Reading maketh a full man,
conference a ready man,
and writing an exact man.
Sir Francis Bacon
Alexis de Tocqueville and the 2012 Election
I am sure that de Tocqueville would have a lot to say about this fall's selection:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."*
“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
“It is indeed difficult to imagine how men who have entirely renounced the habit of managing their own affairs could be successful in choosing those who ought to lead them. It is impossible to believe that a liberal, energetic, and wise government can ever emerge from the ballots of a nation of servants.
(* ed 1/26/13. This attribution is disputed. Elmer T. Peterson published the quote in a 1951 Daily Oklahoman byline.)
I sometimes have to wonder about most of my fellow Americans. For example, all we see from government meddling in market segments like college loans, energy production, utilities, health care, retirement, food, home mortgages, banking, etc., is inflationary bubbles, Big Business dominance and/or consolidation, and the like.
So the American people elect to the Presidency, in the middle of the biggest economic turmoil in my lifetime, a virtual unknown into the White House, first introduced on the federal level at the 2004 Democratic convention as an obscure, undistinguished Illinois state senator, just recently having won the US Senate nomination where the Dem front runner (Blair Hull)'s campaign collapsed after spousal abuse allegations surfaced and then the GOP's initial nominee (Jack Ryan)'s campaign also collapsed over leaked divorce case details about his sex life with his Hollywood actress wife. Just two years into his first Senate term, with no real accomplishments during his brief tenure, no executive experience or significant credentials to qualify, Obama announces for the Presidency.
We were in a recession before the first vote was ever cast in 2008; granted, no one could have predicted the rapid sequence of events later that summer, heading into fall. I did know, at least as early 2005, that we were in an unsustainable housing bubble which would not end well, but I didn't know the timing. (A lot of people lost money guessing too early.) I knew, although I didn't write it in my blog for obvious reasons, as soon as the tsunami hit, we had the wrong horse in the race. McCain's candidacy was largely based on his military and foreign policy expertise, not his economic policies. I also thought that if anyone could approach the bipartisan gap on Capitol Hill, McCain could.
Then came the two bizarre decisions of contradicting his own experience argument against Obama by selecting Palin and suspending his campaign over TARP. If it was my decision, I would have pulled McCain and called in Romney from the bullpen. (I implicitly signaled that by calling on McCain to dump Palin in favor of Romney.)
Still, as I indicated in multiple posts, I don't think it really mattered. I think that independents broke for Obama mostly on issues of traditional Democrat strength, economic security; Obama also had a unique position historically of becoming the first African American President. After a troubled history of race relations with slavery and Jim Crow laws, there was a certain redemptive appeal to voting for Obama. (Okay: been there, done that.)
The bottom line is that Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress vastly overestimated their mandate for change. Yes, Obama won a clear majority but not the mandate of Reagan, whom ran the table in two consecutive elections. The American people realized that in the economic collapse that both households and government had to cut back; escalating unemployment and slumping businesses sharply lowered federal revenues. Obama knowingly played the center during the general election campaign, hedging his more progressive stands (e.g., gun control, oil exploration, etc.)
I don't have to run down the 110th Congress; with the overwhelming followup Congressional sweep to 2006, the Democrats had a once in a generation shot to enact a progressive agenda over a demoralized, overwhelmed opposition. Given an economy in the tailspin and slumping federal revenue, the smart thing politically would have been to divide and conquer the opposition and shore up taxes and entitlement programs on favorable terms; mid-term elections usually run against a President. A pragmatic political strategist would want to consolidate gains and not galvanize the opposition through hardball political tactics.
The GOP hung onto a thread of being able to filibuster after a Minnesota Senate seat unexpectedly flipped in a close recount. The Democrats were able to peel off 3 Republicans, including Pennsylvania senior Senator Specter and the Maine senators, with modest spending adjustments to a massive stimulus bill.
Then, just like they did earlier in the decade with the Jeffords flip to their caucus and control of the US Senate, Democrats successfully lobbied Arlen Specter, who faced a likely strong challenge in the GOP primary for reelection, to flip, making the Democrats theoretically filibuster-proof. However, there were enough Democrats senators on the bubble in upcoming tough purple/red state reelection campaigns to be able to negotiate sweetheart deals (notoriously in Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida), which turned the corner for public opposition to the convoluted health care bill and eventually the 2010 election.
Instead of putting his own plan on the line and risking a damaging political defeat, Obama deliberately stood apart from the odious sausage making process, preposterously promoting the sausage even before it was made. He was selling the concept, not the details. Thus, even though during the campaign he had opposed an individual mandate, which eventually became a core element of the Senate version passing the House, what was important to Obama was that the Congress passed a new health care entitlement which he could add to his resume for reelection.
