Political Gambit

Why Occupy Wall Street is No Tea Party

2011-11-21T14:21:00.000-05:00

An article I wrote for the American Thinker arguing that Occupy Wall Street won't duplicate the tea party's success in influencing the political process because it is at its core a fringe movement, incapable of building winning political coalitions:

As the Occupy Wall Street movement attempts to establish a firm foothold in American society, veterans of left-wing organizing, including former Obama administration czar Van Jones, are urging this fledgling movement to run candidates for office, following the Tea Party model of transforming a grassroots movement into a powerful electoral force. After all, what good isstorming local bank branches and blocking Americans from going to work if you don't send representatives to Congress who share your core values and goals? But the prospect of OWS emerging as a viable political force is a pipe dream, akin to similar aspirations held by OWS's ideological predecessors, the 1960s counterculture.
There are fundamental differences between the Tea Party and OWS that made the former a formidable political force and will render the latter an inconsequential soon-to-be historical footnote. Of course, there are also some basic similarities. In the abstract, both are grassroots movements dissatisfied with the status quo and bank bailouts fighting for transformative change. But beyond the abstract, the movements diverge into mutually exclusive entities.
From the beginning, the Tea Party was primarily made up of middle-class, fiscally conservative Americans who opposed government expansion under President Obama and the Democratic Congress. They organized and rallied peacefully, picked up after themselves, and didn't cost taxpayers a dime. The Tea Party called for less debt, less spending, and less government intervention in the economy. They didn't always offer detailed policy proposals, but they did espouse coherent philosophical and economic principles. And while they understandably made some rookie political mistakes, the Tea Party succeeded in transforming the electoral landscape in 2009 and 2010. Their success was all the more impressive, given how novel and politically inexperienced this movement was.
Compare the composition and the philosophical underpinnings of the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street. Every fringe group seems to gravitate towards OWS. Endorsed by the American Nazi Party, the American Communist Party, David Duke, Iran's Ayatollah, Hugo Chávez, and Kim Jong-il, OWS is a hodgepodge of fringe radicalism, with no clear and concrete values shared by its members, save for a general aversion to capitalism and economic liberty. A movement so philosophically muddled and absurd that it garners the support of a former KKK Grand Wizard, an Islamic fundamentalist, and a Stalinist dictator cannot expect to build winning political coalitions.
OWS supporters counter that every movement entails fringe elements that do not represent the movement as a whole. Interestingly, neither the opponents of the Tea Party nor the mainstream media afforded this benefit of the doubt to the Tea Party; a handful of tasteless and offensive signs at Tea Party rallies were routinely used to disingenuously brand the entire movement as racist, violent, and radical. Lest we be guilty of inaccurately branding OWS, let's actually examine what OWS stands for.
What are some of Occupy Wall Street's guiding principles? Pitting people who make over $300,000 (the 1%) against their friends and family who make less (the 99%)? Pitting employers against employees? The OWS crowd opposes Wall Street bailouts, but supports massive government intervention in the economy and bailouts for mortgage and college debt. They say they oppose crony capitalism but support government takeover of major sectors of the economy. They oppose income inequality but don't explain how making people less wealthy will help the "99%."
The only discernible and consistent message of OWS seems to be that they don't like free enterprise. Free enterprise and rich people. You can't win elections on a barely intelligible, anti-capitalist platform, especially when you lack clear and actionable ideas. The Tea Party rallied against Obamacare, demanded that government reign in its profligate spending, and fought against congressional earmarks. On the other hand, OWS believes that we should put people over profits, end corporate greed, and bail out $1 trillion of student debt. This is indeed a far cry from the philosophically cohesive and coherent Tea Party.
Admittedly, it would be fascinating to watch a movement armed with little more than abstract radical leftist talking points, whose members throw bottles at police, occupy ports and bridges, and are endorsed by international anti-American zealots, attempt to navigate the electoral process. That would be some spectacle.
As a fledgling grassroots movement inexperienced in political advocacy, the Tea Party proved to be surprisingly effective at transforming grassroots energy into political success. Occupy Wall Street doesn't have a chance of duplicating the Tea Party's success -- not because it's made up of political novices, but because it's primarily made up of fringe radicals, young people who don't know any better, petty hooligans, and people whose political views and intellect are aptly reflected by the ubiquitous Che Guevera shirts.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/why_occupy_wall_street_is_no_tea_party.html#ixzz1eMx7Ohd8

Justifying Left-Wing Violence

2011-08-10T22:05:00.001-04:00

In the wake of the violent riots spreading like wildfire throughout Great Britain, a not-all-too unfamiliar narrative is unfolding in the Orwellian world of left-wing punditry. It seems that some on the left are eager to partially excuse the violence by attributing it to economic disillusionment among the British youth. Disillusionment, the argument goes, brought about by Prime Minister David Cameron’s conservative policies aimed at reining in out-of-control spending and deficits.

This morning, CNN anchor Carol Costello quoted a British Blogger Laurie Penny, who explained the riots this way: "The people running Britain had absolutely no clue how desperate things have become...They thought that after thirty years of soaring inequality, in the middle of a recession, they could take away the last little things that gave people hope, the benefits, the jobs, the support structures, and nothing would happen."

There you have it. According to Ms. Penny, senseless rioting is the rational manifestation of government policies allegedly designed to destroy the social safety net. No context, such as the unsustainable extravagance of the British welfare state, is given.

Recognizing the similarities between Britain’s austerity measures and calls for fiscal responsibility by conservatives here in the US, Carol Costello asked her viewers whether these riots could spread to the US. After all, she writes on Facebook, “The American middle class and the poor also think their government has no clue. And they worry it is about to take away Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid at a time so many depend on them to survive. For many Americans what's happening in Britain is like looking into a mirror.”

What is most striking about this line of thinking is not that Ms. Costello oversimplifies the complex issue of entitlement reform or that she engages in class warfare. It is the implication that violent riots carried out by “the middle class and the poor” in the US would be a rational reaction to policies which she deems objectionable. In other words, we shouldn’t be surprised by rioting if conservatives get their way.

Imagine if a conservative pundit floated a similar sentiment during the heated debate over Obamacare? He would have no doubt been accused of justifying if not inciting violence.Of course, there was no violent reaction to the Democratic takeover of one sixth of the US economy. American conservatives organized peacefully and spoke loudly at the ballot box last November.

The idea that the violent rioters are anything other than thugs who have no regard for private property, little regard for human life, and a deep-seated disdain for law and order is a grave insult to the thousands of UK citizens whose livelihood is being destroyed and whose personal safety is constantly being threatened.

It's also telling that while peaceful tea-party rallies are slandered by the left as hubs for violence, actual left-wing violence is excused and explained as an acceptable reaction to "unjust" policies. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Laurie Penny yearns for the pre-Margaret Thatcher days of nationalization; a time when standards of living in the UK were much lower than they are today and private entrepreneurship was discouraged and squashed by an overbearing government. She laments the current efforts to restore fiscal sanity by falsely representing necessary austerity measures as an assault on people's livelihood. For her part, Carol Costello falsely claims that politicians want to take away people's Social Security and Medicare and implies that violent rioting would be understandable if entitlements are reduced.

Not everyone on the left is rushing to excuse the riots. But those who aren’t are mostly silent. The silence is deafening when you consider how hard the left strains to portray the tea party as a racist, extreme and potentially violent movement. Where no violence exists, the left bellows in indignation. When left-wing violence is front and center for all to see, conservative policies are blamed.

