% since Cantor’s loss, and continues to sink lower.

Why Boeing? That’s where this tale of crony capitalism gets interesting.

Cantor was the #1 congressional supporter of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), a little-known federal agency whose ostensible purpose is to encourage US exports. Ex-Im makes or guarantees loans to foreign companies, which use those loans to purchase US products.

In 2013, Ex-Im guaranteed $12.2 billion in long-term loans—all funded by taxpayer money, of course. Of that amount, a whopping $7.9 billion, or 65%, financed orders for Boeing products.

In other words, Ex-Im is a giant taxpayer subsidy to a giant corporation—a fact Congress is well aware of, having nicknamed Ex-Im the “Boeing Bank.”

Other airline companies are understandably upset that their largest competitor has its own taxpayer-funded bank. Delta is leading an effort to sue Ex-Im, arguing that it allows foreign companies to buy Boeing planes at below-market prices." - Dan Steinhart, "The Casey Report"

This is the American, revolving door, lobbyist embracing, conflict of interest promoting system of government at its clearest prostitution of free market capitalism. For those of you well propagandized zealots who believe this is only a Republican phenomenon, than you need to dig deeper into who your AGOTUS (justice), your SODOTUS (defense) & your SOAOTUS (agriculture) are & where they come from.

Please wake up!


Cantor's loss has a lot to do with being a smug cocky snearing obstructionist asshole full of sophist rhetoric and ambition for power without a care for the common man. I hope they throw out Paul Ryan, Boehner and McConnell too.
Hopefully, the tea party will gain more power and cause havoc which will result in the electorate throwing them all out.
Pull your money out of the market now as no doubt Wall St will get hammered from Tea Party mischief and government shutdowns.

Paul Marks

First nice smear of Dave Brat (ripping his words out of context), and not a word about the real reason you hate him - his opposition to the Corporate Welfare (especially for bankers) that is the stock-in-trade of the Economist magazine.

Still at least this week we did not get the claim that "intelligence reports" suggested that the Bengasi attack was about a Youtube film (the nonsense the Economist magazine came out with a couple of weeks ago). Nor are we being told that "Common Core" (that unholy alliance between "Social Justice" propaganda and fat contracts for politically connected companies) was just nice "sensible standards" in education.

As for "being brave" - that is the last thing the Economist magazine wants Republicans to be.

If they were brave Republicans would ditch the big government "compassionate conservatism" of recent years - after all adopting such Economist magazine approved candidates did NOT mean support from the Economist magazine at election time.

In 2004 the Republicans nominated the wild spending President Bush as the their candidate (who had done everything the Economist magazine had advised from "No Child Left Behind" to the Iraq War) - and the Economist magazine endorsed John Kerry.

In 2008 the Republicans nominated the Economist magazine approved John McCain - and the Economist magazine endorsed Barack Obama.

In 2012 the Republicans nominated the Economist magazine approved Mitt Romney (approved at the time - now you try and pretend that Romney was some sort of Jeffersonian who would have radically rolled back the state against the noble "public services" a total fantasy on a par with your "You tube film caused Bengasi attack" legend) - and the Economist magazine endorsed Barack Obama (again).

If the Republicans fall for this yet again and nominate an establishment candidate in 2016 they will deserve to lose.

As for Barry Goldwater - what you say "did not pass the test of time" was proved to be the truth.

Barry Goldwater said that the proposed Great Society programs would grow like cancers and undermine the United States (both financially and CULTURALLY - replacing voluntary community action with the Federal government) and this is exactly what has happened.

And Barry Goldwater said that the Jim Crow laws and the new interpretation of "Civil Rights" were based upon the same doctrine - that government had the right to tell people who they should trade with and who they should trade with.

The doctrine of the late Roman Empire - with its despotic Emperors treating private business enterprises as part of the state - using the legal excuses of "common carriers" and "public accommodations" (if a business is "open to the public" it is "public" and "public" means GOVERNMENT - this how the false reasoning goes).

Again Barry Goldwater was proved to be correct - everything that he predicted (including de facto quotas and endlessly racial politics) came to pass (the same collectivist PRINCIPLE as Jim Crow - just Democrats playing it the other way round, going for the black vote rather than the white vote, but still telling people who they may and may not trade with, and who they may and may not employ).

