Category Archives: Political Commentary

Winning Hearts And Minds

A Democrat official in New Hampshire says that the Tea Partiers are out of their minds. Well, the feeling is mutual, I’m sure. I don’t have an idea why this guy, and Pelosi, and the other Democrats trying to denigrate these people think that this is going to tamp down the anger at them. And according to Rasmussen, if they’re crazy, there are an awful lot of crazy folks out there, including a lot of Democrats. And note the huge opinion gap between political elites and the rest of us. All this is going to do is get people to sharpen up their pitchforks even more.

[Update a few minutes later]

Michael Barone says that the public isn’t as stupid as the political elites would like to believe:

Many of the sneering comments about the participants in last week’s hundreds of tea parties across the nation were premised on the idea that these people didn’t know much about public policy. The hostile CNN reporter (Rush Limbaugh might call her an infobabe) who told tea party attendants that they were going to get tax rebates was an example of that. It was also an example of the condescension of so many in the media: ordinary people should be satisfied with getting a few extra bucks now and shouldn’t worry about the long-term effects of huge increases in government spending and government debt. As I wrote last, the idolators who attended Obama events last year seemed entranced by the candidate’s persona, while the tea party participants seemed preoccupied with serious issues of long-term public policy. Which side was more intellectually serious?

We’ll see how long he can continue to skate on charisma alone. Because that’s about all he has.

[Update late morning]

More Tea Party thoughts:

What we found most striking about the tea party we attended, and those that we observed taking place elsewhere, is how it departed from the normal partisan atmosphere one comes to expect at political rallies. Those in attendance were for the most part not political activists, and most did not come to support one party or oppose another, though certainly there was an emphasis on limited government that once was, and must become again, the rallying cry of the Republican Party.

We say once because during the presidency of George W. Bush, Republicans in Washington abandoned their economic principles. Spending rose and the earmark culture flourished. As has often been said, Republicans went to Washington to drain the swamp, but instead joined the alligators.

Thus, the furious reaction by many on the left to the tea parties. They hoped, they believed that fiscal conservatism was a spent force, that conservatives had lost the credibility and even the will to be fiscally responsible. After bringing America dramatically closer to the European economic model of state control in three short months, with only fawning approval from the mainstream media, suddenly from out of nowhere came demonstrations of mass opposition to the Obama program. Left wing activists, flush with triumph, could only ask with great annoyance: How could the “failed” policies of the past eight years suddenly have such popular support?

They fail to recognize that the tea parties are not Republican forums for Bush nostalgia. They are expressions of frustration with the government’s failure to live within its means, as the rest of us must. Hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush administration debt are being chased by trillions of dollars of Obama administration debt. The pundits care only about political scorekeeping, so they simply are not equipped to understand the honest-to-goodness, enough-is-enough exasperation of the tea parties.

The fact that the tea parties represent a grassroots movement only perplexes the cynics further, because Obama’s election to the presidency has been marketed as the apotheosis of grassroots populism. It is as if the true believers of ever-expanding government have actually convinced themselves that only hedge fund managers on Wall Street could possibly oppose the government takeover of the private sector. Of course, they’ve also convinced themselves that a federal government unable to balance its budget — or even to finish its budget on time — year after year is somehow going to introduce sound accounting to the private sector.

An Upcoming Regulatory Disaster

This is insane. Here’s why:

Since EPA plans to find endangerment on both health and welfare grounds, the Agency could be compelled to establish “primary” (health-based) NAAQS for GHGs. Logically, the standard would be set below current atmospheric levels. Even very stringent emission limitations applied worldwide over a century would likely be insufficient to lower GHG concentrations. Yet the CAA requires EPA to ensure attainment of primary NAAQS within five or at most 10 years—and it forbids EPA to take costs into account. Regulate CO2 under the NAAQS program and there is, in principle, no economic hardship that could not be imposed on the American people.

It’s the new hair shirt in the new environmental religion. And all from unelected bureaucrats.

[Tuesday morning update]

Here’s a place to go to express your concerns.

[Bumped]

None Dare Call It…

what it is:

Jonah Goldberg evaluates the Treasury Department’s efforts to control the banks without actually nationalizing them: “It’s not socialism. It’s corporatism.”

It is interesting that Harwood depicts the choice to discuss the use of the word fascist as a strategic choice to pump up the volume, which it may be for some. For other commentators, such as perhaps Larry Kudlow, they might be straining not to deem as “fascist” proposals that they would call fascist if that term were not so politically charged.

Me, I just call ’em like I see ’em. And I’m going to continue to attempt to recapture the language from the left. They’re not liberals. I’m a liberal. They’re fascists, even if they insist on remaining ignorant of their own intellectual history.

A Hundred Whole Microbaracks

The administration is going to have a meeting to figure out how to cut <VOICE=”Dr. Evil” hand=”upside down” pinky_end=”in mouth”>…one hundred million dollars</VOICE> out of a multi-trillion dollar (multi-barack) budget.

And then, of course, after they do it (probably from defense) they’ll say that their opponents are lying about them when they accuse them of not cutting the budget. This would be funny if it weren’t so sad and pathetic.