Be Wary When the Polls are on Your Side

2011-05-26T12:10:00.000-04:00

In this essay I wrote for the American Thinker, I argue that by over-relying on public opinion polls in making the case against Obamacare, Republicans painted themselves into a strategic corner, now having to defend Paul Ryan's plan despite public opposition to its core components. Polls are transient and leaders have to occasionally fight for legislation that is at the time unpopular. Excerpts below. Read the complete essay here.

While ObamaCare remains unpopular, Republicans now find themselves in a strategic quandary over the Ryan budget. Polls show that Ryan's plan, like ObamaCare, is unpopular with the majority of the American people. Herein lies the folly of over-relying on fickle polling to buttress an argument...How do Republicans counter the Democratic talking point that the American people have rejected Paul Ryan's agenda when this was a central argument Republicans employed against ObamaCare? The short answer is that they can't without being exposed to charges of hypocrisy. If ObamaCare was wrong for America in large part because the American people didn't want it, then Ryan's plan is bad for America for the same exact reason.

It is of course imperative for Republicans to lead the charge to win hearts and minds. Persuading the public to support a set of policies or ideas is a centerpiece of democratic governance. But when fierce opposition mounts, it is unclear which side will win the tug of war for public opinion...It was indeed short-sighted for Republicans to make polling data a central weapon in their fight against ObamaCare. They should have anticipated that at some point in the future, some Republican plan would meet stiff public resistance. It would have been more prudent to criticize ObamaCare almost exclusively on substance, and occasionally -- perhaps only in passing -- reference polling data.

It is precisely this feature of republicanism--the recognition that leaders are often called to undertake unpopular endeavors--that makes the over-reliance on short-term opinion polls so problematic. Perhaps through leadership and an effective marketing campaign, Republicans can quickly turn the tide of public opinion. But if the public remains skeptical, Republicans can expect Democrats to highlight the hypocrisy of railing against ObamaCare while promoting the unpopular Ryan budget.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/be_wary_when_the_polls_are_on.html

No Republican Frontrunner is Good for GOP

2011-05-02T19:45:00.000-04:00

With no obvious Republican frontrunner and lagging enthusiasm among Republicans with the current GOP field, Democrats are hoping that there may not be a strong Republican contender to challenge President Obama. Many Republicans are understandably nervous; the longer a candidate waits to enter the race, the less time he or she will have to raise money, establish a brand, and sell his message to the voters.

Not to worry. All these disadvantages are relatively easy to overcome and there are significant advantages to entering the race late.

Because the election cycle now lasts two years, early frontrunners risk losing the initiative. It is simply too difficult to maintain momentum over a protracted period. Inevitably, the novelty of your candidacy fades, you run out of original sound-bites, and voters become increasingly desensitized to your message. The more you talk, the less they listen. Even if you win the primary, the loss of momentum does not bode well for the general election.

Another risk of being the early frontrunner is that you give the opposition more time to research and define you. As you give stomp speech after stomp speech, interview after interview, the other side exploits every gaffe, every inconsistency in your message. Your opponents have ample time to discern your weaknesses and strengths, and to experiment with different talking points to see which lines of attack work and which don’t. Eventually, you’re forced to spend precious time and resources fending off attacks from every direction. This is exhausting and can distract from the message you want voters to hear.

Finally, the more time a candidate spends on the campaign trail, the more mistakes he’s likely to make. In a 24-hour news cycle, absolutely no gaffe, no controversial comment, will go unnoticed and unreported. Campaign blunders are inevitable and the longer you campaign, the more blunders you’re likely to make.

Given the pitfalls of running a two-year campaign, running a shorter race offers notable advantages that if shrewdly exploited can be decisive.

A candidate entering a race with the presumptive frontrunners already in place will instantly dominate the news cycle, at least temporarily pushing the leading candidates out of the spotlight. By seizing the momentum, the candidate has a golden opportunity to redefine the race and to excite a segment of the electorate that may have become complacent or is lukewarm about the current crop of candidates. The opportunity to redefine the race so late in the game presents a critical strategic advantage, giving your opponents limited time for opposition research and to plan an effective counterattack. When they finally do respond, they will do so on your terms. A hallmark of effective strategy is to force opponents to fight on the battlefield of your choosing. You achieve this by shaking up the field and forcing opponents to react to the new dynamic you injected into the race.

A strong campaign kickoff forces opponents to regroup, to alter their message to address the new threat. Going off message can cause confusion and chaos, exposing gaps and weaknesses in their positions. Meanwhile, you build momentum through aggressive and disciplined campaigning.

In essence, by entering the race late, you can change the dynamic of the campaign. Entering late also gives you the advantage of flexibility. While your opponents have already established a relatively fixed campaign narrative after months of campaigning, you have several branding options to choose from. You can maneuver to the right, left, or center; focus on leadership, experience, or change, depending on the others’ strengths and weaknesses.

There are exceptions to the pitfalls of running a long campaign. Barack Obama entered the race early and never lost momentum. But his was a unique case. Obama was the first African American candidate who had a real chance of winning the Democratic primary. Backed by a press core infatuated with his candidacy, his momentum and novelty never faded. A candidate with such unique attributes isn’t likely to emerge again anytime soon. Moreover, Barack Obama was not the early frontrunner. That honor belonged to Hillary Clinton. Obama’s underdog status helped him sustain momentum throughout a grueling campaign.

In order for the late entrant strategy to work, the candidate has to be highly credible, competent, and politically savvy. Above all, he has to be interesting. The candidate cannot be someone like Fred Thomson, who entered the 2008 GOP primary late with significant fanfare, but his rather boring and uninspired platform--not to mention inconsequential governing record--failed to energize voters. The right candidate must immediately inject excitement into the race through powerful rhetoric and a demonstrated track record of bold governance.

The Unnecessary Battle

2011-04-07T10:21:00.002-04:00

This week, Paul Ryan unveiled a historic budget proposal that cuts federal spending by trillions of dollars, reforms Medicare and Medicaid, and appears to shift the trajectory of federal spending away from insolvency. The budget--whether or not you agree with all its provisions--represents real fiscal reform.

Yet Ryan’s 2012 fiscal year budget did not steal the headlines or command the undivided attention of conservative activists and party operatives. That is because another, more immediate fiscal matter, remains unresolved and is still being fiercely debated on Capitol Hill and across the political spectrum: the stalemate over the 2011 fiscal year budget.

The outcome of this battle is less important than the fact that Republicans are waging the battle in the first place. Bolstered by the conservative grassroots, the GOP leadership is fighting tooth and nail over whether to cut roughly $30 billion or $60 billion from the current fiscal year budget. In other words, the GOP is spending political capitol in hopes of reducing the current fiscal deficit by approximately two tenths of one percent as opposed to four tenths of one percent.

The difference is a rounding error, and more critically, the battle’s outcome does nothing to advance the far-reaching objectives set forth in Ryan’s budget. It is for all intensive purpose a dangerous distraction. Dangerous, because it diverts political resources from the real war over the size and scope of government to be waged during the 2012 budget debate and the 2012 election.

I am sympathetic in theory to grassroots conservatives who are pressuring elected Republicans to obtain maximum cuts and to not compromise with a Democratic leadership that has demonstrated an utter inability and unwillingness to reign in out-of-control spending. I get it: the current spending levels are unsustainable and we need to cut now and cut everywhere.

But this is short-term thinking and can have negative long-term implications. The Republicans may indeed get all the cuts they seek, but at what cost?

