I am getting increasingly disgusted with intellectually dishonest, disingenuous attempts by the Democrats to justify positions and tactics. One example I discussed recently was Democrats' attacks on the federal deficits under the GOP. The fact of that matter is that for over 20 years before the 1994 elections and during the last 4 years, the Democrats have never run a federal surplus, and the only recent surpluses were under a GOP-controlled House of Representatives. In fact, we'll be close to running up a $3T deficit over the last 2 fiscal years counting. There are fairly simple observations that can attest to the validity of alleged fiscal conservatism of the Democrats: Did they outline broad-based cuts to federal spending while out of power? Did they support a line-item veto or balanced budget amendment? Did they offer less costly alternatives to domestic spending bills? In fact, the record shows that the Democrats (including Clinton) constantly submitted MORE COSTLY bills that the GOP legislators rejected; many of the votes against Bush's first-term Medicare expansion for prescription drugs were progressive Democrats arguing the benefit wasn't generous enough...
Then there is the question of budget reconciliation, which was designed to waive the need of a Senate super-majority in order to do politically unpopular things, like program cuts or various user fees or other revenue enhancements, to cobble together a budget. I agree that it was never intended to be used to promote politically popular things to do, i.e., new or increased program funding or eliminate or cut taxes and other government fees and revenue enhancements. A liberal think tank, the Brookings Institute, notes that reconciliation has been passed into law some 19 times to enact major policy changes, include COBRA, welfare reform, SCHIP--and the Bush tax cuts. (I am sympathetic with the viewpoint that if Clinton had to achieve a super-majority to pass a general tax hike, Bush should have had to do the same to pass a general tax cut. I would have supported the tax cuts outside the reconciliation process. What I didn't see the Republicans do was to use reconciliation to slash government spending.) Even they concede that "health reform 2009 style would be the most ambitious use of reconciliation." I think the fact that the Democrats themselves, particularly Senator Byrd (below), realized in the past that it was an abuse of reconciliation process to pass health care reform (e.g., under Clinton), but are nevertheless pursuing it now speaks for itself. The old saw is relevant: "Two wrongs don't make a right." Whatever Bush and the GOP did in the past is irrelevant: they certainly didn't use it to pass a new trillion-dollar entitlement.
Finally, Speaker Pelosi has been willing to consider the Slaughter rule (deem and pass) as a workaround to avoid directly voting on the corrupt Senate health care bill. Everybody knows if this reform could stand on its own merits, it would not have required special deals to win a super majority in the Senate, and it would not require Obama and Pelosi having to wheel-and-deal or pressure their own party members to win a simple majority in the House, given the fact there are roughly 257 Democrats in the House, Pelosi has been struggling to keep the number of defections on an allegedly intrinsically worthy Senate health bill down to around 40 votes. Resorting to the deem and pass tactic, out of historical context, is another abuse of process; it was meant to handle things like debt ceilings, not new entitlements.
Gerard Anderson: Why Are Liberals So Condescending?
Comedian/conservative radio host Dennis Miller was intrigued enough by the Virginia political science professor's recent Washington Post column to interview him on a program segment. One of the more interesting tidbits from the interview is Anderson's mention of two students coming up to see him after class, inquiring about his political orientation. Anderson, who noted that he doesn't discuss his personal views in class, said that the two thought he was a conservative; they explained their inference based on the fact, unlike all their other (liberal) professors, Anderson scrupulously presented both points of view on issues.
Anderson describes 4 liberal narratives: the "vast right-wing conspiracy", which is dismissive of conservatives as little more than insincere shills for nefarious corporate interests; gullible or stupid center-right voters whom seem to be motivated by fear and prejudice or otherwise distracted by religious/cultural issues; devious individuals who are not motivated by any coherent philosophy but seek to attain power through a intentionally culturally divisive, "divide-and-conquer" strategy; and finally, a reflexive fear of change, relying on emotion or cultural dogmatism in the face of science, logic and evidence defining the progressive perspective.
I would certainly agree there are elements of these in the politics of Barack Obama--e.g., his 2008 primary campaign befuddlement to why bitter small town Americans "cling to their guns and Bibles"; his battle against Fox News which he dismisses as driven by manipulative ideology, not "real journalism", spreading disinformation over his policies; and his dismissive attitude towards Republicans as hypocritical, obstructionist, opportunistic, resistant to change, or devoid of substantive policy ideas.
Anderson points out that conservatives generally don't engage in the same type of stereotypical behavior of liberals. For example, I never doubted the sincerity of Ted Kennedy's motives or, with respect to the current health care reform date, there are legitimate issues involving catastrophic health expenses and limited feasible alternatives for those with preexisting conditions and small businesses. [What liberals fail to point out there have been legislative attempts by conservatives to address these issues (e.g., self-insuring, limited-mandate small business cooperatives), which have been sidetracked for reason of ideology (the nature and extent of mandates), vested interests (say, state regulators), or competitive reasons (small business insurers in a given state).] Anderson also notes a lack of familiarity of liberals or progressives with a growing body of conservative thought (economics, jurisprudence, etc.).
There are a number of conservatives, including myself, whom were more liberal or progressive in our salad days. I've described my transition in other posts; I began evolving towards a more conservative standpoint (non-ideological) economics courses in the process of getting my MBA. In particular, I started turning my skeptical point of views towards progressive programs and related outcomes: despite massive Great Society expenditures, why did we have persistent poverty in inner cities, a disproportionate number of single-parent homes, chronic welfare, and abysmal graduation rates? Were progressive policies affecting self-actualization of target recipients of government assistance? What about moral hazards, the law of unintended consequences, or the seeming inability of Democrats to draw conclusions from failing policies other than to blame an insufficient level of expenditures? I also saw Democratic options to deal with some of these problems constrained by its own special interest constituents (e.g., teacher unions, trial lawyers, environmentalists, etc.)
But for me, the final straw was the unconscionable and inexcusable treatment of the most brilliant jurist nominated to the Supreme Court over the past 50 years, Robet Bork. At that point, I started questioning the hypocrisy, the incivility, systematic presumptuousness, condescending attitude and lack of due diligence of many modern progressives. I have been critical of Barack Obama, particularly with respect to his superficial analyses, e.g., on deteriorating public support for ObamaCare, his constant Bush-bashing, and his annoying tendency to repeat political spin and talking points versus direct, concise answers.
Political Cartoon
Chuck Asay points out that Obama's programs, including the Democratic Party Health Care Bill, are really running up the public debt. We have rapidly deteriorating trust funds, and Obama's initiatives are not self-financing (i.e., half a trillion in taxes to pay for a trillion of health care expenditures).
Quote of the Day
He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king.
John Milton
Musical Interlude: Light Songs
The Doors, "Light My Fire"
Journey, "Lights"
King Harvest, "Dancing in the Moonlight"
Debby Boone, "You Light Up My Life"
