Published in Politics
Presidency
Understanding Obama
Forget the birther nonsense, etc. Former Intelligence Committee staffer and author Angelo Codevilla establishes that Obama grew up in a world deeply influenced by the CIA, among other establishment institutions. The key here is his life in Indonesia. Did you know his mother's supervisor was one Peter Geithner? The lead-in to this:
Consistent with the Barack Obama we know, however, are his real family, his real upbringing, and his real choices of profession and associates. His mother's parents, who raised him, seem to have been cogs in the U.S. government's well-heeled, well-connected machine for influencing the world, whether openly ("gray influence") or covertly ("black operations"). His mother spent her life and marriages, and birthed her children, working in that machine. For paradigms of young Barack's demeanor, proclivities, opinions, language, and attitudes one need look no further than the persons who ran the institutions that his mother and grandparents served--e.g., the Ford Foundation, the United States Information Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency--as well as his chosen mentors and colleagues. It is here, with these people and institutions, that one should begin to unravel the unknowns surrounding him.
At the very least one can conclude that far from being on the outs, young Obama was always part of a segment of this country's ruling elite.
Men and Women
Defending Julia
Defending these other Julias--and not the woman in Orwell's 1984. From Robert Herrick:
WHENAS in silks my Julia goes,
Then, then, methinks, how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.
... Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
That brave vibration each way free ;
O how that glittering taketh me !
You really wanna get rough with Julia, try John Donne's "Julia," Elegy 14:
Her hands, I know not how, used more to spill
The food of others than herself to fill ;
But O ! her mind, that Orcus, which includes
Legions of mischiefs, countless multitudes
Of formless curses, projects unmade up,
Abuses yet unfashion'd, thoughts corrupt,
Misshapen cavils, palpable untroths,
Inevitable errors, self-accusing loaths.
These, like those atoms swarming in the sun,
Throng in her bosom for creation.
I blush to give her halfe her due ; yet say,
No poison's half so bad as Julia.
Finally, try Julia Shaw, who unfavorably compares Obama's Julia to Tocqueville's American woman, whose superiority was responsible for American greatness.
Presidency
The Politics of the OBL Killing
Health Care
Sebelius Brushes Off Religious Liberty
At a congressional hearing, HHS Secretary Sebelius has to admit she did not consider constitutionally protected religious liberty when she issued her now infamous HHS mandate on insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception. Congressman Gowdy pins her down. Her worst excuse was that she is not a lawyer.
Politics
The Ideological Hack As Universal Genius
I think it is because he is used to not getting caught. President pretends to be the above-it-all guy who isn't about ideology. He is about reality and everybody else is about ideology. He has a good affect to pull of this act. He is naturally confident and very calm. The calm is especially important. Rick Santorum has plenty of confidence, but he often comes across like a hothead. It often looks like Santorum's reason has been overcome with his passion. If people don't know the specifics of what Obama is talking about, they are inclined to give his statements the benefit of the doubt.
So President Obama says that the Solyndra loan was happened because "The understanding is that some companies are not going to succeed, some companies will do very well -- but the portfolio as a whole ends up supporting the kind of innovation that helps make America successful in this innovative 21st century economy," So he is just a futurist technocrat right? He is making the investments that are going to make America a big success. So let's give the government capitalist in the White House a break. He isn't going to get all of the calls right.
Well then it turns out that the vetting for Solyndra was rushed and that the real experts at the Treasury Department weren't allowed to weigh in. The real story is that Obama is less a visionary investor in the future and more a crony capitalist with an ideological fixation on green energy.
Or what about Obama's attack on the latest version of the Ryan budget? President Obama argued that, under Ryan's plan, seniors would have to pay more to enroll in traditional Fee For Service Medicare. It turns out that all the programs offered under the Ryan budget would include at least the same actuarial benefits as Medicare and lower cost options would only be viable if they offered the same benefits at a lower price. Oh, and Ryan proposes to grow Medicare spending at the same rate as President Obama.
So why does Obama do all this? The main reason is that he usually gets away with it. A lot more people have heard Obama's promises about government-financed green energy than have heard about the Treasury Department's inspector general report on Solyndra. The President has the megaphone so a lot more people heard his attack on the Ryan budget than read Ryan's rebuttal. The problem with Obama's "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" comment wasn't that it was false, it was that so much of the political press called him out on it and lots of people have the vague, remember-it-from-high school knowledge that the Supreme Court has struck down federal laws lots of times. Most people have no such context when it comes to Solyndra or the Ryan budget.
The Obama above-it-all act works pretty well, but it is fragile. If he gets skewered just right, it doesn't matter how calm or confident he seems. The spell is broken. The Romney team needs to point to the gap between the rhetorical Obama and the real Obama. He is the constitutional law professor who tries to tell you that the Supreme Court never struck down a law passed by a "strong majority" of Congress. He is the crony capitalist who says he is investing in the future but is really just carelessly shoveling money out the door to politically connected companies. He can't tell the truth about either his own Medicare proposal or that of the Republicans and then he says it is all about the math. I think humor would be the best weapon here. There is something absurd about the way Obama presents himself. Exposing the absurdity in a way that doesn't come across as mean spirited would be the best way to deflate the incumbent, but that is a hard trick to pull off.
Politics
Our Constitutional Law Professor President
If he wasn't a former constitutional law professor, I would point out one could maybe find precedent for a law passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress that was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Politics
Deeply Shaken
The panic is premature. I take it as a given that only Anthony Kennedy knows how he is going to vote on Obamacare. And maybe not even he knows. And even if he thinks he knows, he might change his mind. I've been rereading Jan Crawford Greenburg's excellent Supreme Conflict. The book won't help you predict what Kennedy will do on the mandate, but it might make your confusion better informed.
