Category Archives: Political Animals

Quote of the Day

lyndon johnson
Courtesy of Lyndon Johnson, from the introduction of Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate:

It’s not the job of a politician to go around saying principled things.

Indeed.

Vaguely Cannibalistic Headline of the Day

Politico: Obama steamed over Rice

GOP Evolving on Immigration

The hardline stance that many Republicans hold on immigration policy has long struck me as immoral, not just economically harmful. High-skilled immigrants are the most entrepreneurial group in America. Low-skilled immigrants not only improve their own lives by coming here, they improve everyone else’s by further refining the division of labor. Economics jargon aside, it is unethical for some people to decide where other, peaceful people may or may not live — and to use force to do so.

Tuesday’s election results are causing many GOP leaders to reconsider their nativist leanings. Just look at these Politico stories from the last 24 hours or so. Their sheer number is surprising, since immigration isn’t a particularly hot issue right now:

  • Haley Barbour urges immigration reform
    “[W]e are in a global battle for capital and labor, and we need to have what is good economic policy for America on immigration because we do need labor. We not only need Ph.Ds in science and technology, we need skilled workers and we need unskilled workers. And we need to have an immigration policy that is good economic policy, and then — and then the politics will take care of itself.”
  • Rick Santorum: GOP must reach Latinos
    “Yeah, I think we did lose a lot of [the] Hispanic vote,” he said. “I think one of the reasons [is], we didn’t talk about all the issues that that community, which, as all immigrant communities are, there are a disproportionate [number who are] middle and lower income who are trying to struggle to rise. We didn’t have a strong message for those folks. And I’m not just talking Hispanics, I’m talking writ large.”
  • Can Marco Rubio save the GOP on immigration?
    Rubio and his advisers are well aware of the risks: He must thread a needle as he tries to portray an open, tolerant party while not incensing the ultraconservative base who want tall fences, closed borders and nothing that looks like amnesty for illegal immigrants.
  • Krauthammer pro-amnesty, not citizenship
    “I think Republicans can change their position, be a lot more open to actual amnesty with enforcement — amnesty, everything short of citizenship — and to make a bold change in their policy.
  • Hannity: I’ve ‘evolved’ on immigration and support a ‘pathway to citizenship’
    “The majority of people here, if some people have criminal records you can send them home, but if people are here, law-abiding, participating for years, their kids are born here, you know, first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done.”

This is big. I suspect that their motives for opening up are electoral, rather than from economic knowledge or humanitarianism. It could even be that they’ve always been on the tolerant side of things, but thought until now that saying so wouldn’t fly with the median GOP voter. I don’t much care if motives are pure or impure; results are what matters. It may have taken the GOP until Tuesday to learn that threatening mass deportation tends to alienate Hispanic voters, but at least they’re learning. And their new political calculus could result in positive reform.

Immigration is not the only issue where the GOP is evolving in the right direction. Aside from Rick Santorum and a few others (and even he’s coming around on immigration!), the party took great pains to de-emphasize its traditional stances on social issues such as same-sex marriage and drug prohibition. Given how those issues fared in a number of states, this was a wise move.

Going forward, it looks like the GOP will continue to restrain its worst impulses. They’ll become politically irrelevant if they don’t. The rising generation of voters is very tolerant on social issues, regardless of party affiliation. This is unlikely to change as they age. No going back now.

Usually I bemoan the fact in a democracy, voters get what they want. But on immigration and many social issues, this is turning out to be a good thing. At the very least, Republicans are becoming a little less noxious than they used to be. They’re certainly becoming a little less embarrassing.

CEI Podcast for November 8, 2012: Election Wrap-Up


Have a listen here.

President Obama has won a second term, and neither the House nor the Senate will change hands. Land-use and Transportation Policy Analyst Marc Scribner explains why the election turned out the way it did, and what the results mean going forward for a variety of issue areas.

Obama Wins: One Positive, One Negative

One positive: Romney Derangement Syndrome will disappear shortly, if it hasn’t already.

One negative: four more years of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Obama Wins Electoral College: Potential Partisan Integrity Test?

According to CNN, Obama will win the electoral college vote, though Romney is winning the popular vote.

Suppose this holds in the final results. Then remember the 2000 election, when Bush won the electoral college and lost the popular vote.

