The burden of omniscience

 

We expect our presidents to be know-it-alls.  That personality type seems drawn to the job.  This malady usually moderates in the aftermath of elections.  Faced with a skeptical opposition, surrounded by loyal, but practical supporters and a dispassionate, inquiring press, the president is constrained.  The message is always the same.  You are a leader, not a king.

 

Until now.  The "thrill down my leg" and "Obama, above it all, like God" moments could undermine any man's humility and seem to have scrambled President Obama's.  We saw early evidence at the convention when he spoke the words "This is the moment when the rise of the oceans slowed and the planet started to heal.”

 

Unfortunately, the only lasting remedy for the omniscience phenomenon is voter sanity.  Control of both houses and a filibuster-proof majority in the hands of a sitting president, any president, is a bad idea.  It reinforces the delusion, rather than disarming it.  Worse, it fuels the impulse to act without caution rather than suppressing it.    

 

The press, having campaigned for this president, is caught in a trap of their own making.  They defend his initiatives today, more in their own defense than the policy's.  The principled opposition is toothless because they campaigned and governed as nanny-state lite for the past twenty years.  The only plausible opposition comes from conservative Democrats, but they want to get elected too.  Opposing the stimulus and health-care reform probably doesn't help many of them.

 

The country has survived the omniscience phenomenon in the past because it was purely a politician's disease.  It is potentially more problematic this time because the president's delusion is shared by many voters and the press.  If the country believes this president to be omniscient, we had better hope that he really is.

 

  

 

The president said “They (opponents) would maintain a system that works for the insurance and drug companies while becoming increasingly unaffordable for families and businesses.”  How is it working for them, if, as the president acknowledges, their customers are less able to afford their products?

 

The president later said “Let me repeat that.  If you like your plan, you will be able to keep it.”  It would have been more accurate to say….If your plan survives the coming reform, you will be allowed to keep it.

 

Mr. Obama further assured the public that “Each bill provides a public option that will keep insurance companies honest, ensuring the competition necessary to make coverage affordable.”   Read that statement carefully. It is breathtaking in its arrogance.  The government’s remedy, aka the public option, will prevent companies from following their dishonest predilections.  This government-generated honesty will then produce the competition that evidently is lacking now

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Line item veto for Catholics.

 

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend observed in a Newsweek editorial on July 9, 2009 that President Obama’s agenda better represented the views of American Catholics than the Pope’s.  The political analysis may be correct and if the Pope were the chief lobbyist for the America Catholic laity, relevant.  But in the context of religious belief, her observations are more an indictment of Catholics than the Pope.

 

People, in and outside the Catholic church, debate the right or wrongfulness of war, euthanasia, stem-cell research, abortion and capital punishment.  The conclusions drawn are influenced by reason, ethics, politics and yes, faith.  Only in recent years, would it be considered acceptable to co-opt the mantle of one’s faith to deride it.

 

The faith she references is an ocean wide and an inch deep.  Faith has political currency today and both the left and the right are in the market for a prominent Catholic to carry their water.  Kennedy Townsend fits the bill for the left.  Townsend notes that “polls bear out the fact that Catholics do not want the Vatican to tell them what to think.” 

 

She thinks that the Pontiff “could learn from Obama’s style of respectful disagreement,” yet she wants more.  She sees the Pope’s respectful disagreements less charitably.   Rather than being the voice of Church teaching, she envisions the Pope’s proper role as a celebrity endorser for progressive Catholicism.

 

The modern faithful worship a more “user friendly” God than the one introduced to us in the Baltimore catechism.  This God isn’t pushy, knows his/her place and doesn’t much interfere.  A God more “invented” than revealed, endorsing our decisions but not influencing them.  He appears all over the political map.   The Almighty has strong pro-gun and anti-immigration leanings in the South and holds an equally passionate (and divine) position in support of assisted suicide farther west.

 

We could successfully transform the Pope into a mere conduit for the current leanings of the faithful.  In so doing, we make the Pope into the Press Secretary for Catholicism.  There is no going back from that point.  The credibility of the Papacy derives largely from its willingness to be pro-actively tone deaf to the politics.

