Category Archives: The Partisan Mind

Time to Leave Afghanistan

Bill Easterly’s surprisingly Hayekian take on Afghanistan is worth a read:

News sources say that President Obama will choose “escalate” with additional troops for Afghanistan in his speech at West Point tonight. I and many like-minded individuals find this disastrous.

“Like-minded” means that critics of top-down state plans for economic development are also not fans of top-down state plans for military development. If the Left likes the first, and the Right likes the second, that just shows you how incoherent Left and Right are.

The Partisan Deficit

When Republicans are in the White House, Paul Krugman thinks budget deficits are bad. When a Democrat is in the White House, deficits are no problem at all.

Correctly noting in 2005 that the Bush deficits were “comparable to the worst we’ve ever seen in this country,” Krugman worried that investor confidence would wilt under the difficulty of paying back such massive obligations.

Now that President Obama has tripled the Bush deficits, he has a column poo-pooing deficit worriers as “being terrorized by a phantom menace — a threat that exists only in their minds.” Investor confidence will be just fine.

Would he be so sanguine if a Republican president ran up a $1,400,000,000,000 budget deficit in his first year in office? The party in power has nothing to do with whether deficits are good or bad. Deficits are either a problem or they aren’t.

Krugman’s partisanship is regrettable. What’s more regrettable is that it is taken seriously. Such is the tragedy of the partisan mind.

Partisanship Pays

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled out “you lie!” at President Obama while he was presiding over a joint session of Congress. His outburst has been good for $2.7 million in campaign contributions over the last two months.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) raised $114,108 in one day after labeling the other team’s health care proposals as a way to “die quickly.”

Such hyper-partisanship is regrettable. But there is a reason politicians indulge in it — voters like it. Why else would it be so good for their campaign war chests?

Sometimes I think the saddest part of democracy is that the people get what they want.

Obama Wants to Extend PATRIOT Act

People are often surprised to hear how similar President Obama’s policies are to President Bush’s. They shouldn’t be. One may be a Republican and the other a Democrat, but make no mistake. Bush and Obama are two peas in a pod.

-Bush signed a $700 billion bank bailout bill. Obama continued the policy. And he extended it to other sectors, such as the automobile industry.

-Bush tried fiscal stimulus twice while in power. With some help from the Bush team, Obama oversaw the largest fiscal stimulus bill in history. There is occasional talk of another.

-Bush started two land wars in Asia. Obama could end them. Instead, he is committing more troops to Afghanistan.

-Bush oversaw Medicare part D, the largest expansion of government’s role in health care since 1965. Obama also would like to expand government’s health care presence.

-And now, we have the PATRIOT Act. The bill was perhaps the largest expansion of executive power in seventy years, and the Bush administration’s signature legislation. Now that Obama has inherited all these cool powers, turns out he likes the PATRIOT Act, too. So he wants to extend some of its expiring provisions.

Predictable. Still disappointing.

A Riddle

Rep. Joe Wilson is under fire for yelling “you lie!” at President Obama during his health care speech last night.

Now, all politicians lie. It is their nature. So Rep. Wilson’s assertion, tactless as it was, is technically correct.

But Rep. Wilson is a politician too, and therefore a teller of lies. So, when calling another man a liar, could he have been lying himself?

The mind boggles.

A Thought On the Birthers

Of all the people who believe that President Obama is not an American citizen, how many are Obama supporters? Any?

Is this a coincidence?

All Community Organizing Is Astroturfing – And That’s Fine!

Democratic members of Congress have held numerous town hall meetings recently to promote the president’s health care plan. They have faced unbridled hostility, to the surprise of many.

The response: attack the people making the hostile arguments, not the arguments themselves.

True, the whole phenomenon does seem vaguely dodgy. Who goes to town hall meetings for fun? Of course the people crashing the events have an agenda. That’s the point!

The weird part is that people use different words to describe the same political tactic, depending on which team’s partisans are behind the disruptions. If one team does it, it’s called “community organizing.” If the other team does it, it’s called “astroturfing.”

Again, it matters less which side is doing what, than whether the arguments they’re making are right or wrong. That is what’s important. The government is currently in charge of a bit more than half of all health care spending. Astroturfers say this is too much; community organizers say this is too little. The debate should hinge on which of the two has the better arguments.

The fact that members of Congress extolling the president’s plan are attacking astroturfers while leaving their arguments alone seems to say that the Congressmen believe their own arguments to be weak. Why else the need to go personal?

Advice for Conservatives

Cato Institute President Ed Crane says to conservatives, you’re doing it wrong. I couldn’t agree more.

Conservatives are supposed to be the opposition to progressives. Their problem is that opposing something requires philosophical disagreement. At heart, left and right are variations of the same theme.

There are three main currents of conservative thought. All three have their progressive analogues:

Supply-side conservatives have a laser-like focus on tax cuts and economic growth. Both are good things, true. But they forgot about spending, and about philosophy. Means became ends. Hence the Reagan deficits and the Bush spending explosion.

Look at the deficits, philosophical as well as fiscal, of the new administration’s First One Hundred Days. Congress and President Obama have quickly established serious supply-side credibility.

Then there are neo-conservatives. Crane says, “All they give us is a war against a country that never attacked us and schemes for ‘national greatness’ like going to Mars.”

Not too different from progressive clarion calls for our country to unite under a common purpose, however vaguely defined. Or the push for mandatory volunteering programs, formerly known as the draft.

Finally, there are social conservatives. Often deeply religious, they can sometimes be less than tolerant of other people. They are the right-wing equivalent of the green movement.

Environmentalism is really a conservative philosophy at heart, anyway. At a fundamental level, greens want to conserve, both in the Rousseauian sense and in the Burkean sense.

Conservatives are in no shape to be a viable opposition movement. They resemble their enemy too much.

Where else to turn, then? Crane sums up his own philosophy in two sentences. “Politics is about man’s relationship to the state. That relationship, to be healthy, should be minimal.”

I think we’ve found a winner.

That’s exactly why CEI, Cato, Reason, and other classical liberal groups are so important. We see through the left-right false dichotomy, and we get the word out. Nowhere does this matter more than in a democracy. In the long run, the people get what they want, good or bad.

The last several elections have proven that in some years, people want bad conservative policies. In other years, people want bad progressive policies.

We can do better. These groups exist to see that we do.

(Full disclosure: I work at CEI, and used to work at Cato.)

The Durants on Democracy

Will and Ariel Durant are two of my favorite writers. Perceptive, pithy, and always eloquent, they only rose in my esteem when they described democracy as merely “a count of noses after a contest of words.” (The Age of Napoleon, p. 286)

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

2010 Election: Can Everyone Lose?

The House stimulus vote did not contain a single Republican “yes” vote. Andy Roth thinks that “Democrats now ‘own’ this massive spending bill.”

Maybe the public will see it that way. If they do, that would be a coup for Republicans, akin to the Clinton health care debacle in 1994. If they succeed in labeling Democrats as the bigger-spending party, they’ll probably gain seats in 2010.

All this political maneuvering got me thinking. The Republicans’ main selling point is that Democrats are unfit to govern. They’re right.

The Democrats’ main selling point is that Republicans are unfit to govern. They’re right, too.

Sometimes I think it’s a real shame that elections have to have a winner.