From the oral arguments, Kennedy clearly seemed to think that the insurance purchase mandate was an unprecedented and fundamental expansion of federal power under the interstate commerce clause. He was skeptical that the interstate commerce clause gave Congress the power to force citizens to contract with a private company to purchase a particular class of product. He also seemed skeptical that, if the Supreme Court consented that Congress had this power in matters of health insurance, the power could then be cabined to only health insurance and not cell phones, broccoli, burial insurance, or whatever other product Congress imagined. Every attempt by the Solicitor General to construct a "limiting principle" was quickly demolished. This is possibly because neither the Solicitor General, nor the administration he represented, nor the congressional majorities who voted for the law believed that any such limiting principle was necessary. The result was a group of badly thought out bad faith arguments that collapsed under questioning. Before liberals get too upset with the Solicitor General, they should remember that he would have fared even worse if he had been more honest and argued something along the lines of "Hell yeah the Congress can mandate that Catholic Charities purchase aborted fetuses by the dozen as a way to reduce premiums for government-mandated abortion insurance. The Supreme Court said so. Where? It was that case with the wheat or the weed, or the national bank. I dunno."
So what is Kennedy going to do? I think some of it will come down to Kennedy's self-image. Greenburg quotes Kennedy as saying "I try to accommodate more of the precedents in a more case-by-case approach than does, say, Nino [Scalia] or Bill Brennan." I think that Kennedy's self-image has some major reality problems when you look at his votes and opinions on the death penalty and social issues, but it is still his self-image. If the conservative Supreme Court Justices (and especially the careful and prudent John Roberts) can convince Kennedy that striking down the Obamacare mandate does not mean striking down (even in part) New Deal-era precedents like Wickard, then Kennedy might vote to strike down the mandate.
On the other hand, Greenburg writes that Kennedy "pays attention to the social and political fallout from the Court's work, and frequently winds up in the middle, looking for that elusive compromise position that will resolve the most divisive either-or cases." Kennedy must know that, if he votes to strike down the mandate, he will be cursed by center-left dominated institutions to his grave and beyond. So he might put aside his principles (to the extent he has any or understands those he thinks he has), and try to find a "compromise" that will maximally salvage his reputation with every side and maybe accommodate his principles a little too. One can imagine Kennedy talking himself into a "compromise" where he votes to uphold the mandate and conservatives get a little eyewash about how Congress only has the power to impose purchase mandates on health insurance - until Obama appoints another Supreme Court Justice. Heh, heh.
Liberals and conservatives each have plenty of reason to chew antacids until the Supreme Court announces its decision.
Politics
I Wonder Why Solicitor General Verrilli...
1. Cohen writes, "The Constitution is what the justices say it is, nothing more and nothing less. But this law is clearly within Congress' power" Well, which is it? If the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says is it, then, based on Cohen's own premise, it is unclear whether the federal health insurance purchase mandate is within Congress' power and if a majority of the Court votes to strike down the federal mandate, then it will "clearly" beyond the constitutional power of Congress. But Cohen clearly suggests that the federal health insurance purchase mandate is within Congress' power regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. We can see Cohen's constitutional nihilism struggling with his self-regard. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is when the Supreme Court agrees with Cohen. The Constitution is "clearly" what Cohen says it is when the Supreme Court has the temerity to disagree. Perhaps this argument is less than convincing to those who share neither Andrew Cohen's ideology nor Andrew Cohen's high opinion of Andrew Cohen.
2. Speaking of Andrew Cohen's high opinion of Andrew Cohen. Cohen writes of Chief Justice John Roberts "The chief justice has something to prove to progressives." He flatters himself. I pretty sure that the proper response to a brush with the esteem of Andrew Cohen is apply bleach to the affected area.
Politics
What Part Of 'Because I Said So' Don't You Understand?
Chait's post is a more telling example of how self-congratulation and group think can weaken one side's argument. Chait writes that the health insurance purchase mandate must be constitutional because health care is interstate commerce and the federal government must therefore be able to compel an individual to contract with a private firm to purchase a product they do not want. Chait specifically takes on the activity/inactivity distinction. Chait argues that the government does regulate inactivity in that it mandates vaccinations and sometimes compels military service. The federal government derives the power to draft from the power to raise armies and navies rather than the interstate commerce clause. The states (not the federal government) have the power to compel vaccinations from the general police power that the federal government lacks. That is why the Supreme Court is very unlikely to strike down the state-level Romneycare insurance purchase mandate and more likely to strike down the federal-level Obamacare insurance purchase mandate (one can imagine circumstances where the federal government mandates vaccinations for certain classes of citizens - soldiers for instance.)
The problem with all of this wooly thinking is that it leaves one badly prepared when one steps out of the bubble of the likeminded. Imagine if Solicitor General Verrilli had said something along the lines of "Well of course the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to force people to buy health insurance. Congress has the power to draft don't they?" Even the liberal Justices would have laughed at him in horror and disgust. Solicitor General Verrilli couldn't say "Well sure transportation is an interstate industry and everyone participates in transportation markets, so therefore Congress has the power to mandate that every American contract with General Motors to buy a Chevy Volt or else pay a civil penalty." That stuff works when you are around the campfire with people who really really want the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare. It works less well when you are in front of Supreme Court Justices who are under the impression that the Constitution created a federal government of limited powers.
