State of the Union
Obama’s State of the Union speech while delivered well was a triumph of symbolism and platitudes over substance, which was mirrored in the seating arrangements of the members of Congress. It may have been all nice, warm and fuzzy, but ultimately it was meaningless. The seating arrangements were supposed to reflect the new civility and willingness to work together. Yet there is a reason that members of both parties don’t just “work together to solve the nation’s problems.” It has nothing to do with them not getting along.
The simple fact is that, except of a few hyper-partisan members, they all get along pretty well. The problem is not that they don’t get along, or even that they don’t work together, but that they don’t agree on what should be done. These are not just partisan disagreements, but are in fact honest difference of opinion on what should be done.
Most liberals really do think that a larger federal government will be able to make people’s lives better; that the solution to the problems with schools is to be found in more federal spending on education; that the solution to the problems with health care is to be found in more federal control over health care, and for many this means a single payer system; that the solution to virtually every problem be it energy, the environment, failing inner cities, or unemployment, is to be found in more federal control and spending. To pay for this they believe that taxes on the rich are too low, and that the rich should pay more.
Most conservatives, on the other hand, really do think that the federal government is already too large and that it is either causing or exacerbating these very same problems; that the solution to the problem with schools is to be found in less government control and more choice for parents; that the solution to the problems with health care is to be found in more choice and competition that would allow for innovation; the solution to virtually every problem be it energy, the environment, failing inner cities, or unemployment, is to be found in less federal control and spending, and more freedom and competition. They believe the taxes are already too high and that, along with burdensome regulation are stifling the economy.
When one side believes that government must increase to solve these problems and the other believes that government is already too big and must decrease to solve these problems what is the middle ground? There is none. The closest is perhaps Obama’s call in his speech for a budget freeze, for government to remain the same. But that is akin to no action rather than a solution. In addition just what does he mean by a budget freeze, when at the same time he is calling for increased “investment” in a whole range of areas i.e., expanding federal spending? Does he really want to freeze, or to invest?
This was the real problem with Obama’s speech. While delivered well and each section for the most part sounded ok, as a whole it was a little incoherent, which was best summarized by his somewhat confusing reference to a sputnik moment, a single event that drastically changes everyone’s perceptions. But just what single event does he see as his sputnik moment? His reference seemed to invoke a sputnik moment without a sputnik!
In short his speech strove for great heights, but somewhat fell flat. He clearly intended this speech to be central to his attempt to redefine is presidency and gain control of the debate. But ultimately he failed. It was not a bad speech. In fact it was a pretty normal State of the Union speech, but it was not the speech he had hoped for. If the speech is remembered at all, it will likely be remembered more for the seating arrangements of Congress than for anything he said, with the possible exception of that confusing sputnik reference.
Acting on Lies
One of the most disturbing aspects of the left is that truth is largely irrelevant. This is very clear in the aftermath of the shooting in Arizona. The news of the shooting had hardly broken before those on the left began blaming it on conservatives in general and Sarah Palin in particular. It was impossible that close to shooting to have any actual knowledge about who the murderer was or why he acted. But that did not matter. A Democratic congresswoman had been shot and this seemed to them a perfect time to score some political points. So the attacks were launched.
Over the next few days as the evidence about the murderer began to trickle in, it became clear to most that not only was the murderer not a follower of Sarah Palin, or even a conservative, but that the murders were not even politically motivated. Rather than being political, the murders were an irrational act by a very trouble individual.
Now if the left had even the smallest concern for the truth that should have been the end of it. In fact, had they been honorable, apologies would have been in order. But rather than apologize, they double down, touting crosshair maps that the murderer may never have even seen, much less been influence by. As the days passed Palin was attacked for not responding. When she finally did issue a video statement, she was then attacked for responding. Meanwhile, the talk about a climate of hate on the right being behind the murders continued.
Eventually the evidence became so clear that some back off just a bit, and climate of hate on the right simply became the climate of hate, ironically completely oblivious to the fact that accusing your opponents of complicity in murder contrary to the evidence, could easily be seen as hate speech itself.