He made a couple of cosmetic, well-publicized attempts to reach out to the Republicans: e.g., a GOP weekend retreat and a sham "health care summit", where he repeatedly interrupted Republican legislators to contradict them. This was all to provide evidence of Obama's "good faith" reach to the opposition, which would subsequently be used to attack GOP objections and filibusters to partisan legislation. Obama used (and continues to use) language like "fair share", "balanced", and "compromise" to mask demands for the GOP to capitulate on matters of principle, like class warfare tax hikes.
The pattern is well-established: the Democrats pass major spending bills (e.g., New Deal, Great Society, etc.) and work to consolidate their gains, vesting millions of beneficiaries into the programs (like social security and Medicare), making the programs all but invulnerable to political attack. The GOP is left scrambling to pay the bills and play prevent defense.
The Democrats can only justify their expansion by demonizing the free market. Obama uses the same kind of fear politics George W. Bush used to justify intervention in the Gulf region and the super-bureaucracy of DHS, the Patriot Act, etc., to restrict individual liberty, to justify government intervention in the domestic arena: only by controlling everything can we feel "safe". Obama uses the fears of economic insecurity to promote age-old mercantilism: we can't afford to do nothing. Actually, what causes uncertainty in the free market is the very threat of dysfunctional government intervention.
When government intervenes, it is morally responsible for its effects but scapegoats the free market as a whipping boy; it then attempts to use dysfunctional effects to warrant further regulations ("regulations to end all regulations" much like WWI was in "war to end all wars"), building layers of complexity like the rings of a tree, as if legislative sausage making, aided and abetted by crony interests, can defy the intrinsic fallibility of human activity!
Obama is the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism leading America on a forced march on the road to serfdom. In the 2012 election cycle, Americans will have a choice; there are very few exits left before we get there. We are already over our credit limit, and we must mind the lessons of the Titanic, which proved too large to navigate away from the iceberg. America's iceberg is not so far off, and we had better turn away now.
Political Posters
It's sometimes very difficult in writing something to know whether other people independently of you have written similar things. Even gifted singer-songwriters like the late George Harrison and Madonna have been accused of plagiarizing songs/melodies. (It gets to the point that I'll do a Google search on my own original quotes before publishing them!) In writing my commentaries, I'll often avoid reading other libertarians or conservatives to minimize the risk to undue replication.
As far as I can tell, a satellite radio conservative talk show host Andrew Wilkow originally coined a slogan: "Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory." (I've never subscribed to satellite radio; in fact, other than occasional Dennis Miller 10-minute podcast segments, I don't listen to conservative talk radio and thus am unfamiliar with Mr. Wilkow.) I believe I've seen dated references to that slogan going back at least to 2008.
I am hesitant to use "liberalism" as a synonym for "social liberalism" in a conventional conservative-liberal sense, as I believe Wilkow intends. I remember I once referred to myself as a Christian when one of my sisters overheard and disapproved, identifying herself as Roman Catholic. (Protestants are more likely to simply identify themselves as Christian.) I started identifying myself more inclusively as a Christian in the Roman Catholic tradition when I was part of UH Newman back in the early 1980's. Similarly, I don't shy away from being identified as a "liberal" in its context of liberty. I'm a classical liberal; I regard government as intrinsically inefficient as monopoly and application beyond its core mandate of protection and resolution of individual rights.
The first thing that the slogan reminds me of is the Cold War's Iron Curtain, e.g., the Berlin Wall which the socialists used to keep out Westerners seeking out the "workers' paradise" (and lower standard of living) in east Europe.
Perhaps as a result of the individual mandate and the recent horrific SCOTUS opinion on ObamaCare, I think the saying has taken on new life. Why do progressives feel the need to force Americans to buy such intrinsically worthy purchases as inflation-bound gold-plated health "insurance", to try to hook people into buying $15K "health bundles" with sleazy sales gimmicks like "free" annual exams, "free" birth control for Catholic institutions, "free" adult kids on policies and "free" mammograms, not unlike a drug dealer trying to hook a customer addict for life by giving him a "free sample" of his best stuff?
Mark Perry of Carpe Diem posts one variation of what I'll call the Wilcow slogan, substituting "socialism" in place of liberalism. (He does an attribution, but I don't see other links.) One of the blog comments references yet another variation, substituting "statism". (The latter includes sign male figures, one with a gun pointed to the other man figure's head, representing coercion: I have seen the same image used in alternative ways via Google.) Both variations earn my thumbs UP!