 

An American Catholic politician who proposes that the shepherd should follow the flock is akin to an anti-civil rights Democrat or pro tax increase Republican.    

 

Townsend can legitimately borrow the Kennedy aura to wax on things political and frankly, she should be commended for her passion.  If she correctly portrays the state of Catholic political thought, it should be so acknowledged.  As a political citizen, she is on solid ground.  As a person of faith, she is way out on a limb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoreau’s “Civil disobedience” was assigned reading back in high school, circa 1966 or 1967.  The essay inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, among others, to resist injustice.  Thoreau preached a duty to resist moral wrong rather than merely vote in disapproval of it.

 

The most often quoted passage from the essay is “Any man more right than his neighbors is a majority of one, already.” Thoughtfully exercised by individuals like Gandhi and King, it was a powerful tool for good.  But, there is a difference between “more right than his neighbors” and any man who thinks he is more right than his neighbors.  If you combine that thought with some unchecked executive authority or overwhelming control of both houses of Congress the results are potentially less positive.

 

This flawed thinking might embolden a leader to take his country to war or impose wage and price controls.  It might also provoke a leader to nationalize banks or to take controlling common stock (voting) positions in large companies.   Is it sufficient justification for displacing secured creditors in favor of union members?  Would he consider oppressive cap and trade policies, given the differing scientific and economic evidence, if he were not feeling some moral imperative to act decisively?  Would the leader’s congressional colleagues call for a vote on a bill, portions of which were yet to be written?

 

There were two less-remembered passages from “Civil disobedience.”  Thoreau noted that progress from absolute to limited monarchy to democracy was progress toward true respect for the individual.  “Is democracy such as we know it, the last possible improvement in government?  Is it not possible to take a step further?”  Yes, it is possible, but the next step can just as easily be a step back.  Democracy is not perfect.  People mess it up.  When we find democracy itself inadequate, leaders can and will co-opt it for their own, less democratic inclinations.

 

Republicans should note the second, less-remembered statement: “A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then.”  The next time they are called to vote on an 1100-page, $800-billion appropriation bill with less than 70 hours notice, they should decline to vote yea or nay.  A bit of civil disobedience (“Sorry, still reading”) could serve to highlight the arrogance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

     

 

July 11, 2009

 

This is a brief summary of the wisdomforrent two point health care reform plan I cobbled together this morning at the library.  I am sure that Congress has a carefully researched and detailed strategic plan but every plan should face an alternative, so compare and contrast. 

 

Health care should be purchased with pre-tax dollars.  The alternative encourages taxpayers to seek the shelter of government subsidy for all of their health needs.

 

**   Allow all qualified medical expenses to be deducted dollar for dollar from gross income whether you itemize or not.  Medical expense payments would not be treated as income in the year they were paid.  For instance, gross income of 44,000 with health care expenses of $13,000 reduces adjusted gross income to $31,000.  From there, itemized or standard deductions further reduce this total to the taxable amount.

 

The paying consumer is not the problem.  Ironically, while a taxpayer can usually take the Medicaid ride for free, there are negative tax consequences for some who purchase medical services directly.

 

 The taxpayer who claims the standard deduction cannot further reduce his income by deducting out-of-pocket expenditures.  If an individual has gross income of $44,000 and a standard deduction of $5700 with a personal exemption of $3650, the net taxable income is $34,650.  If he has $5000 of out-of-pocket medical expenses and does not itemize, the net taxable amount remains $34,650.  Under the wisdomforrent proposal the net taxable income would reduce to $29,650.

 

Even taxpayers who itemize are penalized as expenses that do not exceed .075 of adjusted gross income are excluded from the deduction and are thus taxable income.  A taxpayer with adjusted gross income of $475,000 and deductible medical expenses totaling $225,000 is not permitted to itemize the first $35,500 of that amount.  In effect, this individual not only pays the $225,000 in medical expenses but he also incurs tax on $35,500 of that amount (at a rate that President Obama wants to raise to almost 40 percent.  In simple terms, he is given an opportunity to pay $225,000 in medical expenses with $239,000.