But even thought the facts were completely contrary to what they were claiming, and even though some on the left admitted this, it did not stop them from acting on their false storyline. This murder may not have been motivated by contentious political debate, but the next one could be and thus we must ban it. As such, Republicans were pressured to drop “Job Killing” from the name of the Obama Care repeal bill, and a CNN host apologized for the mention of “crosshairs” in an interview. Change was demanded despite the evidence to the contrary.
This is not an isolated event. Most of the liberal agenda has been shown to be false. Whether it be the collapse of the old Soviet Union, China’s move towards more open markets, or Europe’s current financial woes, government control of the economy has been shown not to work. Yet as those who have tried it and failed struggle to deregulate and move to more market based solutions, those on the left in America still see solutions in more and bigger government programs.
One of the central beliefs of those of the left in the 1970s was the notion that there was no difference between men and women except those imposed on them by culture, a culture which was not only rejected but condemned. Given the importance of equality to the left, it became their mission to change the culture so that women’s full potential could be achieved. Women were not only encouraged to consider non-traditional roles; they were actively discouraged away from traditional ones as those roles were part of the culture that subjugated them
Parents were encouraged to raise their children exactly the same so as to remove these culturally determined differences. Boys were given dolls, girls were given trucks. Dresses had to go, and unisex clothing was in. In colleges, putting women in women’s dorms was treated as if were being asked to sit in the back of the bus. Sport programs were mandated to spend equal amounts of money on men’s and women’s sports regardless of the interest level of men and women.
In the major media, movies, schools and government, the left pushed to restructure all of society based on the notion that there was no difference between men and women. It reached a high point with the equal rights amendment in the early 1980s which was eventually defeated. Yet, by the early 1990s, if it had not already been clear enough, a slew of studies particularly on the brain showed conclusively that men and women are different in ways far beyond the cultural norms.
But again the facts, even if given lip service, were ignored, and the push to tread men and women as completely the same continued on despite the evidence. Coed dorms with men’s and women’s floors became, became coed floors, and now even coed rooms. Girls are raised to act more like boys. Boys are raised to act more like girls. But the underlying natures are still there even if repressed. Rather than, ‘boys will be boys,’ large numbers are medicated. At colleges depression among women has skyrocketed. Many women reach middle age wishing they could jettison the careers they were told by society would be so fulfilling. Rather they just want to spend more time with their family.
In area after area, there are what the facts support, and then there is what liberals want. Very often these are vastly different things. Yet liberals continue to push forward, all the while ignoring the wreckage that continues to pile up as a result.
Tu quoque or Double Standard?
One of the common responses that seems to come up whenever Liberals behave badly is, not so much outrage but rather, the excuse that “both side do it.” This is visible once again as it is now clear that liberal attacks on Sara Palin and conservatives following the shooting in Tucson were little more than an attempt to score political points off the tragedy. In addition to being untrue (note the lack attacks on liberals when a crazed environmentalist took hostages at the discovery channel building last September) there are two other problems with this claim.
One is that it is the logical fallacy of tu quoque, or “you also,” which is one of the many forms of ad hominem attack. That “both sides do it” is not an excuse for either side. It is illegitimate to excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. If it is wrong, it is wrong. In addition to being illegitimate, it is dangerous because it becomes the rational for additional bad behavior. “After all, if the other side does it, so why shouldn’t we?” Thus this fallacy is not only irrational by definition, but can lead to a vicious cycle.
This is part of what is behind the not so new No Labels group, as they see bad behavior on both sides and thus seek another way. Technically this would not be the fallacy of tu quoque, as the No Labels group is not trying to excuse their own behavior, but it is still a form of ad hominem attack, and is still just as irrational. But in addition to this, and their other problems (see Preserving Democracy pg 188-191) the No Labels group has an addition factual problem here. In many cases, the charge that “both sides do it” is simply not correct. There is a difference between how the parties act and the standards to which they are held.