Sunday Talk Soup and an Unworthy Incumbent's Campaign
I'm getting more annoyed with Sunday morning network interview show moderators paying undue attention to contrived controversies from a desperate, pathetic Obama campaign grasping at straws with ad hominem attacks on Romney. (This blog is no shill for Romney: I've sharply criticized him on immigration, foreign policy, health care, and China, among other things.) The latest assorted nonsense includes trying to tie Romney to Bain Capital business decisions during a leave of absence to head the floundering US Winter Olympic games over a decade ago, questions over his overseas investments, and a made-up controversy about US Olympians wearing clothes subcontracted to one or more Chinese companies (David Gregory thought that the gotcha question is in order because of Romney's connection to the Winter Games several years back: you want to bet that he plays the home game of Trivial Pursuit?)
Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek doesn't really express a political preference (that I've seen); in fact, he wrote a libertarian journal article back in 2008, saying that he refuses to vote as a matter of moral principle. A key point I'll use as a metaphor: it's like buying a pizza with all the works: Don doesn't want to buy a pizza unless he approves of all the ingredients. I'm more of a pragmatist: I happen to be someone whom hates pineapples on a pizza. (I like pineapples, but in a separate serving or in a fruit salad, not on a pizza.) Because of economies of scale, the pizza maker doesn't let me pick and choose ingredients; it's easier simply to set aside and ignore the unwanted ingredient.
The reason I mention this is I've seen at least a post or two where Boudreaux has criticized (or implied criticism of) Mitt Romney. (I suspect Boudreaux shares all the criticisms I made of Romney above.) But there are a couple of issues that the Dems have raised recently which have annoyed Boudreaux to the extent that he posted a couple of his trademark pithy letters, involving Democratic politicians attacking Romney:
- Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): Durbin constantly condemns trade deficits from a naive populist standpoint, i.e., exports:good, imports:bad. The Democrats have been trying to attack Romney personally on multiple grounds: outsourcing (they really mean "offshoring" and of course don't understand the difference) and his wealth, including some reference to a Swiss bank account in a blind trust that was closed in 2010. (Gingrich made a similar attack against Romney early this year.) (Just a hint: if you believe that the Fed Reserve is devaluing the dollar with easy money policies, you might hedge your assets against a drop in the dollar, e.g., through other currencies, like a solid Swiss franc.) So what Boudreaux is getting at is the fact is how economically illiterate Durbin is: American investment outflows offset imports.
- Majority Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): Reid is pitching a fit over the US team's uniforms being assembled in China (via a subcontract to a US company). Boudreaux rightly points out that free trade, even if it's unilateral, is in the best interests of consumers. What is salient in managing any budget is making your dollars stretch. Presumably it was cheaper in China. Think of it: I live in Maryland. Maybe the blueberries I eat from Sam's Club come from Maine instead of Maryland, for whatever reason. Presumably Wal-Mart finds a low-price producer; I don't care about the location if the cost and quality are right. There could be different reasons for a variance of costs: economies of scale, better technology, more fertile growing conditions, lower energy costs, different labor rates, etc. If fresh blueberries were similarly priced from South America during our winter months, I would buy South American blueberries as well, when North American blueberries may not be available. I like having the option to eat fresh blueberries year round. Similarly, there could have been a variety of reasons why the Olympic order went to a Chinese factory. Maybe American factories couldn't complete the order within the necessary time frame or within the allocated budget. But the idea that we should pay extra simply because it is made in America is irrational: in a global competitive market other consumers want to stretch their euros, pesos, rubles, whatever.
I'm getting irritated once again with Ed Gillespie for the Romney campaign. I don't understand why the Romney campaign seems to be caught off-guard not knowing how to address the ObamaCare vs. RomneyCare question, job creation during Romney's stint in Massachusetts, questions about Romney's wealth, etc. When you are preparing a candidate for debate, you are looking to ensure your candidate is able to handle predictable attacks from the opposition. If you can't predict Barack Obama by now: I mean, he's been selling the same old soap the same old way for at least 6 years running. He should see it coming: if he uses Paul Ryan's framework as a starting point, and the Democrats have run commercials showing Ryan dump Grandma over a cliff, it is that hard to imagine a spot with the Romney character saying to the Ryan character, "Here, let me give you a hand." You are going to see the same predictable attacks: Romney is out to "bust unions" like Scott Walker, Romney is going to balance the budget on Grandma's back and make her eat cat food, school kids are going to have to wear rain gear indoors because of neglected roof repairs.
