For those of us of the slightly (or not-so-slightly) lefty persuasion, Kemp’s passing is a reminder of a time when conservatives actually, sincerely believed that their policy prescriptions would help people. Kemp seemed to begin with the assumption that the purpose of government was to improve people’s lives, and his peculiar brand of supply-side interventionism was an outgrowth of that conviction. However much I disagreed with his policy ideas, I admired the man’s motivation. To Kemp, fiscally conservative policy was a means to what was arguably a socially liberal end — the empowerment of urban populations.

This is precisely why the right never trusted him, and never saw him as one of their own. It is also partly why their support for Dole in ‘96, who Kemp served as running mate, was so tepid — Dole had passed over a couple of “true believers” in favor of the reasonable Kemp, in what was ultimately a futile play for the political middle (not to mention the African American vote).

Kemp’s idea was to use government; the plan of the rest of the right was to dismantle it. Kemp wanted to use tax breaks in a targeted way to to improve the social condition of the nation; the rest of the right just wanted more money, and the poor could take care of themselves. Jack cared just a little too much about the brown folk for much of the Republican party’s taste, something the party has never quite been able to admit out loud.

Thus it comes as little surprise that Rube Jonah Goldberg serves us 31 flavors of wrong in what passes for an op-ed in USA Today:

Embracing what Barry Goldwater called “me-too” Republicanism agreeing to liberal principles while being just a bit more frugal about living up to them might win over a few of these exotic creatures, but it will lose tens of millions of committed conservatives. Given a choice between an authentic Democratic Party and an unenthusiastic knockoff, why vote for the pale imitation?

The real answer for the GOP isn’t to narrow the differences between the parties but to heighten them. Conservatism’s greatest achievements have arisen from giving Americans a “choice, not an echo,” as Goldwater famously put it.

In 1974, during the bleak post-Watergate period, Ronald Reagan raised “a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors.” In 1978, as the U.S. floundered under President Carter, Kemp flew the flag of massive tax reform. Inspired by Kemp, the Reagan campaign in 1980 proposed an audacious 30% cut in taxes.

Goldberg thinks what ails the Republican party in 2009 is that they aren’t more hyper about tax cuts, when that is in fact the least of their problems. Like a blind squirrel finding a nut, he actually manages to get something right…

George W. Bush’s problems were caused by Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and the economy, not social issues.

…while not missing the point so much as obtusely denying it. Goldberg’s solution for the GOP’s ills is that they should stick to their principles, while it was precisely those principles that are responsible for their problems. Yes, we have failed, says Jonah, and the solution to failure is — more failure! By Jonah-logic, if you hit yourself in the hand with a hammer, the way to get it to stop hurting is to hit yourself again, only this time really hard!

In the very next sentence, he manages this outright howler:

And Specter was always pro-choice and otherwise socially liberal; yet he routinely won the support of the party.

Except for that time in 2004, when the Club-For-Growth-backed Pat Toomey primaried him from the right and almost knocked him off. The party kinda sat that one out. And that time in 2009, when Toomey said he was going to primary him again for selling out conservative values. The party was gonna sit this one out too. If that’s support, I’d hate to see what they’d do to a guy they didn’t like.

Goldberg also completely misunderstands (or intentionally misrepresents) the divide between Kemp’s economic interventionism and Reagan’s laissez-faire let them eat cake trickle-down stance. Kemp wasn’t interested in much of anything trickling down; he was, if nothing else, an economic activist. For Kemp, tax cuts were a means to an end, while for Reagan they were an end in themselves.

It’s like listening to Og the Cro-Magnon Pundit: “Kemp cut tax. Tax cut good. Kemp good. Reagan cut tax. Reagan good. Kemp and Reagan same!”

Leave it to Goldberg — hell, leave it to any of the remaining handful of conservatives today — to look at Kemp’s legacy of empathy and miss the empathy.

Chris Cillizza’s got the lowdown:

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

[...]

He added: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.

You don’t say.

Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”

By “philosophy” he means “future”, of course.

This makes things interesting indeed. In the short term, it’ll put the Senate Dems up to 60 (assuming Norm Coleman eventually gracefully concedes defeat runs out of money). In the longer term, Specter is up for reelection in 2010 and was already being primaried by  Pat Toomey, who makes Rick Santorum look almost sane by comparison. The Democratic side was fairly open, as rumors of SPecter party-switching were in the air and folks were waiting to see how it’d play out.

Now we know. I’d call this a safe Dem seat in 2010. In the meantime, there will be the deafening sound of thousands of wingnut heads exploding.