This explains in a large part why I rejected the modern conservative movement and decided to become a Democrat.
The modern conservative movement can be broken down into two components.
Social conservatism and Fiscal conservatism.
Social conservatism can easily be rejected for what it is, a blend of religious extremism and racism.
Fiscal conservatism though is founded on the principle of supply side economics. Now I know, this isn't fair to the economist Laffer or the Laffer curve. The modern conservative movement really just co-opted the term to justify their rational for regressive tax cuts. It would be more fair to really call modern conservatives (Isn't that an oxymoron?) fiscal ideology "Reaganomics". However since Republicans have been successful at co-opting this term I'll continue to use it here (why not? conservatives do.).
Here's the problem with supply side economics. It's basic claim has never proven to work. Quite the contrary, the evidence proves that it doesn't work. This also explains why conservatives shrill screams of "socialism" are largely ignored by the general public whenever they get their panties in a wad about government regulations in the market place.
The fundamental principle of supply side economics (Reaganomics) as touted by conservatives think tanks is simple "Lower Tax Rates = More Robust Economy = More Federal Revenue"*
Now on the surface that appears reasonable. The problem for conservatives is that reality doesn't conform with their world view.
Let's look at the data on Federal revenue from the Department of Commerce and the Congressional Budget Office, since this data was compiled mostly under a Republican President with a Republican Congress so clearly this isn't data from the "liberal media". So let's look at data from the last two years of the Clinton administration and W's first term where two tax cuts occurred.
Federal Revenue (billions)**;
1999 - $1,827.5
2000 - $2,025.2
2001 - $1,991.2
2002 - $1,853.2
2003 - $1782.3
2004 - $1880.4
So every year W implemented a tax cut Federal Revenues shrank. "Of course!" I can hear the wingnuts yellings "The Economy shrank!". Well if the Economy didn't shrink in 2001, 2002 and 2003 there going to look pretty stupid aren't they?
US Economy (billions)***
1999 - $9,268.4
2000 - $9,817.0
2001 - $10,128.0
2002 - $10,487.0
2003 - $11,004.0
2004 - $11,728.0
Awww well shoot. It didn't work!
According to the data, after Clinton's modest tax increase, the economy grew by an annual average rate 3.7% and Federal Revenues increased by $850 billion dollars. However during 4 years of Bush's supply side economics (Reaganomics) the economy grew only by an annual average rate of 2.5% and there was a Federal revenue is down $145 billion!!!
So let's see, Clinton implements a modest tax cut, the economy does fine and Federal revenues go up so fast they outpace spending. Bush comes into office with huge regressive tax cuts for the wealthy, the economy grows, but at a slower rate but Federal Revenue declines and he plunges us back into deficit.
So that's about as solid evidence that you need that supply side economics (Reaganomics) doesn't work. That it is a failed economic policy.
So that goes back to the question why should people believe in a political party who's social agenda is based on racism and religious extremism combined with a failed economic policy that only benefits the people who don't need the help in the first place at the expense of the rest of the nation?
Why should people believe in conservatism given these facts?
* The Heritage Institute
** CBO
*** Dept. of Commerce