 

What is the benefit of this change?  Government would forego some tax revenue at a rate of somewhere between 10 percent and forty percent. But, in many cases, they are already financing the total cost of the care out of the same pool of dollars.  Is it preferable to pay for a $100.00 office visit, offset by $28.00 in tax revenue or to have the taxpayer pay for the office call and forego the tax collected?  Under my plan, individuals will seek (and the market will provide) coverage specific to their needs.  People needing only catastrophic risk coverage, or dental, prescription drug, long term care or major medical (hospitalzaton only) coverage will find more tailored products in the marketplace and purchase them with pre-tax dollars.

 

Why are these products not widely available today?  There is a contracted pool of purchasers that limits the product alternatives.  The individual consumer is concerned about the cost of the insurance, not the cost of the services.  The public option will further contract the pool of buyers and further limit the products available.  If all medical expenditures reduce taxable income, it is left to the consumer to choose how much insurance to buy and which providers to purchase from directly.  The mix will be different for everyone and so will the remedies.  Choice, without the trillions.

 

With deference to the medical savings account people, this is much simpler, both, to understand and to implement.

 

**   Consumers of Medicaid skilled nursing services are presently faced with the nonsensical choice between paying either the total cost of a patient’s care or none of it.  If your mother is admitted to a nursing home that would charge $6500 a month private pay and she cannot afford it, she may be admitted as a Medicaid client and the nursing home reimbursed at say $3700.00 a month.  If you and your siblings were to approach the nursing home with an offer to contribute $3200 a month toward her care, your offer would be declined.  Your only choice would be to pay the full $6500 or enter as a Medicaid client with the nursing home getting an under market-rate reimbursement $3700.

 

A nursing home might consider a financially vulnerable resident if they were able to negotiate a payment of perhaps $5200 a month consisting of a $3200 contribution from the family and $2000 from Medicaid.  This kind of arrangement is precluded under the current rules.  Usually the family allows the patient to qualify for Medicaid, the nursing home accepts lesser reimbursement and the government pays more for less care.  The patient suffers.

 

Some public/ private partnership is called for.  It will involve individual freedom and judgment and the government will hate that

 

I would make these two changes, wait eighteen months and assess the results.  Then, I would make further revisions incrementally. 

Saturday, July 4, 2009

 

 

President Obama made some remarks from the Rose garden on June 25, 2009 supporting the proposed Cap and trade legislation.  In part, he said “There is no longer a debate whether dangerous carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy.  It’s happening.”  The tendency to speak in absolutes is very pronounced in some demographic groups.  It occurs disproportionately among politicians and married men.

 

The implication to be drawn from “There is no longer….” suggests that a debate has occurred and evidence has determined an outcome.  Contrary to the President’s assertion, even a casual trip around the Internet can find serious credentialed people debating his basic assumption.  There are others who accept the warming scenario but propose that it is both cyclical and predictable or that changes in the sun are responsible and have far greater effect than carbon emissions.  There is serious disagreement about what effect, if any, the proposed legislation would have in mitigating the problem.

 

“There is no longer….” is decidedly different than there is no debate necessary or there is a debate but we choose not to participate.  When politicians start speaking in absolutes, ask yourself “What do they really know? Why should we believe them?”

 

The appeal of absolute certainty is so intoxicating that politicians rarely express doubt, even on the record.  Barney Frank and Maxine Waters were sure about the financial stability of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  It’s instructive to look back.  Politicians are often wrong in their certainty but they never get over speaking in absolutes.  Watch Inconvenient truth and then view The great global warming swindle.  Is the debate over?  Did it ever happen?

 

 

June 22, 2009

The politics of personality

“Senator” Boxer - Only one scenario could justify the upbraiding directed at the General. If the General been addressing all of the male members of the committee as Senator and then responding to Senator Boxer as ma’am, some comment may have been appropriate. Is that the unreported part of the story?