The decline of America came about just as Barry Goldwater predicted (the United States is now crippled by debt and the culture is debased by dependence on government) - it remains to be seen if the Res Publica will finally fall.

As for "problem solving" - you remind me of Mr Cantor's concession speech.

Mr Cantor still did not "get it" - he was still going on about his "education policy" and his "health research policy" - it was as if he had never heard of the Tenth Amendment and thought that everything apart from the borders of the United States (where the tide of people who want to reverse the results of the wars of 1836 and 1848 continues - waving the Mexican flag and fanatically committed to "Social Justice" a doctrine utterly incompatible with the limited government vision of the Constitution of the United States) should be controlled by Washington D.C.

Mr Cantor still did not see that Washington D.C. is not (can not) "solving problems" - Washington D.C. (in its present unlimited form) IS THE PROBLEM.

Either the present system will be fundamentally reformed (rolled back), or it will collapse in economic (and cultural) bankruptcy.

Either way it is doomed - and the Economist magazine along with it.


Sirs, you must really stop reading other people's copy and do your own research. Mr. Brat does not oppose immigration as you say; he opposes amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, which is a world different.

The productive, working people in his district understand that a flood of newly legal workers (who were formerly illegal and so limited in the jobs they could take) can only mean reductions in their wages if not loss of their jobs. This is simple market economics and is inarguable.

Further, the amnesty that some of our elected reps would likely not be the only amnesty. Encouraged by one amnesty, another 30 million illegals would shortly find their way across our borders and would eventually also be granted amnesty, hurting our working people even more. Any citizen who works for a living in a manual labor or service job has real, legitimate concerns about this.

The chief issue is that our reps in DC have themselves become so detached from their American constituency that that they think and act as a foreign country with remotely-exercised power over our country. There is precedent for this.

How different the picture would be if the elected pols were the first to lose their jobs to amnestied illegals; the border would be sealed and immigration laws would be strongly enforced in a heartbeat. As it stands, they have no skin in the game, and seek only to boost their own constituency at the expense of working-class American citizens.

I do grieve for my country.


Cantor was defeated for being a key part of the Republican ‘establishment’ - a part of the larger Washington ‘establishment’. These people are more and more seen as living is a different universe, completely out of touch with most of the US. Like Nero, they are seen as fiddling while the world around them burns. They have messed up the economy, heath care, the military, and our standing in the world. They can’t manage what they have, yet they want more control. They are inept and arrogant. And they are so dumb, they don’t even know it.

Immigration ‘reform’ is beginning to get really ugly - and not just here (check out Europe). It is just dawning on people that if we take in all the poor people in the world, our standard of living will decline - and there are billions of poor people. Amnesty will just encourage more illegal immigration. It starting now with the dumping of tens of thousands of children on our doorstep. I’m sure there are millions more on the way. Shame on us for allowing this to happen. It is especially shameful for our President to encourage it. Our children and grandchildren will suffer for it.

At some point, I hope to find leadership that looks at the long term impact of our policies, not just some politically correct calculation to get reelected. I hope someone emerges before it is too late.

Thinking in NOLA in reply to Plain Speak

When, exactly, do you think the financial meltdown started? The overburdening of our military started? When were billions added to the national debt for a morally baseless foreign intervention that harmed our international reputation? Does your memory only go back 5.5 years?


It seems to me that this article was an attempt to score points off the President more than Cantor. When will Republicans wake up to the fact that a majority of Americans want gun control, want tax breaks for the middle and lower income population, not just the wealthy and big business, and EPA rules and guidelines to protect our environment from the Oil,Natural gas, Petroleum and Coal industry. But unfortunately, the Republican party is very good at energizing the hard right, God-fearing, gun-toting(don't tread on me population), anti-abortion, immigration fearing and anti-gay population than actually governing. Once they have whipped this mob into a frenzy, they can't understand why they turn on them. This mob has a large population who are against big government, but then hold their hands out for their Social Security checks and their Medicare benefits!



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