As wrote earlier, some of my liberal friends are using “Both sides do it” to rationalize way the cramming down of major legislation in the lame duck session, but the history of Lame duck sessions simply do not support the claim. The only other time something like this happened was in 1980 when like this year, the Democrats lost total control over the government.
When Bush was president, democrats frequently objected to being called unpatriotic, for opposing Bush. Now it is true that if you search the internet, you can find someone who has said just about anything about any public figure. But that some blogger somewhere called Democrats unpatriotic , is not quite the same thing as Bush or other Republican elected officials doing it, and, as Fred Barnes pointed out:
nobody called Kennedy or any other Democrat unpatriotic. Bush didn’t. Senate Republicans didn’t… In this and every other case in which Democrats claim to have been smeared as unpatriotic, the facts don’t bear them out. Bush has never used the words “Democrat” and “unpatriotic” in the same sentence or in nearby sentences. In fact, he’s never uttered the word “unpatriotic” in public in any context.
But on the Democrat side you do not have to go to obscure bloggers to find such rhetoric. Nancy Pelosi, called the Republicans “unpatriotic” at a news conference in 2008. She did the same thing in before, and is not the only Democrat to do so.
This extends to other areas as well. The transition from President Clinton to President Bush was very difficult, not just because of a lack of cooperation from the outgoing administration, but because of petty partisanship of those in the Clinton administration. Thought downplayed by the Bush administration, a later GAO report confirmed among other things that the W key was remove from many White House Keyboards and anti-bush graffiti was left in the white house. The total Cost of the damages was over $13,000. So can the same be said of the recent transition from Bush to Obama? No. In fact just the opposite, this transition was called “among the smoothest of U.S. presidential transitions.”
The same can be said of elections. When Republicans loose by a close margin, they generally accept their loss. Democrats, on the other hand often contest demanding recounts, often questionable until they can get one that gives them a victory. In 1960, Nixon loss a very close election which many historians now believe was stolen from him in Texas and Chicago. While many at the time urged him to contest, he actively sought to suppress any effort at questioning the election because he did not believe it would be good for the country. Gore’s actions following the elections in 2000 suggest Nixon was correct.
Also in 2000 Republican John Ashcroft lost a narrow senate race. Despite claims of fraud, Ashcroft accepted defeat. On the other hand in Washington State 2004 Republican Dino Rossi was declared the winner by a narrow margin. The Democrat, Christina Gregoire demand recounts the election went to the courts. The first recount still had Rossi leading, so a third manual recount was done among much controversy over ballots, particularly some newly discovered ones. This recount gave Gregoire the Democrat the lead, and she became Governor. Much the same this happen in Senatorial election in 2008 in Minnesota, where on election night the republican won, and after a lot of questionable recounts, including precincts that were somehow reporting more votes cast then voters who had voted the Democrat again won.
Even when both side do it, the standards by which they are judged is vastly different. What all politicians do have in common is that they all say dumb things from time to time and have bad interviews. When Republicans such as Dan Quayle, George Bush, or a Sarah Palin do it, it is taken as determinative and proof that they are an idiots. The quotes are played over and over. When Democrats do it, such as Obama saying he had been in 57 states, it is written off as a non-consequential mistake.
In another area, consider the reaction to conduct of Mark Foley. When it was discovered that he had sent sexually explicit emails and instant messages to former congressional page, he was immediately asked to resign, and the ensuing scandal became a major issue in the 2006 congressional elections. In an odd quirk of timing, in the midst of the Foley scandal Congress Gerry Studds passed away. In a New York Time obituary, he was lauded as “a role model.” Yet, in contrast to Foley, Studds did not just send sexually explicit messages to former pages, he had a sexual relationship with a then current page. Did he like Foley resign? No, he went on to be reelected and was eventually lauded as a role model.
In area after area, the simple facts are that they don’t just all do it. Even in areas where they do, the evidence is that there is a clear double standard. When Republicans do misbehave they are condemned, and rightly so. But when Democrats do the same or in some cases even worse, their actions are excused by point to Republican behavior, real or imagined.