This fight has already undermined if not overshadowed the historic rollout of Ryan’s budget. Instead of concentrating all available political and media resources on winning the support of the American people for the ambitious agenda laid out in Ryan’s plan, Republicans are haggling with Democrats over trivial spending cuts, which have little or no long-term budgetary implications. Moreover, the left-wing media happily touts the fact that Republicans are recalcitrant and unwilling to “meet the Democrats half way.” Whether this is fair criticism--and it probably isn’t--it is one more talking point, email blast, press conference, or facebook post that is not focused on the 2012 budget.

Skillful political leaders understand the folly of fighting every political or policy battle. The art of political strategy is knowing when to fight, when to retreat, and when to negotiate a cease fire. The prudent strategist resists the temptation to fight and win every battle, only fighting battles that move him towards his ultimate goal. Fighting trivial battles depletes and dilutes resources, energizes opponents, and distracts from the big picture. The Republicans should ask themselves if getting an additional $30 billion in cuts for this fiscal year is worth jeopardizing the outcome of the 2012 budget war.

I suspect Speaker Boehner understands the risk of digging in his heels over a rounding error. He is, however, in the difficult position of pursuing big ticket items, while having to simultaneously placate the tea party base, which made him Speaker in the first place. This is a difficult dilemma, but if Boehner caves in to every demand made by the citizenry--no matter how short-sighted these demands are--he may derail the prospect of enacting significant long-term reforms.

It would serve the tea party well to take note of the big picture, because at times, this great and powerful American grassroots movement has shown a lack of long-term strategic savvy. It has demonstrated a tendency to fight every battle and not focus on long-tem goals--a potentially catastrophic shortcoming in any competitive environment.

This might be expected from a genuinely organic, spontaneous, grassroots organization. The tea party is leaderless, and as such, it does not have a built-in unity of command or the structural discipline to design and implement strategies that advance key objectives, while not getting bogged down in essentially irrelevant skirmishes.

Instead, all too often, the tea party fights pointless battles without regard as to how this might impact long-term success. Such a haphazard approach to strategy jeopardizes the outcome of the war. In many ways, it is refreshing that the tea party is “leaderless,” but if it chooses to throw itself headlong into every policy battle, it inevitably disrupts the long-term planning of elected representatives, who should have their eyes on much grander objectives.

The tea party is more effective and influential in its role as an ideological bulwark, not a policy micromanager.

The Recurrent Rejection of Liberalism

2011-01-31T11:51:00.001-05:00

In the aftermath of last November’s Republican landslide victory, President Obama has made a widely publicized shift to the right. He hired a pro-business centrist Chief of Staff, compromised with Republicans on Bush-era tax cuts, and in other rhetorical ways indicated his willingness to abandon hard-left ideology in favor of a more centrist, pragmatic approach to governing.

On the other hand, the professional left scoffed at this rightward shift, with many liberals blaming the Democrats’ historic defeat on poor messaging, not on liberal governance. The problem was not that Obama was too liberal, but that he didn’t do a good job of communicating the benefits of his liberal policies, the argument went. Some liberals even argued that Democrats lost because they weren’t liberal enough, citing the failure to include a public option in the healthcare bill, not passing cap and trade, and the failure to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

It comes as no surprise that marketing is a popular scapegoat of electoral defeat. It requires less agonizing self-reflection to attribute losses to poor marketing, than to failed policies. Certainly, no one expected liberals to reject liberalism in the aftermath of one unfavorable election. But in light of the broad electoral mandate given to liberals to govern following the 2006 and 2008 elections, is it really plausible that a communications mishap is the primary reason for the left’s reversal in fortune?

The enthusiasm on the left following Obama’s victory was palpable. Finally the left had an ideological liberal, one of their own, in the White House, reinforced by a Democrat-led Senate and House. It appeared as though most road blocks to liberal governance had been removed. Until Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts in January 2010, Democrats even enjoyed a rarely seen filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Great Society 2.0 could now finally take root. Democrats succeeded in passing the Stimulus, investing taxpayer dollars in GM and Chrysler, nationalizing student loan programs, enacting a centralized healthcare reform bill, and pushing through far reaching financial regulations. To be sure, the left didn’t get everything it wanted; in part because of public opposition, and in part because centrist Democrats at times refused to fall in line. But the fact that the government made a dramatic leftward shift following the 2008 election can hardly be disputed.

Unfortunately for Democrats, voters don’t measure success by the number of bills signed into law. Persistently high unemployment, out-of-control debt and deficits, and the perception that the country was headed in the wrong direction led to dismal approval ratings for Congress and a precipitous drop in the President’s popularity, especially and most significantly, among independents. Americans had had enough and voted out the liberal majority in favor of a tea-party driven conservative one.

To accept the theory that poor marketing sunk the Democrats, one has to believe that Democrats did nothing wrong policy-wise (except maybe not govern even further to the left, as some would have us believe). The path to reestablishing a Democratic majority, therefore, is to continue full steam ahead with a left-wing agenda, while tweaking marketing techniques.

There is at least one liberal leader who appears to have serious doubts about this theory.

President Obama’s decisions to reshuffle his cabinet and extend the much maligned Bush-era tax cuts belie the notion that messaging was at the root of the Democrats’ defeat. Obama’s overhaul is an implicit admission that his rigid, left-of-center governance ushered in the conservative majority.

Not surprisingly, many liberals resent President Obama’s newly found centrism. With Obama’s election, liberals were hoping for a new and vigorous era of liberal governance, unimpeded by Republican obstructionism. But a Republican House, a narrow and politically vulnerable Democrat Senate majority, and Obama’s move to the center, appear to have dashed liberal hopes for radical transformation. Whether Obama’s cabinet changes will lead to sustainable centrist governance, and are not merely ruses to appease a disaffected electorate, the moves by themselves affirm that President Obama and his advisors understand that governing from the far left is politically untenable in the long-run.

This should not come as a surprise. When American leaders steer to the far left, voters rebel at the ballot box. Americans rejected the Great Society’s economic programs that promised and ultimately failed to reduce poverty, electing and then reelecting Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter’s dramatic leftward shift was resoundingly rejected, paving the way for the conservative Reagan revolution. After Bill Clinton pursued a left-wing agenda during his first two years in the White House, Republicans won control of Congress, forcing the politically shrewd President Clinton to abandon left-wingism and embrace the now famous triangulation strategy.

By shifting rightward, President Obama is sending a message to voters that he is through being a rigid liberal ideologue. That in itself is recognition that Americans have once again rejected hard-line liberalism.

Ron Paul: The Populist Libertarian

2010-01-28T01:59:00.001-05:00

Ever since running for President in 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has emerged as an icon among a broad political spectrum. His rigid isolationism underscored by his opposition to the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, made him a darling on the far left and the isolationist far right. His radical free-market philosophy endeared him to libertarians. Ron Paul somehow managed to build a coalition so diverse that during the 2008 campaign, numerous callers into C-SPAN's Washington Journal enthusiastically recommended that Ron Paul select Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), one of the most left-wing elected officials, as his running mate.

Now Ron Paul appears to be going after another constituency--a far more numerous and powerful one than all his other allies combined. This time, Congressman Paul has his eyes on the Populists. The populist-wing of the American electorate is so powerful that most successful politicians tailor their talking points to address some populist concern in some part of the country. Populist themes range from anti-free trade to anti-illegal immigration to anti-Wall Street. Populists don't like Big Government, Big Labor, or Big Business. They don't like Big. Nuance is not factored into the populist equation. Neither are economic principles, empirical evidence, or history.