I hear Ed Gillespie dodge David Gregory's questions about Romney's position on outsourcing at least 4 times. Michael Kinsley had it exactly right in discussing this issue in a recent LA Times editorial. Perhaps Romney feels in a bit of a squeeze because he did the red meat bit on China earlier in the campaign echoing Donald Trump's similarly foolish statements on China (and it seems to be that Trump's own brand ties are made in China...)
I've preached the benefits of free trade many times, so I won't repeat the same points made by Kinsley. What's interesting is how he sees Romney's response to the kerfuffle, which I think is spot on:
Romney was not just a businessman. He was a management consultant and later a venture capitalist — in other words, one of the high priests of business who never had to soil his suit by running one. He surely knows and (one suspects) believes that free trade and outsourcing are good things for an economy.
But instead of a full-throated defense of these principles and his practice of them as advantages he would bring, as a businessman, to the presidency, he says merely that nothing he did was illegal. Even in 2012, we don't elect people president on the grounds that they did nothing illegal. I hope.
Obama decries Romney's practice of outsourcing as if he thinks that all outsourcing is wrong, even if it can't or shouldn't be made illegal. Obama proposes a heavy dinner of grants, subsidies and tax credits to discourage outsourcing and encourage "insourcing" — bringing jobs from abroad back to America — all of which are bad ideas. Among other reasons, one nation's insourcing is another nation's outsourcing, and retaliation can quickly lead to a trade war in which everybody loses.IPPON!
Outsourcing simply refers to making the most efficient use of one's resources. Auto makers, for instance, could process their own raw materials, or buy (say) steel made by a company that sells steel for all sorts of industries, has necessary economies of scale, in-house expertise, etc. Auto makers often find it cheaper to buy parts ready to assemble than make the parts on their own. Are they outsourcing their own steel or parts jobs? Perhaps. But these jobs are simply in more efficient companies--which may or may not be American. Suppose a widget required more commodity labor; an American factory could invest in more efficient widget design that requires less labor assembly, leveraged by advanced technology. We don't have to have farm labor using obsolete methods used, say, in North Korea. Labor cost is just one cost. Outsourcing is a good thing when it's good for your customer: he gets better value for his dollar.
So, YES, David Gregory, Romney believes in outsourcing when it costs more to do something internally than to have it done externally. It basically involves sticking to one's core competencies and making the best business decisions to make one's goods or services low price and/or innovative enough to maintain or increase related market share.
Some open words of advice to Romney:
- STOP BEING DEFENSIVE.
- START TALKING ABOUT THINGS YOU ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT.
- MAKE A THEME: BELIEVE FIRST IN OURSELVES, OUR FAMILIES AND OUR COMMUNITY, NOT IN BROKEN POLITICAL PROMISES.
- EXPRESS CONFIDENCE YOU ARE UP TO THE JOB: THE BUCK STOPS HERE.
- SAY THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD 4 MORE YEARS, OR ELSE THE NEXT ENTITY OBAMA BRINGS TO BANKRUPTCY COURT WILL BE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
- PLEDGE TO BE THE "NO EXCUSES, NO APOLOGIES" PRESIDENT.
- SAY OTHER CANDIDATES PROMISE BIPARTISANSHIP BUT ENGAGE IN DIVISIVENESS. WORDS ARE CHEAP: YOU DELIVERED BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION.
- MAKE YOUR WEALTH A VIRTUE: POINT OUT THAT UNLIKE OTHER POLITICIANS, YOU CAN'T BE BOUGHT BY THE LOBBYISTS OR SPECIAL INTERESTS. NO CORRUPT UNION WELFARE, NO CORRUPT CORPORATE WELFARE.
My blog top 5 posts over the past month:
- Miscellany: 6/13/12
- Miscellany: 6/25/12
- Romney VP Selection: My Suggestion: Kay Bailey Hutchison
- Miscellany: 6/16/12
- Miscellany: 8/22/10
This is a periodic reminder that you can find copies or videos of late-night jokes at relevant network program webpages or at websites like newsmax.
In Mexico, the loser of their presidential election is accusing the winner of election fraud. He says the winner bought millions of votes. To which Mitt Romney said, "You can do that?" - Jay Leno
[In America, we have a word for politicians whom buy millions of votes: INCUMBENTS.
Mexicans are such amateurs! President Obama has spent more than $5T that he didn't have to buy millions of votes... He calls business-as-usual intergenerational theft "INVESTMENTS".]
The record-breaking heat wave hitting the rest of the country is now hitting Los Angeles. I was sweating like President Obama trying to spin the latest unemployment numbers. - Jay Leno
[The emperor is wearing no clothes....
]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Who, "You Better You Bet"