Thoughts on the Arizona Shooting
The aftermath of the attempted assignation of Congresswoman Giffords, the murder of 6, and the wounding of 13 others has been very troubling. First and foremost, is the tragedy, pain and sorrow of the event, particularly the death of 9 year old Christina-Taylor Green, whose birth on 9/11/2001, and now her death leaves a wonderful life full of promise bookended by national tragedy.
This was not just a crime of multiple murder, it was a crime against our very democratic form of government. The very nature of it threatens the ability of representatives to freely meet with the people. Another of ironies in this horrendous crime is that Giffords took part in the reading of the Constitution last week, reading the first amendment which said,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
While security will almost certainly be tightened in the future, I hope that these future measures will be mostly invisible and will not isolate members of congress as the president’s security isolates him. Having to pass through a TSA line to see a representative will only further isolate them from the people and severely restrict where they can go.
But, unfortunately, the shock of the event had not even passed before some on the left in a crass political move began partisan finger pointing at conservatives, the tea party, and particularly trying to blame Sarah Palin. This was then picked up by some prominent voices on the left, though thankfully not all. Ironically claiming we should tone down the rhetoric, they began trying to lay blame in a desperate and despicable attempt to turn this tragedy to their own political advantage. Thus instead of a nation grieving as one, conservatives and the tea party members suddenly had to defend themselves from these vile and politically based charges.
As more and more evidence emerged about the murderer, it became increasingly clear how baseless these charges were. Still, if past experience is any indication, the press will continue to gently imply these links. Oh, they will of course deny that there was any actual connection when challenged, and then will go on to talk about these admittedly unconnected statements as if they were connected. As the years pass and memory fades, the link will be made more and more explicit, in the same way that the Oklahoma City bomber, is now said to be a conservative or a Christian, as the need to link arises.
For now, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, the partisan attacks are shifting. Oh yes, we now know that Palin was not directly responsible, but now the problem is that she is hiding and not responding to these baseless attacks in a way that her critics see as appropriate. For example, in an interview, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein was critical of Palin, saying she should “come out and say, you know what, that was a little bit much and we need to be careful.”
Frankly I think Palin did exactly the right thing. She is not the issue! The shooting in Arizona is the issue. Why should Palin take the bait and insert herself into an artificial controversy created by her enemies in order to discredit her? The only thing it would do is further shift the focus away from where it should be, on the tragedy.
Finally, one other thought that has been troubling me is one that touches on Christina-Taylor Green. One thing that is clear is who committed this crime. The murderer (the only way I will refer to him) was caught at the scene, in the act. The only thing that really might be in doubt is his mental competence. I, for one, do not automatically equate troubled with the inability to distinguish right from wrong. But regardless, this issue should be able to be settled one way or the fairly quickly.
For sake of argument let us assume he is not criminally insane. In that case, this crime, multiple murder that strikes at the heart of our governmental system, in my mind clearly warrants the death penalty. Yet, despite the clarity of the case, it is very likely that the murderer, even if found guilty and given the death penalty, has more years to live than Christina-Taylor Green had when he cut her life short. He may also very well outlive many of those who he has left grieving for loved ones he killed. While it is true that we must avoid a rush to justice, it is equally true that justice delayed, is justice denied.
Following the Jimmy Carter example, yet again
The No-Labels crowd is back with a major push, which is not too surprising. The more Democrats and/or liberals reveal their true nature, thereby damaging their brand, the more they seek to avoid labels that would identify them for who they are. Obama, Reid and Pelosi have really made a mess of things this time, leading to the greatest electoral defeat in decades. Thus, the no labels crowd to the rescue. But it may be too little too late.
More disturbing was the Democrats legislative strategy. Knowing that they were going to have troubles at the polls, the Democrats simply ignored the law requiring Congress to create a budget, as a budget would reveal their spending priorities, causing them even more grief. They also sat on many of their more controversial bills knowing that to push them would only further hurt their chances at the polls, with the intentions of cramming them through in the lame duck session where they would no longer be accountable.