Populists frequently shift their allegiances between Democrats and Republicans, although they tend to be more receptive to left-wing talking points that scorn Big corporations and lament the "outsourcing of American jobs." Although many populists are centrists or independents, populists make up a much larger base than just the unaffiliated Independents or self-described moderates. Populists are, in short, ubiquitous across the political landscape.

Because populist sentiments are so prevalent, one of the most effective political tactics--especially during times of political or economic unrest--is to engage in what I refer to as populist demagoguery. If manufacturing jobs are being lost, blame free trade. If incomes are dwindling, blame banks and their big bonuses. If gas prices are going up, blame Big Oil. Neat and somewhat intuitive slogans trump facts and basic economic principles in elections. This is understandable, since most people are not trained economists, and therefore do not have the knowledge to understand how importing cheap sugar from Brazil or outsourcing labor to a factory in Malaysia can actually have a highly positive economic effect across the board. Politicians prey on these misconceptions to get elected.

Populist appeal only wears of when populist policies are actually implemented and inevitably fail. See protectionism under Herbert Hoover, wage and price controls under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and virtually every conceivable populist measure under Jimmy Carter. But such is human nature that as time passes and new economic concerns surface, people tend to forget about the folly of populism and are once more enamored with populist rhetoric.

Which brings us to Ron Paul. I was never particularly fond of Ron Paul , mostly because I could not bring myself to support a politician whose coalition consisted of libertarians, socialists, white supremacists, and 9/11 Truthers. If a libertarian politician could not repel socialists, neo-Nazis, and psychotics from his campaign, I didn't think he could be an effective leader. But until recently, I could not fault Ron Paul's sincerity. His philosophy was for the most part consistent and unwavering. He didn't engage in cheap populist demagoguery to win popular support.

But recently, Ron Paul has started to do just that. Last Monday on Larry King Live, Ron Paul declared that "the Stimulus obviously helped Wall Street. Wall Street is doing very, very well." I'm certainly not a fan of President Obama's now infamous Stimulus, but to say that the Stimulus (not to be confused with the bail outs) either directly or indirectly helped Wall Street is ludicrous. In fact, in the months after the Stimulus was signed into law, the stock market plummeted. The Stimulus was not designed to help Wall Street, nor did it.

Congressman Paul's claim is quintessential populist demagoguery, pitting Wall Street against "Main Street," a cheap and largely meaningless variation of class warfare, which itself is a favorite populist tactic. Ron Paul is suggesting that what is good for Wall Street is bad for Main Street and in doing so, he is positioning himself as the champion of Main Street.

As an informed free-market politician, I think Ron Paul knows that the Wall Street, Main Street dichotomy is tripe. Stock markets rise and investors make money when businesses are profitable, or at least look to be profitable in the future. This leads me to believe that Ron Paul is engaging in populist demagoguery in an effort to appeal to a broader constituency. This is a far cry from a politician who built his reputation by saying things that are unpopular, but true.

I worry that Ron Paul's flirtation with populism is a bad omen for free-market advocates. If those who admire Ron Paul's philosophy begin to imitate his rhetoric, then all hope might be lost for diminishing the insidious influence of populism on American politics any time soon.

Politicizing Tragedy and Perverting History

2010-01-15T17:19:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of the disastrous earthquake that hit Haiti, most in the global community are focusing their energies on relief operations and charitable contributions. But as is almost always the case, some political activists are exploiting the tragedy to make a political point. Pat Robertson inexplicably blames the earthquake on a "pact with the devil," referring to Haiti's independence from France in 1804.

The professional hate-monger, Keith Olbermann, used the tragedy to justify the need for healthcare reform in the United States, while calling Rush Limbaugh a "deranged racist" and wishing he "go to hell."

But another, more insidious, strand of politicization that happens to be a staple of left-wingism is quickly taking root: blaming America and Europe for Haiti's plight.

In a New York Times op-ed, author Tracy Kidder uses the tragedy to make a larger point about why Haiti is more vulnerable to natural disasters than wealthier nations. According to Kidder, "the essence of it seems clear enough":

Haiti is a country created by former slaves, kidnapped West Africans, who, in 1804, when slavery still flourished in the United States and the Caribbean, threw off their cruel French masters and created their own republic. Haitians have been punished ever since for claiming their freedom: by the French who, in the 1820s, demanded and received payment from the Haitians for the slave colony, impoverishing the country for years to come; by an often brutal American occupation from 1915 to 1934; by indigenous misrule that the American government aided and abetted. (In more recent years American administrations fell into a pattern of promoting and then undermining Haitian constitutional democracy.)

Kidder's interpretation of Haiti's history is oversimplified, misleading, and frankly, perverse. While it is true that the Haitian people (as have all people at some point in history) suffered as a result of slavery and occupation, Haiti's current problems stem not from imperialism but from its inability to establish a durable constitutional republic that respects the Rule of Law and is not susceptible to extreme corruption.

The 1804 Haitian revolution and subsequent independence was marked by a reign of terror at the hands of dictator and despot Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who was assassinated only two years later by disaffected members of his own administration. For decades later, Dessalines was reviled by Haitians for his cruel and autocratic rule, and only began to emerge as an emblem of Haitian nationalism in the 19th century, when generations who suffered under Dessalines died out (one might compare this phenomenon to the recent surge in Joseph Stalin's popularity among Russians).

Since its independence, Haiti has seen over 30 coups, as numerous political factions and dictators vied for power. Contrary to Mr. Kidder's assertion, the United States did not always "aid and abet" indigenous misrule. As a matter of fact, in 1986, the United States arranged the exile of the hated tyrant "Baby Doc" Duvalier, whose family terrorized the Haitian people since 1957. In 1994, U.S. forces peacefully entered Haiti under "Operation Uphold Democracy" to restore the ousted, but democratically elected, Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President. Aristide's administration was inept and corrupt, but not as tyrannical as that of his predecessors. In subsequent years, more coups followed, with the United States often playing the reluctant role of a mediator having to choose the least evil alternative.

Mr. Kidder willfully disregards these facts because they contradict his leftist world view, which holds the West responsible for the plight of third-world countries. He mentions "indigenous misrule" only in passing and in the misleading context of America's "aiding and abetting" such misrule, while irresponsibly downplaying the pervasive tyranny and corruption in Haiti. His message is simple: Haiti and its people are hapless victims. Implicit in Mr. Kidder's thesis, is the notion that Haiti bears absolutely no responsibility for its systemic economic and political failures. As I explained in The Left's Moral Absolutism, victimhood is a dominant theme in the left's world view. You're either the oppressor or the oppressed (master or slave), and if you're the oppressed, your fate is essentially sealed. Of course, this sophomoric explanation doesn't explain why some societies that went through periods of colonialism and slavery (again I stress that all societies have been colonized, oppressed, and enslaved at some point) enjoy more freedom, prosperity, and stability than others. This disparity in wealth despite a similar history is perhaps best illustrated by Haiti's next door neighbor, the Dominican Republic, which is far more prosperous and stable than Haiti.

To deny that political and economic institutions play a vital role in shaping a nation's destiny is to deny history. Yet by blaming America and Europe for Haiti's abject poverty and political instability, and by essentially exonerating Haiti of all responsibility, that is precisely what Mr. Kidder does. He cannot muster enough intellectual honesty to admit that Western institutions, most notably the Rule of Law, property rights, and capitalism, are integral to freedom and prosperity. To Mr. Kidder, institutions are of secondary importance, almost incidental. It's as if sustainable political and economic systems emerge naturally so long as they're not hindered by imperialism and insufficient aid, which are the real culprits:

The usual excuse, that a government like Haiti’s is weak and suffers from corruption, doesn’t hold — all the more reason, indeed, to work with the government. The ultimate goal of all aid to Haiti ought to be the strengthening of Haitian institutions, infrastructure and expertise.