So Solicitor General Verrilli did his pitiful tap dance about how the health care market is "different" and how the federal government has the power to compel you to buy health insurance but not a cell phone or burial insurance. And the result was that the more conservative Justices pounded him into the ground. The problem wasn't Verrilli. It was the quality of his arguments. And that leaves Lithwick and Chait to explain that only meanies and poopyheads disagree with them.
Before you laugh at Lithwick and Chait, keep in mind that Justice Kennedy might find their arguments (which are attacks on the status of those who disagree with them) more convincing than the constitutional arguments of the Solicitor General.
Politics
Anthony Kennedy and Status Rewards
Well if he thinks the federal mandate is unconstitutional, why not just say that it is unconstitutional? I think some of it has to do with status rewards. One of the reasons I was pretty confident that the House Democratic leadership would attract enough wavering members to pass Obamacare was because liberal-dominated institutions would be able to provide safe landing spots and decades of ego rewards to members who voted for Obamacare and lost their next election. Lose a House seat, gain a professorship, an ambassadorship, or a Profiles In Courage Award. I think Kennedy might be looking at the flip side of this liberal cultural power. The center-left has been desperate to gain government-run health care for decades. Kennedy must know that if he strikes down the Obamacare mandate, he is going to go down as a historical villain in all of the institutions controlled by the center-left. This will be much bigger than his decision in Bush v. Gore and his opinion in Lawrence won't gain him any clemency for his crime of smashing the center-left dream of government-run health care. If he votes to strike down the mandate, who-knows-how-many law professors, NPR legal commentators, and New York Times editorial writers will abominate Anthony Kennedy's name to his grave and beyond. He shouldn't care about that, but I fear that he does. I fear that the constitutional argument over Obamacare won't be won on the legal merits. The fate of Obamacare might come down to a contest between Kennedy's intuition that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, and his dread of the backlash in liberal-leaning institutions like the legal academy and the mainstream media.
Health Care
HHS Mandate via Puerto Rico
First, they came for the Puerto Ricans. The HHS mandate requiring sterilization and birth control coverage in health insurance was anticipated in the New Deal policy toward Puerto Rico. It is now plain how New Deal and successive leftist social engineering embraces all aspects of political, commercial, and family life.
The recent Republican presidential primary in Puerto Rico drew attention to this constitutional oddity--a commonwealth/colony of American citizens. But the contenders overlooked the most significant element of recent Puerto Rican history for American politics today.
Franklin Roosevelt appointed one of the architects of the New Deal, Rexford G. Tugwell as its Governor. Serving from 1941-46, Tugwell followed Progressive ideology and transformed the University of Puerto Rico into a think-tank for liberal reforms for the island. He established a decades-long practice of using Puerto Rico as a laboratory for liberal policies, including birth control through sterilization and the pill.
According to one historian (JSTOR link), heavily Catholic "Puerto Rico became the chief testing ground for the birth control pill." For a while more women were sterilized there than in any other country in the world. These population control measures, tied with economic reforms, were intended to make Puerto Rico a "showcase for democracy" in the Cold War, a model of enlightened policy toward developing nations.
Bored by their lack of progress, scholars of Puerto Rico such as Oscar Lewis (author of the classic study La Vida) turned instead to that more exciting example of Cuba.
We don't need West Side Story to know that Puerto Ricans "like to be in America." But what happens when America becomes another Puerto Rico?
Health Care
Healthcare in the Court
Three days of oral argument over the constitutionality of Obamacare begin Monday. C-SPAN will replay the oral argument later in the afternoons. It should be kept in mind that the reason we are even talking about the possibility of the Court overturning the law is one justice: Clarence Thomas (no relation to me, incidentally). The New Yorker gave this explanation of Thomas's key role in changing the Court last year.
Toobin writes several silly sentences but note the core of his argument, a warning to the left of his dangerous powers:
In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.
Conservatives should keep in mind that Thomas was nominated by a president not particularly beloved among conservatives--yet a man who stood by him when he came under vicious attack.
Courts
Government of, by, and for Bureaucracy
The unethical investigation (and subsequent 2008 conviction) of the late Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) for alleged ethics violations reveals a crisis in democratic government: When Department of Justice investigators influence elections--in this case, one that gave Senate Democrats a veto-proof majority--they are showing themselves to be the rulers they have in fact become.
In many reapportionment schemes, the legislators pick their constitutents. In the Stevens investigation, where the judge held government lawyers in contempt after the trial, the bureaucrats in effect knocked off a Republican incumbent, who lost by fewer than 4,000 votes a week after the trial. The court-appointed counsel concluded that the prosecution withheld potentially exonerating evidence from the defense. Even Eric Holder had to discipline the lawyers, with one committing suicide. (It should be noted that a Republican Administration might not have been able to control their own staff.)
History
Why Did the Conspiracy Fail?
Literature, Poetry, and Books
Shakespeare's Coriolanus
Politics
What's Right about Kansas
Health Care
The Economics of the HHS Mandate
Health Care
In re Rush
We misheard Rush on the 30 year-old law student demanding free contraception, via Obamacare mandate.
UPDATE: Now he apologizes.
Politics
Immune to Irony
Politics
James Q. Wilson, RIP
One of the giants of contemporary political science, James Q. Wilson, has passed away. His writing displayed insightful commentary on areas of public policy--crime ("broken windows"), poverty, bureaucracy (the classic book), bioethics, marriage, and ethnic politics, plus a book on snorkeling,co-authored with his wife. I happened to use his Bureaucracy book last spring, originally published in 1989. Wilson taught us what questions to raise in examining political institutions. Some of his writings for the Claremont Institute can be found here. An appreciation of his work by Shep Melnick is here.