I think it more likely reflects the utter disdain that politicians have for the rest of us. Her remarks did not occur in a combative, emotional exchange. She wasn’t fighting for respect denied her, a temporary casualty of mutual anger. She was expressing her lack of respect by dressing it up as indignation..

Governor Sanford - How difficult is it for the truly arrogant to act humble? Even in situations where humility is clearly the path to take, politicians try to sidestep or finesse.. Is there any other explanation for President Clinton’s apology/lecture reminding us that his indiscretions pale in comparison to our appalling interest in them? How does one explain Mr. Guiliani announcing the end of his second marriage (to everyone including his wife) at a press conference? Or Governor Spitzer parading his wife in front of the cameras for his big moment. After all, what’s humiliation without pictures? John Edwards? Considering the backstory, his withdrawal statement was almost too creepy for words. Remember “don’t worry about me.”

People fall out of love. It happens. But political infidelities often lack that element. Bill Clinton does love Hillary. John Edwards loves Elizabeth.. Their spouses love them. But mere love is no longer sufficient. It is hard to settle for love when adoration is so readily available.

Governor Sanford sounded more sincere than most and his pain was evident. But like most political apologies, there was an awful lot of me talk. This press conference will play less well with each revisiting. The governor acknowledged that he let down his wife, children, staffers and friends. I can’t help but think that his biggest regret is losing life on the pedestal, a claim to respect, deference and admiration that we all crave but seldom feel that we deserve. We are usually right.

David Letterman and Sara Palin – David Letterman looked absolutely perplexed when the reliable groundswell of support for liberal bad taste didn’t occur. Others have made equally distasteful attempts at humor without repercussions but children are off limits.

Circling the wagons around Sara Palin is a mistake about to be made (again). Conservatives should grasp that the criticisms of Sara Palin were all valid ones. Yes, she was great on the stump, personable and her decision-making as governor could be defended, even applauded.

But……..Sara Palin was not disciplined or intellectually curious. She was weak in interviews and even worse didn’t seem interested in getting better. Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers could have articulated the conservative position better than Palin and Representative Michele Bachmann, who struggles against some of the same media bias would have embarrassed her in a debate. Like Palin, Bachmann has had some self-inflicted troubles but she is both a student and architect of policy. Palin is more of a cheerleader.

Sara Palin is no dummy but as a VP candidate, she was a mistake. Republicans were right to defend her, but shouldn’t try to resurrect or reinvent her.

There is a much to admire at Fox News, primarily in the daytime programming. The twenty-four hour Michael Jackson coverage was simply an embarrassment. MacNeil Lehrer News report covered the O. J. Simpson arrest, the opening day of the trial and the verdict because it was a news decision not a business decision. Fox should be ashamed and of course, so should everyone else.

Most of us acquire our limited spheres of influence through our own efforts. We work hard in our industry or for our company. We earn credibility. We hold some influence with co-workers, customers and competitors based on skills we have developed and tasks that we have accomplished. The respect our opinions command is based largely on real world experience, ours and the people we interact with.

There are select places where real world experience is less important. In some places across the globe, an accident of birth destines a person to a life of privilege or slavery unrelated to any knowledge or skill that he or she may possess. In the United States, two such places exist. Although we have neither monarchs nor a permanent underclass, in Washington D.C. and Hollywood, the rules are somewhat different. Credibility and moral authority are ordained, not earned.

In Hollywood, celebrity entitles almost anyone to advise us on how to lose weight, maintain healthy relationships and conduct the country's foreign policy (usually from the front cover of a magazine). But Hollywood is a fantasyland after all and most of us discount the advice of celebrities to a degree. We instinctively grasp that an actor who is four times married at twenty-nine may not be a good resource for relationship advice. Our radar informs us that Larry King's fascination with a celebrity is not evidence of a serious person. We still recognize that while celebrity does not make one smart, there are well-informed celebrities.