Mr. Kidder is right in the sense that foreign aid should be used to strengthen institutions, but his prescription for rescuing Haiti is too vague to be meaningful, since we have no idea what kinds of institutions Mr. Ridder has in mind. Based on his inability to grasp the root cause of Haiti's plight and his attributing all of Haiti's problems to colonialism and slavery, we can only assume that Mr. Kidder is in favor of perpetuating some form of third-world despotism.

As the United States devotes unprecedented military and civilian resources, on top of massive treasure, to relieve a tragedy-stricken foreign country, the "blame America first" folks like Mr. Kidder cannot even write a single sentence in praise of America's contributions. Rather, Mr. Kidder uses the tragedy as an opportunity to condemn colonialism, imperialism and slavery as the sole causes of Haiti's suffering.

The Libertarian's Fatal Conceit

2010-01-08T13:55:00.000-05:00

Over the last several years, I have been closely affiliated with the libertarian movement. I worked for the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, a wonderful organization that supports free-market groups around the country. During my time with CGKF, I had many opportunities to communicate with prominent libertarian thinkers, who were highly intelligent and persuasive. I continue to be active in the free-market movement.

Although there are numerous strands of libertarianism, all libertarians are united by the belief that a just government exists to protect individual rights and do little else. On matters of political economy and philosophy, I see eye-to-eye with most libertarians on most issues. However, there is one area that continues to be a major point of contention.

At the risk of generalizing, most libertarians have a special disdain for Republican politicians who do not fight for transformational change. By transformational change libertarians mean a radical departure from our current mixed-economy that boasts a massive welfare state and is constrained by burdensome regulations. Libertarians vehemently oppose the strategy of incrementalism, advocating major leaps in policy instead.

The brilliant libertarian scholar and historian David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute, once said that he did not think Ronald Reagan was a very good President because he did not abolish the Department of Education or privatize Social Security. The free-market conservative scholars, activists and politicians who helped drive the Reagan Revolution supported these libertarian proposals in theory, but the President and his Cabinet did not attempt to implement them--and as we shall see, for good reasons.

To my shock, David Boaz also noted that many libertarians feel like Thomas Jefferson betrayed the libertarian cause by purchasing Louisiana from Napoleon and waging war against the Barbary pirates of North Africa who were terrorizing and hijacking American merchant ships, and often killing or enslaving the ships' crews.

David Boaz represents the majority of libertarian thinkers who believe that any departure from a pure libertarian ideal is a betrayal of that ideal. Furthermore, libertarians believe that political compromise and pragmatism are convenient cop outs that hinder progress towards greater liberty.

I strongly disagree with this view and it is the primary source of my beef with the libertarian movement.

To begin with, impugning Thomas Jefferson for expanding and significantly strengthening the young and fragile republic is naive, for if it wasn't for Jefferson's vision of an American navy that ultimately subdued the menacing Barbary pirates, America might have been fatally vulnerable to British aggression in the War of 1812. Moreover, do libertarians really believe that the Constitution prohibits the Commander-in-Chief from deploying the military against an enemy with a track record of murdering and enslaving Americans? The Constitution is not a suicide pact and neither the Louisiana Purchase nor the just war against the Barbary pirates violated the Constitution or betrayed America's founding principles.

To castigate Ronald Reagan for not achieving transformational libertarian change seems to me equally foolhardy. The political process is highly complex, and all politicians are constrained by precedents, rules, and procedures that make transformational change very difficult if not impossible. We are witnessing this first hand as the Health Care legislation nears its final stages. Barack Obama (and I would venture to guess most Congressional Democrats) supports a single-payer healthcare system. But due to a plethora of political constraints, neither Barack Obama nor Democratic leaders dared to even seriously consider single-payer. In fact, it appears almost certain that even the so-called public option will not be included in the final healthcare bill. And this is despite the fact that the Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate and a significant majority in the House.

Had Ronald Reagan committed political capital to the goal of abolishing the Department of Education or privatizing Social Security, he would have been thoroughly defeated by the Democrat-controlled House and humiliated. Such an ambitious goal would have made the failure all that more dramatic, and rendered Reagan largely inefficacious for the remainder of his term.

Foregoing this political suicide mission, President Reagan instead chose to eloquently defend the principles of liberty, while fighting for significant, but non-transformational change. He succeeded in lowering taxes, growing our economy, stimulating entrepreneurship, and reining in some wasteful spending.

President Reagan wisely differentiated between idealism and pragmatism. What good is idealism if it doesn't affect positive change? Libertarians resent what they view as Reagan's lackluster efforts to rein in the welfare state, but would the country have been better of if President Reagan unwaveringly embraced idealism at the expense of failing to push through any pro free-market initiatives?

The axiom that we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good should teach libertarians an important political lesson: it is better to fight for incremental change than to stubbornly perpetuate the status quo just because the ideal is unattainable. Libertarians cannot ignore the constraints imposed by the political process, and should not view politicians who compromise in order to advance pro-free market change as spineless, or worse, perfidious. The freedom movement should continue to defend the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and attack the folly of the welfare state. But libertarians ought to accept the immutable law that in politics, if you allow idealism to trump pragmatism, you will not advance the ideal.

The Art of Politicization

2010-01-04T15:40:00.002-05:00

It wasn't long after the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack that leading conservatives doubled down on questioning the wisdom of President Obama's anti-terror policies, including the closing of Guntanamo Bay and trying terrorists in American criminal courts. Much of the criticism was tempered, addressing legitimate points of controversy over how to keep America safe.

Notably, Barak Obama's foremost critic on national security matters, former Vice President Dick Cheney, was quite harsh in his criticism:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office.

Predictably, Dick Cheney's blunt statement sparked wide outrage among liberals, who accused Dick Cheney and other critics of "politicizing the war on terror." I have written in the past that a favorite left-wing talking point is that Republicans use the "politics of fear" to win elections. I explained that this charge is hypocritical, since virtually every left-wing message--from global warming hysteria to blocking social security reform--is primarily grounded in fear.

The charge that Dick Cheney is politicizing the war on terror is equally hypocritical. Take for example the unhinged and notorious Bush-hater, Mike Lupika's, latest column in the NYDaily News:

As usual it starts with a has-been like Dick Cheney acting as if that war is some party issue, as if the country is somehow more vulnerable to fanatics because Democrats have the White House and the Congress, as if all those who hate America and want to kill Americans see this tremendous opening to do that because Barack Obama is in charge now...Cheney looks at a near tragedy on Christmas and sees opportunity. When he does, he doesn't just sound like some old crank in the park. He sounds like a bum.

So there you have it: Dick Cheney is out of line for suggesting that Obama is making America less safe and using the incident as an "opportunity" to attack the President. But Lupika's indignation belies the fact that the left has consistently and unrelentingly politicized every element of George Bush's national security agenda, arguing that Guantanamo Bay has made us less safe and more vulnerable to attack, as has The Iraq War, the NSA Surveillance program, CIA interrogations, etc. In fact, in a stroke of brilliant irony, Mr. Lupika repeats some of these charges in the same breath as he declares that "war isn't a party issue":

He [Cheney] acts now as if the last administration were some kind of triumph, as if the economy collapsed on somebody else's watch the way the towers of the World Trade Center did.