There is something fundamentally wrong such a strategy as it makes a mockery of the notion of representative democracy. Even my liberal friends were somewhat uncomfortable with this approach, but in the end they wrote it off with the claim that “both sides do it.” But they don’t.
Since 1940 there have been 18 lame duck sessions, many simply to tie up loose ends dealing with appropriations, or to keep the government running till the next Congress has time to get going. Lame duck Congresses can be measured on two factors, the number of members changed, and the significance of the legislation passed. Insignificant legislation, with little change in Congress, results in a pretty innocuous lame duck session, while significant legislation passed when Congress is changing hands, is highly undemocratic, and should be considered illegitimate.
Most lame duck sessions have been of the innocuous variety as normally there is not that much change in Congress, or where before the election, power was split between the parties and so there was little opportunity to cram through any significant legislation, though in the 1982 lame duck session, Congress did give itself a pay raise. However, in 1980, 1994, 2006, and now 2010 the complete control of one party over the Senate, the House and the Presidency was lost by losing one or more of the three. In 1980, 1994, 2010 Republicans broke up Democratic control, while in 2006, Republican control was broken by the Democrats.
In the lame duck session following their losses in 2006, Republicans passed continuing resolutions to fund the government into February of the next year, thereby letting the new Congress have their say. They also passed some minor tax benefit extensions and some trade legislation. It also completed work on bills for the Postal service and Veterans Affairs, both passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and in the house by a voice vote. Finally the Senate Confirmed Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense by a wide margin to replace Donald Rumsfeld, who resigned following the election. In short, they did little, and nothing very controversial.
Much the same can be said for the Democrats following their loss in 1994, where they passed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) a bill that had strong support but opponents had been delaying. But things were vastly different in 1980. That year with the looming potential that the defeat of Jimmy Carter could drag down many Democratic Congressmen and Senators, Democrats delayed “potentially difficult pre-election votes on budget matters” and on “landmark environmental legislation” till after the election. Following the election rather than pass continuing resolutions (as Republicans would do in 2006) the democrats passed a number of appropriations bills. They also passed the Superfund bill, an Alaska lands bill, and several other measures.
So when looking that the 2010 lame duck session, the simple fact is that both sides don’t do it. In the closest historical parallel, Jimmy Carter’s loss in 1980, again it was the Democrats delaying votes and then pushing through major bills in the lame duck session. When the Republicans did have a chance to do this following their loss in 2006, they passed very little of significance mostly by unrecorded votes that were not contested.
To see why Democrats do this is easy. After all if you have already been rejected by votes, why not vote for a measure voters oppose. What else can they do to you? And what better enticement to a politician who has just lost their job by being voted out, then the promise of a nice job if they vote the right way? Another real problem in all of this is that in the effort to push through these measures debate, discussion and amendments are short-circuited, and legislatures end up as an all-or-nothing approach.
The START Treaty is a prime example. One of the major questions raised by opponents goes to the heart of just what the treaty means, as the public comments from Russian and Administration officials are in conflict over its implications for anti-ballistic missile development. If both sides cannot agree on what the treaty says before it is even ratified, then what good is the treaty? More importantly, just what is the Senate ratifying?
To try and clarify this, critics asked to see the negotiating record so they could see exactly what was said and agreed to, as has been done in the pass, but the Administration refused to release it. Given time, these matters could be worked out, but that would take a few months. So instead it was just pushed through before we really know the impact it will really have. This is probably why no other treaty has been ratified in a lame duck session. Yet here, the national security of the United States has taken the Pelosi approach: You have to ratify the treaty to see what is in it. Frankly, the ratification of this treaty should be considered suspect.
In terms of a solution, we should probably give some serious consideration to the British system. When politicians lose in Britain, they are out the very next day. We should consider the same thing, at the least for the Senate and House. This would take a new constitutional amendment, but it is one worth serious consideration.