It is not to damn him with faint praise to say that Wilson was likely the nicest and the wisest President of the American Political Science Association. I can still recall the headshaking and denunciations of his presidential address, on "The Moral Sense."
Addendum: A conversation from 1987 with Wilson, conducted by Steve Hayward mostly.
Politics
The Logic of Birthright
Instapundit point us to this incident, in which a citizen was denied the right to travel because he damaged the chip in his passport: "The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport."
But is holding a passport a "privilege" or a "right"? Interestingly the dissenters in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (Fuller, joined by Harlan) noted that "birthright" or the notion that soil determines citizenship, was associated with subjecthood--under common law, anyone born on soil belonging to the king could only leave the country with his explicit consent. That's why that argued that in 1776 the U.S. broke from not just allegiance to the crown, but also from the idea of birthright. They argued that American citizenship was based upon the principles of 1776--mutual consent between current citizens and any new would-be citizen. It seems some of our bureaucrats are following the logic of "birthright citizenship" all too well.
Politics
How An American Debt Crisis Will (Might) Be Different From The Greek Debt Crisis
Papandreou became Prime Minster and it turned out that the money really wasn't there. Papandreou pretended that he thought that the money had really existed, and that the previous government had lied about the extent of the government's debt. He was half right. The previous government really had lied about the extent of the government debt, but Papandreou had to know that government spending was unsustainable whatever the exact details. He knew he was writing a check he couldn't cash.
Papandreou's election promise to spend wasn't part of some master plan. It was just what he needed to say to get from Point A to Point B. As Prime Minster, Papandreou continued to just say whatever would get him through the day and then let tomorrow take care of itself. The result has been higher taxes (and some effort to improve tax collection), pension cuts for current retirees, health benefit cuts, labor market liberalization, planned civil service layoffs, planned privatization of state-owned enterprises, and over 20% unemployment. Somewhere in there Papandreou was forced to resign in disgrace.
So a campaign of promise now and deal with reality later would look like a bad deal for Obama. Maybe, but I think that Obama believes that a Papandreou election strategy can work in an American context. I think that Obama believes that he has a strategy by which America's debt can be brought down to a sustainable level in an Obama second term. He just doesn't believe that he can win reelection by running on that strategy. That is because the strategy is middle-class tax increases and centralized cuts in health care spending.
I think this works in two steps. First, get reelected on green energy subsidies and promising not to touch entitlements and on only raising taxes on the top 2%. Then let the debt crisis get a little closer. Here is the thing: the closer we get to a debt crisis, the more a debt reduction strategy of tax increases and IPAB-style Medicare cuts becomes the most plausible path to a sustainable budget. People on old age entitlements have structured their live around the promises of those programs. You can institute changes, but they have to be gradual so that each cohort can adjust during their working years. It is possible to put together a premium support plan for Medicare that gradually reduces government costs while allowing the medical system to develop more efficient delivery systems. Instituting such a plan under emergency conditions as Medicare spending was suddenly cut by tens of billions would be politically impossible. As a political matter, it would be much easier to increase middle-class taxes and empower a government board to deny care (and maybe push to adopt single-payer for the working-aged as Obamacare pushes insurance premiums higher.) It won't be popular exactly, but it might be the least unpopular alternative and Obama won't be running for reelection anyway. And once instituted, those changes would be hard to undo.
Obama is betting that his unsustainable promises will get him though the election. He is then betting that an emergency situation in his second term (an emergency he is doing his part to engineer) will help him transition the United States to a higher level of taxation and more centralized control of health care. Obama might be betting wrong, but that is the game he is running on us. Who will tell the people?
Sports
Lin-colnesque
NY Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin exhibits American virtues, not Chinese ones. One could conclude this from simple observation as well from this book on Chinese (PRC) professional baseketball. "Why are there no Jeremy Lins [point guards] coming out of China?" The answer lies in politics--the sports of a free society and those of a totalitarian one.
Speaking of Lincoln, note this 1860 cartoon of the presidential candidates, featuring baseball metaphors. Lincoln installed a baseball diamond on the White House grounds, as Diana Schaub relates in her classic essay on the All-American sport.
Foreign Affairs
No Egyptian Hostage Crisis for Obama
Presidency
Free Viagra
NLT is not being spammed: In light of the president's recent health insurance coverage edict, I propose that the
Politics
Sensible Fanaticism
The point where the talks broke down, in Scheiber's telling, came when one GOP negotiator said, "Let me get this right. You're saying there are Medicare savings you think would be good policy. But you won't do them unless we agree to raise taxes?" The Obama administration's representatives "looked back at him stone-faced and simply said, 'Yes.'" The unearthing of that detail tells us that Scheiber is a good reporter. Since the Republican's reasonable question and the Democrats' matter-of-fact intransigence never causes him to question his framework about earnest, sensible Democrats trying in vain to deal with GOP crazies, however, it does little to enhance his reputation as a political analyst.
It's possible to make sense of his vignette in a different framework:
1) The revelation that powerful Democrats believe some policy changes would make government social programs more efficient or better targeted to the people who need them most, but prevent those changes in order to bargain for tax increases rather than make them in the interests of good governance, neither flatters them nor reassures us.