Did you get Lupika's not-so-veiled attack on the Bush Administration, implying that George Bush is accountable for 9/11 because it happened on his watch? Adding that "the America Obama inherited is hated more now than it was pre-Bush," Mr. Lupika is blatantly politicizing the war on terror in an article condemning the politicization of the war on terror.

Does Mike Lupika honestly believe that it's only politicization when the right criticizes the left's anti-terror policies, or is he simply intellectually dishonest? Listening to Democrats feign outrage over Dick Cheney's comments while simultaneously blaming George Bush's policies for making us less safe, I think it's a combination of the two. Clearly, Mr. Lupika has bought into the fallacious platitude that the "politics of fear" is a uniquely Republican tactic. But not even Mr. Lupika can be that willfully ignorant.

Instead of debating the merit of Cheney's argument, the left is attacking him for daring to make the argument in the first place, as if national security matters are beyond the scope of debate. Perhaps for the sake of civility and national unity, Cheney should have offered a more subtle line of attack. But certainly, the Democrats have not afforded Dick Cheney or George Bush that same courtesy.

The Filibuster: Friend or Foe?

2009-12-28T16:05:00.000-05:00

Senate Democrats, liberal interest groups, and their allies in the media are growing increasingly angry at the perpetual filibuster threat posed by the Republican minority. Over the weekend, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced plans to reintroduce legislation that would effectively eliminate the filibuster.

To be fair to Senator Harkin, he did introduce similar legislation in 1995 when the Democrats were in the minority. However, news stories and op-eds questioning the wisdom of the filibuster are more prevalent now that the Democrats control both chambers of Congress. On the CBS News Blog, Bob Fuss laments the filibuster in an article entitled "How Filibusters are Strangling the Senate." The liberal columnist Paul Krugman makes a similar argument in his New York Times column. But these columnists didn't object when Democrats used the filibuster during the Bush Administration. This is because the left-leaning media is indignant that the Republican filibuster could derail a liberal agenda, but were all too happy too see a Democrat filibuster undermine a conservative agenda.

This kind of transparent bias and hypocrisy extends beyond the politics of the filibuster. TV anchors and pundits are quick to echo the Democratic Party line that Republicans are "obstructionists" and label the Republican Party the "party of no." Yet when Democrats were in the minority, Republicans also accused Democrats of obstructionism and the media did not legitimize that talking point.

In 2005, after the Democrats successfully filibustered ten of George Bush's high-profile nominees to the federal courts of appeals, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to invoke the nuclear option, which would have required a simple majority to approve a judicial nominee. The Democrats and most in the mainstream press cried foul. Now the tables have turned, and the Republicans (and centrist Democrats) use the filibuster threat, while Democrats ponder some variation of the nuclear option. But as Byron York points out in the Washington Examiner, there is a major substantive distinction between filibustering judicial nominees and filibustering legislation:

The argument was that the judicial filibuster undermined the Senate's constitutional responsibility to give advice and consent on the president's judicial nominations. When legislation is filibustered, it's possible for a bill's sponsors to make changes that will satisfy opponents. But what happens when a nominee is filibustered? No advice and consent. The Constitution does not require the Senate to pass a national health care bill, but it does require it to confirm or deny the president's appointees...So Republicans came up with what was called the "nuclear option"... GOP lawmakers made clear at the time that they were not going after the legislative filibuster...(emphasis added)

It is understandable for politicians to support a parliamentary tactic when it advances their agenda, and oppose it when it does not. It makes sense for those in the majority to label the recalcitrant minority "obstructionist," and then when political fortunes are reversed, turn around and obstruct. This is somewhat hypocritical, but such is the art of politics that self-interest usually trumps consistency. What is not acceptable or intellectually honest is for so many in the media to bemoan the filibuster when it threatens a liberal agenda and celebrate it when it hinders a conservative one.

The Sin of Omission Revisited

2009-12-22T00:06:00.000-05:00

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), who gained national fame earlier this year when he accused Republicans of wanting "sick people to die", compared America's healthcare system to the "Holocaust", and declared that Fox News and the Republicans are "the enemy", is back. Following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez, Rep. Grayson wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that Florida resident Angie Langley be prosecuted and imprisoned for five years. Her crime? Ms. Langley has launched a website critical of Congressman Grayson. The website documents Grayson's various improprieties and allows visitors to donate to a Committee seeking to defeat the Congressman in next year's election. As far as partisan websites go, it is fairly tame and respectful. Much worse things have been said about much better men than Mr. Grayson.

Yet the Congressman will have none of it. He is demanding Ms. Langley be sentenced to five years in prison, citing a laughably flimsy set of criteria. It is only fitting that one of the most hateful and unhinged elected officials is embracing his inner-Stalin.

And is the media at the forefront of this unprecedented Congressional hubris? As is almost always the case when a Democratic politician does something untoward (never mind outrageous), the mainstream press is largely silent. It seems that only Republican misdeeds are met by scorn and indignation. Conservatives have justifiably grumbled about this glaring double standard for years, but their objections have fallen on deaf years. It is a constant source of frustration for conservatives that liberal sins are downplayed, while Republican indiscretions, trivial or not, are gleefully flaunted.

Just imagine the headlines had a Republican Congressman written a letter to a Republican Attorney General demanding that the owner of a liberal website be prosecuted and imprisoned for dissent. Cries of fascism would have been ubiquitous. The liberal dissident would have popped up on every network and cable news show and celebrated as a hero. Yet because Grayson is a Democrat, there is little news coverage and almost no outrage.

Alan Grayson may be a national disgrace, but the media's gross under-reporting of the Congressman's abhorrent antics is just as disgraceful.

The Missing Doctrine

2009-12-15T22:57:00.000-05:00

After hearing President Obama deliver two of the most seminal speeches on foreign policy so far into his Presidency, historians and pundits have been trying to discern the Obama Doctrine.

Following the West Point speech, disillusioned liberals were infuriated that Barak Obama chose to escalate the war in Afghanistan, while hawkish conservatives were pleased by the President's decision to follow the counsel of his generals (and not his left-wing base), but critical of the arbitrary timeline. Thus, both factions found the speech confusing; liberal doves could not understand how a Nobel Peace Prize winner could double down on President Bush's war, and conservative hawks didn't get why a necessary war mandated an arbitrary exit strategy.

After the Oslo speech, liberals were once again perplexed by the ostensible contradiction of sending more troops to promote peace (really, a non-contradiction as I explain in the Peace through War blog post) and conservatives resented the frequent admonishments of controversial Bush era policies.

No one seemed to be completely satisfied by the President's two major foreign policy speeches. But I think the larger story--and one that does not bode well for Obama's legacy-- is that no central Obama Doctrine emerged. There was nothing unique in either of the speech. Obama declared that as Head of State he has a responsibility to defend his nation. Ok. Obama argued that success in Afghanistan is critical to America's national security. Ok. Virtually everything Obama said has been said before, often by his much maligned predecessor. Interestingly, there were times when Obama enunciated elements of the Bush Doctrine:

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America's authority.

This is a fascinating declaration considering that the idea of America fostering freedom around the world is perhaps the central Bush Doctrine to which President Bush devoted the bulk of his Second Inaugural Address. The left never gave George Bush credit for establishing a link between America's national security and global freedom, and then candidate Obama joined the chorus of liberal detractors who mocked the idea of America's exceptionalism being used as a vehicle for freedom. But that is precisely what Barack Obama implies in his West Point speech.