We potentially have here a wonderful partisan integrity test. I doubt this will hold, but how revealing of the political commentariat this would be if it did. How many pundits would switch sides on the electoral college’s merits based on their partisan preferences? My guess is that a majority of both sides’ windbags would switch sides almost instantly.

As it is, the House and Senate are projected to remain in GOP and Democratic hands, respectively. Assuming Obama wins, we have absolutely no change.

Inertia wins. The iron law of politics.

Election Day


It’s that wonderful day of the year when the endless stream of room-temperature IQ political ads that has been ruining my enjoyment of televised sports for months will finally, mercifully, stop. There is also an election today.

In the name of transparency, the folks at Reason recently disclosed who many of their staffers and contributors are voting for. It’s a good idea that all media outlets should adopt. So far though, only Slate has followed suit. And it seems like theirs must be one boring office. 29 of their employees are voting for Obama, and two each are voting for Romney, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. One staffer is not voting. Not much diversity there.

Are other media outlets similarly bland? We’ll likely never know, because most newspapers pretend they are objective. They argue that disclosing reporters’ voting preferences undermines that perception of objectivity. The trouble with this perception is that it is inaccurate. Everyone is biased — and that’s fine! News coverage would greatly improve if more outlets dropped the objectivity charade. Transparency is a good thing.

That’s why this blogger is disclosing that I chose not to vote this year. I gave it long and careful thought, and came to that decision a couple weeks ago. The House will likely stay Republican, which is an argument in favor of voting for Obama, since I prefer divided government. And I find I often agree with Gary Johnson. But in the end, I just couldn’t find it in me to vote for either of them.

This despite living in Virginia, a swing state. It’s looking to be a close election, and Virginia’s margin could well be just a few thousand votes. I have one vote.

More to the point, I make my living advocating for policies I believe in, and that has far more impact than one vote. I am hardly a non-participant in the political process. Lines at many local polling places are more than an hour long. All that time spent in line is time not spent publicly advocating for regulatory reform, and trying to win over policymakers and the public. If I had voted today, I would almost certainly have less impact, not more.

While math and opportunity costs argue against voting, there is a very strong argument in favor of it. It’s called expressive voting. When people pull the lever, they are expressing themselves. They are participating in democracy, and affirming their beliefs. This is a wonderful thing. For all intents and purposes, your vote may not count. But for many people, expressive voting trumps that. It just feels good.

Everyone is different, which is one of the things I like about the human race. Some people place a high value on expressive voting; hence all those little stickers people are wearing today. Other people, like this writer, place a lower value on expressive voting, or have other outlets for the same impulse. And we’re all correct.

This 2012 non-voter does not look down people who did vote. I made a careful and informed decision that I believe is the right one for me. If you did the same, then you have my respect, no matter what that decision was. All I ask is that same respect in return.

Sadly, that basic respect is a rare commodity. Contrary to what many people are saying today, I have not forfeited my right to complain. I am not unpatriotic. I am not, in the words of at least one Facebooker, a “shitty American.” I have decided what I think is right for me. Let everyone do the same. And leave it at that, please.

All that said, I am looking forward to seeing the results tonight. It really could go either way. The only sure thing about this election is that George W. Bush’s policies will win a fourth term. And in that sense, everyone will lose today.

Revisiting My 2008 Predictions

Shortly after the 2008 election, I made some predictions about how Obama’s presidency would turn out (original post here). Now that the 2012 election is upon us, let’s see how I did:

Obama will be a two-term president, though he will be significantly less popular by the time his presidency comes to a close. Stars that burn so bright tend to fade quickly. It will not help Obama that many of the problems with politics-as-usual that he speaks out against are systemic. Even the leader of the free world is powerless against the political process.

Verdict: we’ll know about the second term in about two weeks. But he is already much less popular than he was four years ago. People expect the impossible from their presidents. That means the only way to win election is to promise the impossible. When those impossible promises obviously aren’t kept once in office, people are disappointed. It’s a common pattern that will repeat itself in future administrations.

One-party rule will not be good for Democrats. As happened with Republicans during the Bush era, unified government will lead to sclerosis, hubris, and an increase in corruption. Obama will not help; he will not risk angering his party by vetoing bad legislation. Democrats will lose their Congressional majority, probably in 2012. Voters seem to prefer divided government, which is why we’ve had it about two thirds of the time over the last century.