2) The most plausible explanation for this dereliction is that these Democrats have a stronger commitment to the care and feeding of the liberal coalition than to the successful implementation of the liberal agenda. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana told an interviewer, "I argue to my most liberal friends: 'You ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.' And some of them actually agree." But a lot of them don't agree: The money being "squandered" on bad governance is being devoted to smart politics, buying support from public employees who administer programs and deliver public services, and beneficiaries whose needs are less acute but whose votes are numerous.
3) The tax code hasn't had a good scrubbing since 1986, and is overdue for another. After passing the Tax Reform Act of 1986, however, Congress immediately began treating the miraculous accomplishment of blowing up the accretion of bad and weird tax breaks from the past as an opportunity to start amassing new ones.
4) The template from 26 years ago, nonetheless, still deserves to be emulated. The 1986 success depended on decoupling how to tax from the how much to tax, by insisting any reforms be revenue-neutral.
5) A tax system is a useful device for funding government operations, but a poor vehicle for realizing nebulous visions of distributive justice. Even people who favor more progressive taxes, such as Clive Crook and Matthew Yglesias, believe that raising taxes on the rich is peripheral to the question of increasing opportunity and economic security for everyone else, especially the poor. Crook writes that the "US income tax system is more progressive" than the ones found in other modern nations. He cites a recent study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, showing that those in the top decile of the US income distribution pay 45.1% of all taxes and receive 33.5% of all household income. That ratio (1.35 : 1) is higher than in any of the other 23 countries OECD examined. Sweden, by contrast, is more egalitarian in the sense that its top decile receives a lesser portion, 26.6%, of all income, but less egalitarian in terms of tax progressivity: the top decile pays 26.7% of all taxes. Yglesias agrees: Three years ago he wrote, "The United States already does about as much as any other country to curb inequality through the tax code."
6) Crook and Yglesias agree, further, that if American liberals want the U.S. to more closely resemble social democracies around the world, the big change required is a more generous welfare state. "In most industrial countries," Crook contends, "social benefits such as unemployment insurance and other cash supports are easier to get and more generous than in the U.S. - and typically two or three times more powerful in reducing inequality." (He notes in passing that "American liberals find high incomes more upsetting than poverty. It's an instance of how distorting the preoccupation with inequality can be.")
7) The indispensable fiscal requirement for Swedenizing America's welfare state would be to raise taxes, considerably, on most Americans, not just on the top decile or percentile. Americans who care about inequality, according to Yglesias, should ensure "that there's enough tax revenue to finance generous public services" by emulating Scandinavian social democracies, where "a cradle-to-grave welfare state [is] financed largely through regressive taxation..."
8) In a democracy, that fiscal necessity engenders a political one: The people committed to a much bigger welfare state must explain its virtues to the voters in a way that will attract wide support, or at least acceptance, for the large, broad-based tax increases need to pay for such a welfare state. "The politics of this approach are tricky," Yglesias writes, with considerable understatement.
9) The politics have been made far trickier by liberalism's sins of omission and commission. Liberals have devoted much energy over many years to encouraging the belief that a big welfare state that benefits almost everyone can be paid for by a highly progressive tax system that burdens almost no one. To clear up, at long last, this teensy misunderstanding will require liberals to draw on credibility they've squandered and overcome skepticism they've earned. It will, further, require them to assure taxpayers that the additional funds they surrender will be put to their best and highest uses - spent on weak claimants rather than weak claims, as David Stockman used to say. This will require a liberalism that is obsessive, rather than reluctant and conflicted, about making sure that a welfare state dollar that could help a poor person is not being squandered on government workers' pay and benefits, or on beneficiaries whose needs are not especially, or even vaguely, acute.
The Obama administration officials Scheiber describes rejected entitlement program changes that were cuts, but also improvements, unless they were paired with tax increases that had little to do with increasing the government's revenue stream and everything to do with the optics of "shared sacrifice." The Republicans who negotiated with them had no incentive to make liberalism more coherent, candid, or successful, but inadvertently offered them just that opportunity. Their failure reveals that liberals are more interested in painting themselves into an even tighter corner than in finding a way out of it.
Presidency
From Obscure Blogger to Campaign Wordsmith
How to build your resume by blogging: Tim Seibel, who blogged on Santorum the Servant, provides material for Foster Friess's introduction of the GOP aspirant at CPAC today. (See my post here on his original.) Tim explains the mix of purpose and serendipity that led to his posting.
BTW, Tim comes out of University of Dallas and Claremont Graduate School and currently resides in Colorado Springs.
I knew someone who got a job with then-EEOC Chairman Clarence Thomas by writing letters to the editor of prominent newspapers and articles for the Claremont Review of Books.
Update: And while we're touching on CPAC, note Paul Ryan's speech, which contained this great line: "The only class warfare that threatens America comes from a class of bureaucrats and crony capitalists rising above society - calling the shots, rigging the rules, and securing their places of privilege at our expense." Cf. this NLT post decrying the use of the phrase "class warfare" by Republicans.
Presidency
Moral Rhetoric
Our old friend Bob Reilly explains the need for a Republican moral rhetoric that can beat Obama's. "Political language is inherently moral, not managerial. It must convey visions, not just plans. It must explain why some things are good and others bad." A moral rhetoric is not a moralizing one, either. And it is essential for survival, too:
If you cannot articulate the cause for which you are fighting in moral terms, you will lose. Because they cannot do this, businessmen suffer from a sense of illegitimacy when they come to Washington. When your opponents scent this vulnerability, they go in for the kill.
Politics
Desperate Or Confident?