To many liberals the President's Oslo speech was reminiscent of George Bush. And they are right. Throughout the speech Obama invoked numerous Bush themes, most notably his recognition that there is evil in the world. Recall how mercilessly the left mocked George Bush for his characterization of Al Qaeda fighters as "evildoers". Well, presumably to the chagrin of left-wing moral relativists, here was Obama making the identical claim.

In the end, President Obama made a case for war but he failed to unveil an Obama Doctrine. Liberals were left disheartened, conservatives lukewarm, and historians scratching their heads looking for the missing Obama doctrine.

Peace through War

2009-12-07T12:51:00.001-05:00

It is amusing hearing disaffected liberal Democrats struggle to understand how President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize squares with his Afghan war strategy, which entails sending 30,000 more troops to the troubled region. These detractors seem to think that there is an inherent contradiction between fighting for peace and waging war against violent extremists.

This false paradox is emblematic of the Nobel Prize Committee's sophomoric world view: war is never justified and peace is achieved through handshakes, smiles and concessions. According to this world view, Neville Chamberlain should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938 and Winston Churchill should have been denounced as a war monger.

Over the course of history, hundreds of millions of people were slaughtered (and continue to be slaughtered) by tyrants. In cases where these tyrants were finally stopped, war, not peace, was the primary instrument of deterrence. It is staggeringly ignorant to uphold pacifism as an absolute good, for pacifism in the face of violence being waged by a tyrant is tantamount to sanctioned mass suicide.

The merits of the Afghanistan War are debatable, but what is not debatable, is that war is sometimes necessary to achieve peace. Free and noble men have for centuries taken up arms against tyrants and murderers, thereby saving and liberating millions of people. Had they instead chosen peace and compromise, men like Hitler would have slaughtered masses with impunity. It is therefore intellectually naive to contend that any leader who escalates a war is by definition not advancing peace, and any leader who veers away from armed conflict is a peacemaker.

3JCH4BKE2XE5

The Art of Hypocrisy

2009-12-06T23:48:00.001-05:00

As sex scandals involving celebrities and politicians pile up, a common theme is emerging among liberal commentators: conservatives who commit adultery are hypocrites, because conservatives defend traditional values and the institution of marriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the sin of adultery is more heinous if committed by a conservative.

Joy Behar is just the latest liberal commentator to make this (almost) unbelievably idiotic argument. Tune into MSNBC, and you will hear David Shuster, Contessa Brewer and a host of left-wing commentators play the hypocrisy card.

Unbeknownst to most liberals making the claim, the implication of the hypocrisy argument is straightforward: liberals like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, et al, who commit adultery are not hypocrites, because they are pro-adultery. That's right, if conservative adulterers are hypocrites because they stand up for traditional values (like marital fidelity), then liberal aduleters must not be hypocrites because they don't think that adultery is wrong. The absurdity of this argument is self-evident. Liberal adulterers, like their conservative counterparts, always repent and usually issue a public apology. Naturally, the mea culpa suggests that liberal adulterers do in fact recognize that adultery is unethical. Therefore, they are equally as "hypocritical" as the conservative adulterers.

Because conservatives tend to highlight the importance of family values more consistently than liberals, liberals take a perverse pleasure in exposing conservative adulterers (even those who don't run on social issues) as hypocrites. This is understandable. But it certainly does not then follow that liberals aren't being hypocritical when they commit adultery. I have never heard a liberal adulterer caught in the act proclaim that he is "pro-adultery", and therefore immune to criticism. Perhaps it makes sense to hold conservatives who pontificate about family values to a higher standard than liberals, but it is ludicrous to suggest that liberal adulterers aren't hypocrites. Until we hear a liberal politician proclaim that he is pro-adultery, we can safely conclude that all aduleters, regardless of political affiliation, are technically hypocrites.

Howard Dean's Change of Heart

2009-11-30T14:23:00.000-05:00

In what is probably being treated as an insignificant footnote by traditional media and the blogosphere, Howard Dean made what I thought was a shocking confession on Fox News Sunday: he thinks Medicare Part D--George Bush's transformative health-care reform legislation, which lowered drug prices for millions of seniors-- has been working exceptionally well, despite Howard Dean's harsh criticism of the bill during passage:

Howard Dean: ...I think the Republicans actually did some good things with it with Part D. And I was wrong at the time about Part D. It's worked out very, very well.

The acknowledgement is particularly surprising coming from Howard Dean, who as the early frontrunner in the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary, was one of the most visible and fierce critics of the Bush Administration. To my knowledge, Dean is the first prominent Democrat to publicly praise Medicare Part D. For years, Democrats demagogued the legislation, ignoring its positive effects, and using it as an opportunity to vilify two of its favorite targets, the Pharmaceutical companies and George Bush.

Many Republicans and movement conservatives also opposed Medicare Part D, arguing that it was unfunded, too expensive, and further expanded the size and scope of government. While the criticism from the right was predictably along the lines of traditional conservative opposition to an expanding Welfare State, Democrats' criticism was largely disingenuous because it belied the bill's practical effect of making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. While I was never a big fan of Part D (it was not as targeted as I would like a government program to be), the Democrats' hypocrisy in blasting reform that many liberals have favored for years was glaring.

Howard Dean's change of heart is a welcome--albeit partial--reversal from what has been a concerted effort by the Democrats to demonize every aspect of the Bush presidency. Perhaps, in the next few years, other Democratic leaders will follow suit.

Politicizing War

2009-11-10T14:31:00.002-05:00

On last Sunday's Meet the Press, moderator David Gregory asked Mississippi Republican Gov. Haley Barbour about the possible political implications if President Obama does not send the additional 40,000 troops requested by his commanders. Here's an excerpt from the exchange:

GOV. BARBOUR: ...And I will tell you now, for myself and I think a lot of Republicans, if the president will stand up, make the tough decision to send more troops, Republicans like me will stand up and say the president's doing the right thing. He doesn't have to worry about Republicans trying to politic this. If he stands up and does the right thing that the military's asked for, we will say good for you, Mr. President.

GREGORY: And if he doesn't? Are you saying the opposite is true, that it'll become a political issue?

GOV. BARBOUR: It shouldn't become a political issue.

GREGORY: At all? Even if he doesn't?

GOV. BARBOUR: I don't think it should become a political issue.

GREGORY: Because implicit in that is if he doesn't do the right thing it will be.

GOV. BARBOUR: I'm one of those who believes in foreign policy, the politics ought to stop at the border's edge. And I've always believed that. I believed it when I was in Ronald Reagan's White House and I believe it no matter who the president is. Now, when the presidential comes--presidential campaign comes; but right now, if the president does the right thing here, I'm going to applaud him. If he doesn't, I'm not going to criticize him.

David Gregory pressed Gov. Barbour on the point that the Afghanistan War might become "a political issue", implying that there would be something untoward about politicizing war. Gov. Barbour quickly dismisses this notion, reaffirming the traditional view that "politics stops at the border's edge."

While Mr. Barbour's view ought to be commended, one can't help but recognize the remarkable hypocrisy implicit in David Gregory's line of questioning. As anyone who followed the Bush Administration knows, the Democrats politicized the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars for years, making the unpopular Iraq war a central political issue in the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. Criticizing Bush's handling of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars became the Democrats' pivotal line of attack against the Bush Administration as early as 2003. For David Gregory to suggest that it would be inappropriate for Republicans to use President Obama's handling of the Afghanistan War as a political weapon is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, given the Democrats' and President Obama's track record of politicization.