Clint Eastwood is a smart guy. Angela Jolie, while diminished by the cult of celebrity, is almost always better informed on any subject than the person interviewing her. We haven't completely lost our perspective on Hollywood. We have lost our minds about the celebrities in Washington D.C.

We treat politicians far too deferentially. During an earlier dust-up concerning the financial health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters disdainfully dismissed the concerns of critics through the power of rhetorical assertion. Why do we have faith in these people? What qualifies Frank to speak authoritatively on this issue? Does he have those credentials? If so, he is a knowledgeable person who made a mistake. If he lacks the credentials, what does it say about the media or about us? Remember, this is a man who was unaware that a prostitution ring was being operated out if his own apartment. It is at least possible that something could have slipped past him concerning the mortgage giants.

We seldom question whether the actions of the Executive or the Congress reflect constitutional intent. Refer to the "czars" of the current administration. As policy is implemented to deal with the current economic crisis, two questions should be asked and answered. Are the rescuers constitutionally empowered to act as they have? Do they have expertise to deal with this situation at hand or just power?

My sense is that we fight harder with our alderman than our Congressman. My question is why?

Eventually, the talk will come back to taxes. Reading through pages of campaign speeches from both the primary and general election season of 2008, I find recurring themes, articulated and implied, that will be employed to support proposed tax increases. I would encourage everyone to question whether these assertions are true.

**** Politicians demonize the rich by suggesting that the rich don’t work for their money. You constantly hear the “rich” and the “working people” in speeches as if the former just has money while the latter works to acquire it. In the past, it was usually working class, but it has morphed into working people. My life experience suggests that the wealthy work just as hard, if not harder,than anyone else. Many take significant risks with their own funds in the pursuit of their success.

There seems to be a widespread belief that the rich don’t work for their money. But almost all of the wealthy people I know started working at the minimum wage, had some post high school education, are literate, have reasonably good social skills and a sound work ethic. Most all of them entered the working world and some into their marriages at earnings levels in the poverty range. They acquired their wealth over time and they built their fortunes over their own working life. There is some wealth that seems to travel from generation to generation but no one is more adept at that than politicians.

**** The rich don’t need their money. This suggestion is made surprisingly very overtly.

Democrats are always saying that Republicans want to give tax cuts to people who don’t need them. While need is a legitimate calculation in the dispersion of revenue (for the recipient), it is hardly relevant in determining the contributor’s tax rate . Who can possibly determine when, if and how much of any persons money is needed by its owner. That would be impossible in real time, much less looking into the future. And how does that translate into a justification for taking it from them. This is a calculus employed by those who steal from their employers and insurers as well as those that rob banks. ( This scenario does not even entertain a more interesting question, whether those individuals who don’t need their money would put it toward more productive uses than the government).

Isn’t it a bit arrogant? - deciding how much of people’s earnings they should be allowed to keep based on the beneficiaries perception of the providers need.

**** The private accumulation of wealth is somehow bad for the economy. I am not threatened by accumulated wealth and neither are you. Would society be better served by transferring Bill Gate’s wealth in large part to the government? I don’t know anyone who has less wealth because Mr. Gates has much.

There are very few things that I am absolutely sure about, but one is – Those of us who pay federal taxes in the ten or fifteen percent bracket or pay no tax at all are not the helpless victims of those who pay 25 or 28 or 35 percent (or those who will likely pay 39.6 percent soon). We could all stand to be a little less angry and perhaps a bit more grateful.

I rarely find myself agreeing with Media Matters. But in a recent piece MM took the position that two of nominee Sotomayor's controversial statements had been presented out of context. Imagine such a thing. Well, it is usually out of context because you can't make hay with statements presented in context. Second, context is inherently subjective. What makes "in context", a phrase, a sentence, a paragragh, an answer, an answer accompanied by the question preceding it?