So why is the Obama administration picking this fight now? In the last few years, when Democrats have latched onto abortion/mandated contraception issues in the course of a heavily contested election, it has been because they were losing. When Virginia Democrat Creighton Deeds was losing the debate on the economy, taxes, and public sector efficiency to Bob McDonnell, Deeds tried to change the subject to abortion in the hopes that this would help Deeds get elected governor. In 2010 Martha Coakley was losing the debate over Obamacare to Scott Brown. She tried to change the subject to Scott Brown supporting a conscience exception that would have allowed Catholic hospitals to opt-out of providing emergency contraception to rape victims while referring them to other medical providers. Deeds and Coakley both lost so it must be said that these strategies failed. But Deeds and Coakley were losing anyway. Changing the subject to abortion and contraception was a Hail Mary play. And as the New England Patriots will tell you, that play usually doesn't work.
So is the Obama administration's mandate that religious hospitals cover contraceptives a desperation play? I doubt it. The timing is off. Deeds and Coakley only tried to switch the subject to abortion/mandated contraception when it was obvious that they were losing to an opponent who had defined himself as within the mainstream of American politics. If you are Obama, and you want to change the conversation to these issues, you don't announce this policy in February when the media is focused on the Republicans clawing each others eyes out. I think the Obama people know that this policy announcement is a net negative to his reelection. I think they announced this mandate because they think it is good policy and because they thought it wouldn't be much of a voting issue in November. They might be rethinking that second assumption. I think it shows that they are pretty confident that they will beat any of the current Republican candidates. It is also just a taste of what we can expect in an Obama second term.
Politics
Tired Of This Campaign
1. I think there is less distance between Ken and I than this post might indicate. I agree that the debates exposed Perry's weaknesses along several dimensions. Perry wasn't conversant on national issues. He couldn't make a coherent case against Romneycare after he was challenged on his scripted two minute answer. Perry also couldn't effectively defend his past statements on Social Security. Perry went into the race without a good understanding of how the dynamics of public opinion in the national Republican Party were different from those in the Texas Republican Party. This wasn't simply a left/right "Texas is more conservative" thing. It took him too long to figure out that, on illegal immigration, the national Republican electorate was more restrictionist and less accommodationist (on matters like in-state tuition for illegal immigrant students) than the electorate Perry was used to winning over. Perry was just devastated by his early debate performances and never caught up in talking fluently about national issues. He mostly seemed to resort to identity politics gestures (comparing himself to Tim Tebow, and asserting that he would be on the gun range at 10:30 PM on a Saturday night - it really happened during one of the debates.) The debates did expose Perry's weaknesses and it was good thing. If you can't make the case against Romneycare to a Republican electorate, how are you going to make the case against Obamacare to the general public?
The case of Santorum and the debates is a little tougher. He was too whiny and hostile during the early debates and it hurt him. It was one of the reasons why there was a Cain boom before there was a Santorum boom. He looked like he belonged in the last couple of Iowa debates. He is the only Republican candidate who has drawn blood with his attacks on Romneycare. He is the only candidate who has manged to make a real argument for moving toward a more consumer and patient-centered health care system and how Romneycare moves us farther away from that goal. But then he was swamped by the coverage of Gingrich's tiffs with the moderators. Still, Santorum is the best thing that has come out of the debates. My biggest worry about Santorum is that not one of the Republicans I most respect (Mitch Daniels, Bob McDonnell, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and Jeb Bush) have endorsed him. Still, in a constrained choice, I prefer Santorum to the rest of this crew. But...
3. Run Mitch Run
4. I get the sense that running for President is becoming a fulltime job earlier. I was a kid at the time, but I think I remember Democratic presidential candidate forums held in calender year 1987. Still, it seems like most candidates running for President are spending more of their time visiting the early states, debating and giving campaign speeches a full eighteen months before the election as compared to 1988, 1992, and 1996. If true, this would seem to be a major advantage to candidates who had no real job or had a job that could be easily neglected (like Senator.) Then again, Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, and Mondale in 1984 were basically unemployed guys who had been professionally running for President for years (even though they were unannounced for much of the time.)
Presidency
The Debates and the Nomination
Pete, we miss you, though this may go too far: "The debates have been basically worthless other than for showcasing the weaknesses of the various candidates." But wasn't it important for us to see some significant sifting out (e.g., Perry)? And true, as Pete points out, the debates kept alive candidacies (in his view, Newt and Cain) that should have died out much sooner or never even have been taken seriously. Yet what does the example of Rick Santorum show us? He excelled at retail politics in a friendly market and had a distinctive voice in the debates, but he clearly lacked the money and the national experience that Romney has. The debates gave Santorum exposure he wouldn't otherwise have had.
Pete is right that it is impossible to run a state effectively (at least in times like these) and run for president--thus closing the door to perhaps the GOP's strongest candidates among governors Reagan, Bush I, and, it appears, Romney are two examples of those able to run full-time without the encumbrance of office (that is, significant office); Clinton and Bush II had friendly capitols.
Presidency
Obama Abuses Lincoln
Of course, you say, but Harry Jaffa corrects Obama's SOTU misquotation precisely, in Charles Johnson's interview with him:
Professor Jaffa noted that this quotation leaves out a great deal. The 93-year-old Jaffa recited the full statement from Lincoln's speech, "The Nature and Objects of Government, with Special Reference to Slavery" (July 1, 1854) by memory:
"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities."
Notice the difference? The emphasis is on the need to have done, not on government doing the action. "That distinction was missing from his quotation," Jaffa explains. Yet Obama has repeatedly invoked this misleading Lincoln quotation on both the campaign trail and during his presidency.
