Fox News as the Ministry of Truth

I think that the smarter republicans out there need to take a good hard look at their party affiliation, political identity, and whether or not they just believe whatever Fox News tells them. The most persuasive case I can make to this effect involves a hypothetical Mitt Romney presidency. Namely, had Mitt Romney won the 2008 presidential election, what would he have done differently from Barack Obama?

Most republicans immediately say that spending levels and the deficit would have been far lower. This strikes me as insane.

The national debt tripled during Ronald Reagan's presidency. It nearly doubled during that of George W. Bush. Spending during Reagan's two terms averaged 22.4% of GDP. That's almost two full points above the 1971-2009 average of 20.6%. The last four republican presidents oversaw an increase in the national debt; the last five democratic presidents, a decrease. Even 80% of the debt accrued under president Obama can be blamed on Bush 43's policies, as it would have accumulated anyway had our president simply sat there twiddling his thumbs.

And you mean to tell me that Romney would have, for no apparent reason, broke decades of republican precedent and enacted harsh austerity measures? He would have ignored his economic advisers and eschewed stimulus? (Check out what his chief economic adviser was saying in 2008 and 2009.) He would have magically canceled all of the Bush-era programs with which republicans had no qualms at the time?

Of course not, and the major takeaway here is that republicans were never opposed to deficits until a democrat  ran them. Dick Cheney famously quipped in 2002 that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." And they didn't. But now they do. And now they always have. Now Ronald Reagan was a budget-balancer. Now he was a hero of fiscal restraint. Because now Fox News says he was. Because we were always at war with Eastasia deficits.