Judge Sotomayor's remark about appellate courts making policy would be alarming, had she actually said that. Her remark was buried in a response to a student's question about the differences between clerking in appellate courts as opposed to trial courts. If a non-lawyer such as myself were to read her full response, how would one summarize her answer. She said that the issues are narrower in trial courts, limited primarily to the facts of the case and that appellate decisions by their nature have potential repercussions for future cases aside from the case in appeal. However decided, precedents have policy implications in a de facto sense and that clerks should be aware of that.

That said, it is hard to imagine what context could possibly justify her other controversial remark, other than an attempt at humor. If judges are called to make legal judgments, how does one persons' ethnic background make her better qualified? Did the lower court properly apply the law? Is the law constitutional? The answers are knowledge-based not empathy-based.

Hearings for Supreme court nominees typically bring out the worst in elected officials. Refer back to the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings. This one is a potential loser for Republicans. Hopefully, they will challenge Judge Sotomayor on issues of legal philosophy rather than clumsy statements or misrepresentations of her views. If Republicans stay on target, she is not a lock for confirmation albeit a long shot for defeat. If they play for the cameras, the Republicans will look small. The first issue is a loser and should be left alone. The second statement, oft repeated is fair game. There are a number of legitimate ways to challenge Judge Sotomayor and Republicans should remember that under glare of television lights.

My reactions to the Obama/Chaney speeches of May 21, 2009 and the hours of press coverage in the aftermath.

** The left seems to emphasize that enhanced interrogation is both immoral and ineffective. If it is immoral, why qualify it? If you are going to be guided exclusively by your moral compass, then isn't the quality of the results produced immaterial?

** The point was raised more than once today that there are other, more efficient ways of getting the information. The question is not really if, it is when. Information concerning the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been very useful on December 5th in 1941, a historical footnote on December 9th.

** Vice-President Chaney made a compelling case for the release of information relating to the information elicited from these interrogations. Should that occur, he should be prepared to defend comments about the saving of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.

** Lanny Davis made the comment that waterboarding is torture citing a 1994 law. Legal opinions from the Bush Justice department clearly differed. This would be an interesting subject for some "journalist" to report on.

** The most interesting note in the Chaney speech was to a recent editorial referring to terrorists as abducted, saying " a major editorial page makes them sound like kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies". There was a time when no editorial page would have used such language without feeling compelled to support it in the text of the editorial.

My take - Should there be some debate over the limits of interrogation? Absolutely. But consider what actually happened here. We didn't behead anyone, hang any combatants from bridges, nor did we shoot prisoner A to encourage prisoner B to talk. We frightened them. Maybe terrified them, a concept that terrorists could probably process, maybe even admire. If you ever been in a fight with someone who has an advantage (such as being bigger and meaner than you) you might understand than one equalizer is making the opponent think that you are crazier than they are, less likely to be constrained by the rules, more likely to hit them with a chair or bite them or perhaps willing to drown them.

I hate hypotheticals but let's consider this scenario. The Twin Towers attack and the Pentagon attack occur on September 11th. The White House/Capitol attack is planned for September 16th. We pick up a planner of the attacks on September 12th and the only information we can obtain via the allowed protocol is that a spectacular attack is going to occur on the 16th. Every member of Congress is assembled and told that we have evidence an attack is imminent and are convinced that the prisoner knows the details. It is our opinion that the only hope we have of preventing an attack is to scare the crap out of Khalid. What would you have us do?

How would your representative have answered this question? It is easy to look back in history and surmise that we would have oppsed slavery in 1790 or the excesses in the aftermath of the French Revolution. We can be sure that we would have risen up against the Nazis during World War Two. We can be sure because we have the luxury of coming to our convictions far removed from the moment.

Last comment. There was precious little to admire in the analysis. That said, Dana Perino was articulate, thoughtful and forthright. I have always admired both of the Chaney girls. Liz Chaney's commentary was as well-articulated as you will hear this side of George Will. I am pretty sure that Mara Liiason is comfortably liberal but I never detect that in her analysis. I find both her and Charles Krauthammer a welcome relief from the water carriers posing as dispassionate analysts.

