"Do you sell many of these?" he asks.

"Quite a few," the counterman answers.

"I wouldn't have thought bass would go for something like that."

"We don't sell them to the bass. We sell them to the suckers."

Most mainstream economists agree with some form of Keynesian theory. It is counter intuitive, which makes it a hard sell to voters, but it has pretty much worked over time. The idea is that in times of recession, money in the economy is important. But money circulating in the economy is more important. So the emphasis is on getting as much cash as possible into the hands of folks who will need to spend it. Tax cuts for the middle class tend to stimulate more than tax cuts for the wealthy. Unemployment benefits stimulate more than tax cuts. Jobs stimulate most of all.

Deficits are important, but only in the long term. Deficits lead to inflation and add to the national debt. Getting the economy moving is the surest way to cure deficits. The priority is to get the economy moving, and only when that succeeds, go after deficits.

But all that goes against voter intuition. More government spending, even resulting in higher deficits, boosts the economy. Boosting the economy reduces deficits. So deficits cure deficits? It makes no intuitive sense, and yet it works.

Hooverism, the theory that the highest priority must be eliminating deficits, has been discredited by experience. But it survives because it seems to make sense. We don't want to leave debt to our grandchildren. Families have to tighten their belts, so government should, too. After all, fair is fair.

The stimulus has kept the absolute worst from happening. But, political realities being what they were, it was not big enough or distributed soon enough. Since Republicans were saying no to everything, even Republican proposals, conservative Democratic votes were needed, especially in the Senate, where arcane rules made Republican obstruction possible. So the stimulus kinda sorta worked up to a point. But voters cast ballots for more than keeping the worst from happening.

Republicans return to what works for them. "American families are tightening their belts. But they don't see government tightening its belt," says GOP House leader John Boehner. "And I think that we can get through this year and lead by example and show the American people that the government can go on a diet as well." He's Herbert Hoover, right down to to his socks.

But another comment by the Republican House Leader may be more revealing. "Well, I don’t need to see GDP numbers or to listen to economists. All I need to do is listen to the American people..." Boehner's solutions don't have to work. He sells them to the suckers.

 - - President Herbert Hoover, May 21, 1932
     Blocking recovery programs designed to put the country back to work

I don’t see them presenting any alternatives, any new options or any new thinking. If the Republicans get back in power, what are they going to do? There is no articulation. It’s just a ‘no no no, I’m against Obama because he’s a socialist and he’s taking America in the wrong direction.’ That’s certainly an opinion, but what about you, Mr. Republican? What would you do?

- - Chuck Hagel (R-NE), former US Senator, September 1, 2010

It is the latest of a series of laments from very conservative Republicans who would be considered too liberal for today's GOP. He is also wrong. Mr. Republican has been articulating a vision of America. It has not really taken with an electorate that is increasingly possessed by a blind rage against a desperate economic condition. But it is there nonetheless. One New Age Republican after another comes up with some variation of the same mantra.

Social Security was a bad idea and should be privatized.

Deep water drilling regulations designed to prevent oil disasters like the BP catastrophe are unreasonable. Such disasters will not happen because corporations already have a terrific incentive to take safety precautions. Think of the damages BP is paying out. No further need there.

Work safety regulations should be abolished. Mining and other safety rules can be enforced by the marketplace. Corporate employers already have plenty of incentive to care for the safety of workers, since low accident rates and a minimal level of on-the-job deaths help in employee recruitment.

Food Safety should be left to industries. If consumers get sick or children die, it would hurt business, so they already have enough incentive.

Hedge Fund managers are unfairly targeted. Although their manipulations triggered America into financial trouble, they should still be a uniquely protected class. They should get tax breaks that are normally reserved only for investors. Tax breaks for hedge fund managers as if they were risking their own savings. A 15% tax cap on wealthy tax fund managers.

Economic policies that were once the province of President Herbert Hoover should be brought back and rigidly followed. Just because they didn't work in the 1920s or in the last Bush administration shouldn't discredit the theory.

Senator Hagel may have a point when it comes to hating Muslims, or critiquing Democratic hair. These are not really policy positions.

But overall, Republicans have not refused to stake out positions. Voters and media, for the most part, have simply not noticed.

It's hard to find Medved's review on line anymore, so I'm going by memory here. I recall his summary of the theme as having the title character, Hilary Swank, needing to prove her self-worth by boxing. It supported Medved's attack, though not his giving away the ending. But there was another problem. It lacked the virtue of truth. I remember trying to recall anything in the movie that would suggest such a thing.

And that is a serious drawback to political passion. The temptation to veer away from truth is a powerful one. Lately, Medved has been a frequent victim. Driving to the office a few weeks ago, I listened to an interview with Medved concerning the Islamic Cultural non-Mosque in Manhattan.

The point of the Cultural Center was, in part, to put a thumb in the eye of terrorists. This show of American unity was to be a rebuke to the bigotry of Islamic extremists, a demonstration that American Muslims not only pointed an accusing finger at bin Laden, but were supported by mainstream America. Conservatives and liberals joined in supporting them, until American bigots parroted al Qaeda bigots. Medved chuckled at the controversy. It would be so simple to solve, he said. Just move the center a few more blocks away than the 12 block distance now planned. Opposition would vanish.

Then Medved had another chuckle at the self-contradiction of President Obama, who questioned the wisdom of the planners, but who had originally said, according to Medved, "Opponents of the mosque (sic) want to take away religious freedom." Medved added "No we don't." Strangely, Obama neither questioned the wisdom of planners of the center, nor characterized opponents in any way. Medved was simply not telling the truth.

Medved is sincere in his conservative beliefs. He argues that those who see American slavery as historical evil exaggerate. His reasoning is that slavery was unfortunate, but not that bad. More recently, he says if God voted, the ballot would be for Republicans only. His reasoning there is that conservative evangelists have invested more study in God's word, so they should know best. They tend to support Republicans, so there you have it. Liberals sympathize with the poor while biblical law supports equal treatment of both.

Biblical scholars, friends as they are of Michael Medved, may forever debate the unusual ethic that conservative politics demands. The Ten Commandments are important and people should hold to them. Except the one about false witness. It's always okay to lie in service to the Lord.

 - - Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ), September 3, 2010
     On debating her opponent every again, after her televised opening
     meltdown while debating Democrat Terry Goddard