Johnson is the go-to guy for reporting on all things Claremont, including the recent admissions scandal. He is working on more stories on the scandal, one that could result in further resignations, including that of the President, who has effectively undermined the conservative scholars at the College.
Presidency
On the Trail with Santorum
The appropriately named TimManBlog gives an account of Santorum speaking in Colorado Springs. Tim designates Santorum as "The Servant"--contrasting him with the Executive, the Visionary, and the Ideologue:
Santorum is The Servant. He is the Servant of his Country, of his Constitution, of his Family and of his Faith....
People stood up for Santorum only once tonight. He is more soft-spoken than dramatic and people politely listen to him speak as if he were their neighbor next door....
Santorum will never present himself as your provider. He will expect people to pursue happiness and he will see his role as service to that pursuit by securing those natural rights we all deserve as people. In this way he will endeavor to be the Servant to Freedom.
Thoughout this process we've seen that we live in an age of great egos. We see pundits and journalists and presidents vying with each other for our accolades. Santorum is the exact opposite, a Servant, and that difference may be what the country needs right now.
Look for further Colorado reporting and commentary from TimManBlog. Here he relates a visit to Lubbock, Texas.
The Family
The Real Inequality Problem
Presidency
"Embarassment" of Debates (update)
The current Republican exchanges? Besides those, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, according to the popularizing Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer. He responded to Newt Gingrich's call for Lincoln-Douglas debates against Obama. Holzer, however, reassures us that "Rather than inspiring memorable words, they proved for the most part an embarrassment." In fact, in his view, they show Lincoln's racial bigotry:
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races," he declared in Charleston, Ill., to robust cheers, "nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people." It was not the future emancipator's finest hour.
This is mediocre historian shallowness, which ignores what Lincoln might do in the future--shown clearly by the Emancipation Proclamation, his allowing blacks to fight in the Union army, and his early policies for reintegrating the South. Lincoln had no reason to speak of such civil and political equality, when most blacks were slaves. This superficiality breeds ignorant Lincoln haters and other cyncial leftists who despise their country. Though Holzer describes well the excitement of the debates, he, like most historians, simply doesn't see the principles involved. Ultimately, he does not understand the subjects as they understood themselves.
Read Harry Jaffa, author of the best book on political science since The Federalist. Crisis of the House Divided is also available via google books. Ashbrook has a pdf as well, but I can't find it. In the meantime here are some short essays by real Lincoln scholars.
UPDATE:
Our friend Jack Pitney is skeptical of Newt's debating skills.
Presidency
I Wouldn't Put It Past Him
Progressivism
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Former Democratic MC Jane Harman, now head of the Woodrow Wilson Center, appraises the SOTU. She knows which side her bread is buttered on.
Broken link now fixed, h/t JL.
Presidency
Self-Destructive GOP
I'm not talking about Newt and Mitt, but about the "class warfare" complaint hurled against Obama. This attack in fact affirms Obama's point--that there are classes, two (or three) Americas, as it were. Such rhetoric reflects the victory of the Progressive mentality, which was to reject the individual rights and limited government language of the American Founding, in favor of talk about the progress of history and a ruling class of civil servants--nonpartisan, scientific administrators. That is the real "class warfare" that needs to be fought, but Republicans flunked American history. In fact Progressivism got its political start under the popular president TR.
Theodore Roosevelt supplied the rhetoric for this swindle, Woodrow Wilson (and Calhoun) the political science, and now Obama a potential coup de grace. The liberal version of Mt. Rushmore--what might this be? we need a Howard Roark for this purpose--would feature Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Obama.
Bioethics
Roe v. Wade and Equal Opportunity
Obama on Roe: "And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." So does he oppose sex-selection abortions?
The entire statement below:
As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman's health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
Bioethics
Rethinking an Old Issue
The science columnist for the Wall Street Journal writes about sex-selection abortion and how it might be curbed. The case against this practice leads one to question the morality of abortion altogether.
Another approach, quite suitable to young adults, is presented in the Newbery award-winning novel The Giver. In the dystopian world young Jonas inhabits, he discovers that his father, a doctor, kills those deemed unfit. Progressive Montgomery County, MD assigns this as an eighth-grade text (along with other dystopian fiction such as Animal Farm and Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron.")
Politics
Pipeline Politics
Of course it should be built, but I disagree with Republicans who think the politics of this are bad for the President--e.g., our friends at Powerline. Obama's premise is that he has either lost the economy/jobs issue, or it can be at least neutralized by improving unemployment numbers. In any case, he absolutely must have the enviros with him. Once again Obama shows he is much more clever at politics than his decent but often impulsive opponents.
Update: Joel Kotkin's two economies (regulatory NIMBY and dirty manufacturing) analysis supports my point.
Congress
The 84%
of those polled disapprove of Congress, according to a recent poll. But surely some poll has broken down the stats in following ways: Do you disapprove of Congress because it is too Republican, too Democrat, blocking Obama, ignoring the deficit, etc. Those numbers should be added to the total who approve of Congress, perhaps considerably improving the figures. (Occasionally there are polls showing disapproval of the Tea Party, etc.) Those results would be more important for the congressional elections, though of course reapportionment slashes the effects of general disapproval. Has anyone drilled down to get these numbers?
Has anyone polled Congress on the approval/disapproval numbers they give to themselves? Bet it's not far from the public figures.
Political Philosophy
Law and Liberty
Conservatism
Going South
Are the Republicans degenerating or just revealing their true selves? With his latest charge that M. Mitt speaks French (Newt does too), it must be speculated that Newt is indulging in (self-)caricature. Of course it can always get worse--someone can appeal to states' rights. Here's a good explanation of why conservatives should speak of federalism instead--plus a few other New Year's political resolutions.