There is also something to be said about the substance of the attacks against George Bush compared to the potential attacks against Barak Obama. In the early years of the Iraq War, Democrats criticized the Bush Administration for not sending enough troops into Iraq, while at the same time paradoxically arguing that it was the "wrong war at the wrong time". In later stages, Democrats were calling for a Congressionally-mandated withdrawal irrespective of the conditions on the grounds, fighting tooth and nail George Bush's counter-insurgency strategy, dubbed "The Surge", which among other things, called for more troops. In other words, the Democrats weren't merely against the tactics employed in the Iraq War; they were against the war itself. At the same time, Democrats were calling for more resources to be committed to Afghanistan, which President Obama argued was the central front in the War on Terror.

Fast forward to today. President Obama's field commanders are implementing the President's counter-insurgency strategy unveiled in March of this year. General McCrystal has called for at least 40,000 additional troops to help accomplish the mission that President Obama and the Democrats argued for years was at the heart of the War on Terror. While we await the President's decision, David Gregory wants to caution the Republicans against politicization. But if the President does in fact not meet the demands of his field commanders, how can anyone blame the Republicans for the War becoming a political issue? After all, it was President Obama who argued for more resources to be committed to Afghanistan, while calling for the end of the mission in Iraq. In his years as an NBC reporter and now as the moderator of Meet the Press, did David Gregory or anyone else in the left-leaning press question the ethics of the Democrats' politicization of the Iraq War?

Haley Barbour's old school attitude that politics stops at the border's edge may be noble and in the best interest of civility in politics, but that sentiment was entirely vitiated during the Bush Administration by Democrats seeking to exploit for political gain a difficult and increasingly unpopular war. If Republicans use the President's decision (or indecision, as the case maybe right now) on Afghanistan for political gain, it will be markedly different only in the sense that whereas Democrats criticized President Bush for trying to win the Iraq War, Republicans would be criticizing the President for not fulfilling his campaign promises, not implementing his March strategy, and not pursuing victory.

Moral Absolutism

2009-11-05T12:33:00.002-05:00

Recently, I published an essay in the American Thinker entitled The Left's Moral Absolutism, in which I argued that despite conventional wisdom, the far left does not subscribe to moral relativism. Rather, the far left adheres to a strict ethical code that condemns central aspects of Western Culture, most notably capitalism and individualism. As I explained:

Moral relativism holds that all morality is subjective; nothing is fundamentally good or bad. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder and no one can claim the moral high ground. I don't doubt that there are purists who unwaveringly adhere to this nihilistic philosophy, but the far left does not belong to this orthodox breed. In fact, the far left shuns moral relativism with as much fervor as the "moralizers" the far left purports to despise.

The far left has no qualms about defending third-world barbarism, yet proclaims with an aura of ultimate righteousness that corporations are evil and that the men who lead them are corrupt tyrants, who profit at the expense of the public good. They routinely vilify Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and all others who do not adhere to utopian Marxist ideals and variations thereof. To many of these so-called relativists Dick Cheney epitomizes evil; a man who served not only as the Secretary of Defense for the imperialistic United States but as Chief Executive of the multinational corporation Halliburton, itself a symbol of evil.

The far left's tirades against "evil" corporations and Christian (but almost never Muslim) zealots are not relativistic, neither in tone nor in substance. They are unambiguously absolutist. The left moralizes about perceived injustices -- be it the effects of capitalism or the war against global jihad -- with a religious-like conviction, never uttering the word "relative" in its condemnations.

In discussing this essay with my liberal and Democratic friends, I attempted to clarify that this essay is not about liberal Democrats or even social Democrats; it is about the far left, which is admittedly an imprecise characterization. Think Reverend Wright and Noam Chomsky, not John Kerry and Thomas Friedman, I told them. I think my left-leaning friends were generally receptive to this distinction, but some questioned the pertinence of this essay to today's political environment. After all, they argued, Noam Chomsky and his cohorts are on the fringes of ideological discourse, and no one in mainstream politics takes them seriously.

While I agree that Chomskyite and other far left-wing doctrines have been marginalized over the last several decades, I believe that left-wing intellectuals, particularly academics, continue to be influenced by them and that influence inevitably trickles down to their students and apprentices. Moreover, I think that there are elements within popular culture and mainstream politics that reflect the far left's world view, particularly when it comes to questioning America's moral highground in world affairs, vilifying corporations, or embracing class warfare. So while most mainstream political and media outlets don't wholeheartedly embrace Noam Chomsky's world view, his influence nevertheless manifests itself discreetly throughout our culture.

The Politics of Fear

2009-11-04T12:36:00.002-05:00

A popular charge leveled by Democrats is that Republicans routinely use the Politics of Fear to advance their agenda and win elections. Used throughout campaigns and policy battles, this charge is arguably the Left’s most forceful and consistent talking point vis-à-vis Republicans. Whenever a controversial issue is debated at the national level—be it immigration, healthcare, terrorism, or education—you can count on Democratic leaders and activists to play the Politics of Fear card.

The transparent hypocrisy of this charge is perhaps best illustrated by the Democrats' efforts to portray mainstream Republican policies as being detrimental to the middle-class, minorities, or some other critical demographic or voting bloc. For example, George Bush's agenda of partial and voluntary social security privatization was disingenuously branded by Democrats as "full privatization" leading to severe cuts to social security payouts. As the anti-reform marketing blitz intensified, seniors became increasingly fearful that social security reform could undermine their livelihood. Similar tactics were used to attack and discredit vouchers for private schools, across-the-board tax cuts, and tort reform. The central theme of the left's opposition to most conservative policies is that bad things will happen to the average American if these policies are implemented. This is glaringly the much maligned politics of fear.

Whereas Republicans rely on fear and other negative emotions (e.g. hate, anger, etc.) to advance policies, Democrats are presumably armed only with the self-evident wisdom of their proposals. This is of course a farce. The global warming hysteria that has come to dominate the United States' energy policy is grounded in fear. Climate Change alarmists tell us that we either have to cut CO2 emissions or face a calamity of biblical proportions. Regardless of whether one views climate change as a serious problem, it is obvious that climate change activists use fear to raise awareness.

Throughout the War on Terror, when George Bush would say that there are terrorists who want to kill us—an incontrovertible fact—he was accused of using fear tactics. As Republicans and movement conservatives solidify their opposition to President Obama’s healthcare proposal, they are dismissed as fear mongers.

Yet when Democrats argue that the War in Iraq and a litany of other Bush-era programs have made us less safe and more vulnerable to attack, we are made to believe that this is straight talk and not an effort to scare Americans into opposing President Bush's policies. However, rightly or wrongly, instilling fear is the precise intent of these Democratic talking points.

But there is a larger point here besides rank hypocrisy, which is that all politics is grounded in fear. The underlying message of every political movement is that bad things will happen unless the movement succeeds. Fear is at the root of political ideology. After all, it would be difficult to gain a passionate following for a cause if your followers did not believe that the alternative to your movement would adversely affect them. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but rather the nature of politics.

Barak Obama's message during the 2008 campaign was that John McCain's policies would further damage our economy, make our country less safe, and not move our country forward. In short, then-candidate Obama's message was that if you elect John McCain, bad things will happen to you. Of course, President Obama had a positive agenda--as do all candidates for office--but beneath the surface of "hope" and "change" was the central implication that John McCain would be bad for this country. This is undoubtedly the politics of fear.