5/15 A deplorable lack of curiousity

I am always fascinated by the questions that politicians are not asked. When President Obama promised to save or create 3.5 million jobs, no one asked the most obvious followup.

Brave reporter: Mr. President, respectfully, that statement can be adapted to validate any result. A net gain of 1.5 million jobs (create 1.5 million, save 2 million), a loss of 4.5 million jobs (but for our efforts, 8 million jobs would have been lost, a catastrophe has been averted) What outcome are you actually predicting? The President's statement is a batting practice fastball but the press is not swinging.

Speaker Pelosi's press conference on Thursday highlighted a similar lack of curiousity. Her prepared statement about the CIA briefing expressly contradicted other published accounts and her own previous statement. Shouldn't someone have asked: Ms. Pelosi, can anyone who participated in the briefing, either from the Congress or the CIA support your recollection?

Her performance was weak and incoherent. She has two distinct recollections of the briefing.  Neither version conforms with the recollections of the other participants, notably the agency that gave the briefing. The press matched her step for step. The press today functions like a boxer's sparring partner. They give the champ a nice workout but under no circumstances do they hurt him or her. The sparring partner, however, works for the champ. Who does the press work for?



The point of Bernard Goldberg's book Bias was that viewers are capable of drawing their own conclusions. The role of the press is to provide us with information, not guidance. I am not suggesting that the press should set out to bloody the nose of a candidate, a congressman or a president. In a fair fight, sometimes a little blood gets spilled and that should not trouble the press. To have a fair fight, there must first be an adversary, not a sparring partner.

February 23, 2009

Republicans, rhetorical or real?

Republicans occasionally get the politics right as they did this week. They will never receive credit for benefits that might derive from the coming stimulus package. If it is a success they will be portrayed as unwilling participants, dragged kicking and screaming into politically expedient capitulation. If the stimulus underperforms, Republicans will be portrayed as the cause of its failure, having dug an economic hole so deep that even the wise and compassionate congressional Democrats couldn’t rescue us.

At rare moments, politics and principles coincide. This is one such moment for the Republicans. They can be principled without trepidation because there is no cost attached to their courage. Republicans cannot win regardless of the outcome so there is no penalty for being, well, Republicans.

This would be the opportune time for political self-analysis. Do Republicans oppose massive spending increases or only massive Democratic spending increases? Are they repulsed by the continued expansion of government or only the expansion of liberal government?

As a conservative, I want to believe that our guys think that capitalism, over time, can rescue the poor while liberalism can only sustain them at some tolerable level of misery. I want to believe in Republicans who trust that the creation and market diffusion of wealth builds a stronger America. I want to believe in a Republican congress that wants to solve the entitlement crisis rather than own it. But I don’t.

Republicans always promise to safeguard the congressional henhouse, but history tells us that they really just want to fornicate with the other hens. It’s a shame because we are not in danger just from the ideological left. If the only thing Republicans advocate is a more modest socialism, a less powerful nanny state, pardon the electorate’s indifference.

There are a few promising seeds growing in the republican fields like Paul Ryan in Wisconsin. Will Republicans continue to embrace him when the political winds shift back to the right or will he be marginalized to preserve an inclusive bipartisan façade?

Plausible arguments can be made against much liberal economic policy. The advocates run as Democrats and govern like Democrats on growth hormone. No voter feels deceived because it is not dishonest. The opponents of those economic policies run as Republicans by rhetorical assertion and then govern like Democrats, in love with the power and feeling absolutely indispensable. The voters feel hoodwinked.

I heard a Republican strategist recently blame the McCain defeat on his inability to capture the undecideds. He no doubt thought that the undecideds in question were debating whether to vote for Obama or McCain. Clearly, some Reagan Democrats went home again. But most of the uncommitted voters still in play were debating the choice between voting for McCain and not voting. More directly, voting for a candidate who is perceived by many as a “Republican-in theory” or not voting. This debate will continue on into the next election cycle unless Republicans can persuade voters that their principles are more than a campaign tool selectively exercised in pursuit of power.