Verdict: I got the year wrong, but the House did indeed change hands in 2010.

-We will not see a full-fledged nationalization of health care. The government currently spends about 54% of all health care dollars; I expect that figure to rise, but not above about 67%.

Verdict: There was a big health care bill, and it did not nationalize the health care system. It will be a few more years before it’s fully implemented, but my cost estimate still seems to be in the right ballpark. Too soon to tell.

Obama will withdraw most soldiers from Iraq sometime in 2011. Some small peacekeeping forces will remain there more or less permanently, as happened with Korea.

Verdict: Got it about right, though there is still sadly little peace to be had in Iraq.

-Obama will ramp up our presence in Afghanistan, and it will not go well. This will contribute to his declining popularity. The U.S. military can fight and win almost any battle, but even they cannot build a nation. That kind of change can only come from within. Like Clinton and both Bushes, Obama will not learn that lesson.

Verdict: Correct, as far as Afghanistan goes. But I did not foresee see Libya, Syria, Somalia, or the Pakistan drone strikes. I thought his foreign policy would be roughly the same as Bush’s. It turned out to be even worse.

-Taxes and spending will both go up, but not by catastrophic levels. Overall public sector growth will be slightly less than under Bush. That means Obama’s final budget will probably be the nation’s first to to exceed $5 trillion. When divided government returns, Obama will find his veto pen and strike down bad GOP legislation, no matter how similar it is to Democratic legislation. Government growth in Obama’s second term will be sharply lower than under his first term.

Verdict: The good news is that after a huge increase early in the administration due to the stimulus and the TARP bailouts, spending growth slowed. The bad news is that spending appears to be permanently stuck at the new, elevated level. This is not sustainable. Even so, Obama, Romney and Congress all appear disinterested in cutting spending to affordable levels.

Overall, I whiffed on a few predictions, but my batting average still looks pretty good. Just goes to show that, at least with politics, rampant pessimism can be a useful predictive tool.

A Rational View of the Presidency

Back in 2008, Gene Healy wrote a book called Cult of the Presidency. It was an election year, so naturally many people thought it was an anti-Bush polemic. But it wasn’t about Bush. It wasn’t about any president, really. It was about how people view the presidency itself.

Gene’s thesis is that people have unrealistically high expectations for the office. Expectations so high that no man can meet them. But in trying to meet them, that man will grab for more and more power. As he inevitably fails to make voters’ hopes and dreams come true, he will decline in popularity until a fresher face takes his place. And that fresher face will grab for still more power, and disappoint even more people. It’s a remarkably vicious cycle.

When Gene wrote the book, he had no idea Barack Obama would win the Democratic nomination. But win it Obama did, in large part by tapping into voters’ unrealistic expectations for what the office can accomplish. Now that four years have gone by, he has institutionalized and expanded Bush-era abuses of power. He is also decidedly less popular than he used to be (though this writer still expects him to win a second term).

Obama’s Republican opponents have suffered from a tiresome Obama Derangement Syndrome from the very beginning. But even Obama’s supporters have lost much of their enthusiasm. He didn’t keep all those grand promises he made. More to the point: he couldn’t possibly keep them.

It’s not in Gene’s nature to say “I told you so.” But he does have a new e-book that came out today that updates Cult of the Presidency. His thesis has only become more compelling now that enough time has come by for it to be tested. I’ve only just begun reading the book, but a passage from the introduction makes it clear just how prescient he was in 2008, well before he even knew who the candidates would be:

If the Obama presidency has driven Americans mad, perhaps that’s because we’ve embraced a demented notion of the presidency itself.

It’s childish to blame this state of affairs on the powerlust of individual presidents or the fecklessness of particular Congresses. Presidents reliably lust for power; Congress is dependably feckless. But the Pogo Principle is the soundest explanation for what the presidency has become: We the People have met the enemy, and it is us. We built this…

[O]ver the course of the 20th century, the modern president had become “our guardian angel, our shield against harm . . . . He’s America’s shrink and social worker and our national talk-show host. He’s a guide for the perplexed, a friend to the downtrodden–and he’s also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.”

I’ll it say for him: he told you so. You can buy the book for less than four dollars here.

In Related News, Water Is Wet

Politico: Pentagon contractors defend their own interests