Politics
The Power of the Declaration
Don't forget or underestimate the appeal of the Declaration of Independence. Romney wins over Ms. Poe, an evangelical minister fearful of his Mormonism. See the last two paragraphs:
"This is an election not just about replacing President Obama, it's an election about the soul of America," Romney said, as Poe gingerly climbed a chair to get a better view. As Romney cited the Declaration of Independence, Poe nodded in agreement. "They said that we had been endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And as you know, those rights came not from the state, not from the government, but from our creator."
"He did great," Poe said as Romney walked around the room shaking hands. "If he were the chosen candidate, I could support him, yes."
Progressivism
The Progressive Era and Obama Error
David Brooks on how the Obama Administration used the wrong historical analogy of Progressivism--more government to deal with our crises--to get the nation into deeper trouble.
First, the underlying economic situations are very different....
In the progressive era, the economy was in its adolescence and the task was to control it. Today the economy is middle-aged; the task is to rejuvenate it.
Second, the governmental challenge is very different today than it was in the progressive era. Back then, government was small and there were few worker safety regulations. The problem was a lack of institutions. Today, government is large, and there is a thicket of regulations, torts and legal encumbrances. The problem is not a lack of institutions; it's a lack of institutional effectiveness.
The United States spends far more on education than any other nation, with paltry results. It spends far more on health care, again, with paltry results....
In the progressive era, there was an understanding that men who impregnated women should marry them. It didn't always work in practice, but that was the strong social norm....
One hundred years ago, we had libertarian economics but conservative values. Today we have oligarchic economics and libertarian moral values -- a bad combination.
In sum, in the progressive era, the country was young and vibrant. The job was to impose economic order. Today, the country is middle-aged but self-indulgent. Bad habits have accumulated. Interest groups have emerged to protect the status quo. The job is to restore old disciplines, strip away decaying structures and reform the welfare state. The country needs a productive midlife crisis.
The progressive era is not a model; it is a foil. It provides a contrast and shows us what we really need to do.
Brooks concedes far more to Progressivism than he should on both policy and its philosophic soundness: "The country needs a productive midlife crisis." It needs rather to reassert its founding identity. Here are some incisive brief essays on Progressive loopiness and radicalism.
Progressivism
Wallowing in Osawatomie
Some thoughtful exchanges the other day at the Hudson Institute on Theodore Roosevelt's Osawatomie speech, Obama's deliberate follow-up, and the meaning and future of Progressivism. Sid Milkis, Jim Ceaser, Matt Spalding, John Halpin, and E.J; Dionne. To get video/audio you need to click on the "View all events" tab off the home page.. Milkis noted that Obama never mentions his health care reform in his speech--it is focused on class.
If you can bear Dionne's self-promotion (does E.J. stand for Egregious Jerk?), you will hear some thoughtful remarks by the various panelists, introduced by Bill Schambra. And you even get to hear a question from the floor by her royal highness Elizabeth Drew.
Here's a brief historical overview of what is at stake in these speeches.
Courts
Judging Newt Judging
Gingrich went overboard on his attacks on overboard judges. Here's a far more sober account of what can be (and ought to be) done, by Ralph Rossum. Curt Levey and Carrie Severino add some thoughts on reining in a wacky judiciary without undermining judicial independence--both are essential for the rule of law. Judicial independence is not a license for judiciary supremacy.
An even better lesson can be found in early American political documents that list the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers among the fundamental rights of a free people. Consider for example the Massachusetts Constitution and the Essex Result,
Politics
$15,000 Food Fight?
Plastic cutlery at the Ayers-Dohrns? This is a sign of cultural rot. Why is bankrupt Illinois still funding this outfit?
Or maybe plastique?
UPDATE: State Humanities Councils receive support from the NEH. The House should put the NEH Chairman before an oversight Committee.
Conservatism
A Newtonian Quantum Leap
Contrary to Peter's post below, I think the most prudent conservative course of action is to vote for Gingrich--for now. The problem is that conservatives have the choice between a dynamic right-wing Progressive with a flawed moral past, one temperamentally ill-suited for executive power, and a soothing flip-flopper who appears constructed along corporate specs. Which will sell out conservative principles first? Which even knows what conservative constitutionalist principles are?
Unless some sort of white knight appears suddenly to save us (Paul Ryan, Clarence Thomas, Sarah Palin....), these are our choices. I propose a test: Vote for Newt, and see how tough, smart, and principled Mitt in return is. Can he show that he is the true, electable conservative? Will he respond with conservative arguments or try to emphasize his moderation? This is not merely Gingrich blowing up and defeating himself. Romney has to win it, and by showing that he is more conservative (not that he has led a better family life, etc.). The only way we can test Romney is by voting for Newt, until he proves himself less of an electable conservative than Romney..
Might this not make Gingrich the winner? True, this would give him victories in Iowa (important to crush Paul, btw), New Hampshire (or a close second), and down south. But proportional delegate sharing will keep the second-place person close, and then we'll see who the strongest conservative will be, or whether we have a conservative at all. Both may flunk the test, but that is a problem for another day.
It would be a bad thing for the future of conservatism to hand the victory to Newt Romney immediately. We would be getting a flawed, erratically right-wing candidate, or a corporate construct who might have defeated Ted Kennedy by being more liberal. Either would be better than Obama, but we can do better than the two choices as they present themselves now. A long, drawn-out campaign will improve both candidates or reveal their fatal flaws.