[Update early afternoon]

Fooling the innumerate rubes:

…why bother? Because it may enhance the president’s “budget-cutter” image. Seriously. President Obama has reportedly been working closely with noted behavioral economists, and their studies have shown that most people are “insensitive to scope,” meaning they are not very good at putting large numbers in their proper context. People will react about the same to a policy proposal whether the cost/benefit is $10 million, $10 billion, or $10 trillion. Consequently, the $100 million cut may seem huge to many voters. (Note to conservative lawmakers: This is why the tiny 2005 reconciliation spending cuts were just as difficult to enact as the substantially larger 1990s reconciliation spending cuts. So if you are going to propose spending cuts, you may as well go big).

And based on the outcome of last year’s campaign, they may get away with it. Sigh…

I really wish that opponents would use more visual aids, like bar graphs. Here is the budget. Here are the president’s budget “cuts.”

[Tuesday morning update]

Speaking of visual aids

[Bumped]

They Won

So why is the left still angry? Glenn asks: “maybe it’s become a habit.”

“Become” a habit? It seems to me it’s an intrinsic feature of leftism, which is based on a permanent state of envy, class warfare and seeking “social justice” and “equality.” Which is why it is leftists (from Hitler to Stalin to Mao and Pol Pot) who have been responsible for hundreds of millions of violent deaths over the past century. You have to break the eggs to make the social-justice omelette through the collective will. It’s not individualists who do that kind of thing.

[Update late morning]

More evidence of lunacy on the left: hating Milton Friedman.

Too Many Czars

Actually, one is too many, as far as I’m concerned, but now the Obama administration has more than the Romanov dynasty:

Government by czar didn’t work especially well in Russia. Hopefully, it won’t be quite so bad in this country. And, yes, of course I understand that Obama’s czars unlike the Romanovs are ultimately accountable to democratically elected officials. I also don’t expect Obama’s czars to be organizing pogroms or exiling dissidents to Siberia anytime soon. On the other hand, democratic accountability for America’s czars is increasingly tenuous in light of the fact that there are too many of them for most voters to even keep straight, much less understand and evaluate their performance in any depth. Here, as elsewhere, the rapidly growing size and complexity of government makes difficult for voters to monitor those who are supposed to be serving the public . Maybe Obama’s army of czars will do a good job anyway. A few of the Romanovs did. But for every “Czar-Liberator,” like Alexander II (who free Russia’s millions of serfs), there were a lot more oppressors and incompetents.

I’m not expecting any liberation from anyone in this crowd.

Our Vision, Not Yours

Clark Lindsey points out this article in The Atlantic about a new attempt by the Planetary Society to launch a solar sail. He also points out Ann Druyan’s and Lou Friedman’s obvious disdain for millionaires more interested in going into space themselves than developing technology or sending robots.

…she can’t get over the general timidity and lack of imagination she keeps encountering, and she’s particularly aghast at the scads of cash some ego-tripping big-money men seem willing to spend on personal space tourism: “Isn’t the whole planet enough for them?” Google’s Sergey Brin—whose company the project also appealed to, unsuccessfully, years ago—is yet another billionaire who hopes to romp around in orbit….

…“Basically, you’re asking somebody to fund an idea,” Friedman admits. He has good science at his back. But if 50 years ago Slava Linkin could not have imagined the disappearance of the U.S.S.R., it’s fair to say that Friedman would not have imagined his own country, the Cold War’s victor, with a space agency so blinkered and elephantine that he has to mount a long guerrilla operation to get his plausible vision off the ground.

He has had the same bellyful of talk about private entrepreneurial funding that Ann Druyan has, and he shares her contempt for the thrill-seeking, space-touring fat cats. But even so, a fundamental optimism survives in him, nourished not just by faith but by disbelief: “You come back to that $4 million, and the chance to take the first step to the stars—how can that not be funded?”

Well, Lou, one way might be that the “fat cats” don’t appreciate being publicly denigrated because they have different priorities than you and Ann do.

I hope that the sail gets funded — it’s a critical technology for the future that could result in reduced costs of doing solar system exploration (and maybe even interstellar, though that’s a much tougher problem). And I can understand their frustration — four million is a rounding error in the Constellation overrun, and in the new currency, in which we could express a mere trillion dollars as a “barack,” it’s only four microbaracks, a drop in the celestial bucket, and couch-cushion change inside the Beltway.

But it makes no more sense to curse millionaires who choose to spend their money on space trips than it does to curse Bill and Melinda Gates because they have better things to do with their money. I suspect that they’re upset with Brin and the others because they think that they should get it, because they’re so close — they’re interested in space — but they don’t quite. It’s probably in their minds a so-close-and-yet-so-far thing, and they view them as traitors to the cause because their space vision is flawed.

But no, Ann. For some, this “whole planet” is not enough. And it’s not enough for you, either. The difference is that you’re satisfied to send a robot emissary out, while others view that as in itself lacking vision. I could be just as churlish as you, and complain that you didn’t spend your studio’s money on developing space tourism, which will grow a large enough market to drop launch costs and improve reliability, so that projects like this solar sail would become much more affordable, and have a better chance of getting to orbit than the first failed attempt. But unlike you, I recognize that people have different visions, and that they’re not mine doesn’t make them wrong, and that their money is theirs to spend as they wish. But the latter notion has apparently gone quite out of fashion in our brave new world of ever-increasing collectivism.

[Update a while later]

I also find it amusing that she considers people who want to go into space “timid” and “lacking imagination.” Apparently her irony detector is on the fritz.