I looked up "revolution" in my Hannah Arendt dictionary, and apparently it means something like "revolving back to a set of formerly established principles" (paraphrase). Well, I knew that... and so did James Buchanan, when he wrote Politics by Principle, Not Interest. But now it's time to turn it into an actual political program that resets the course of a nation and a world. The Democrat Party has just handed us both the strategy and the tactics. All its plan lacked, was principle itself. Megan McCardle, in a moment of blinding clarity, says:
Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn't want this bill. And that mattered basically not at all. If you don't find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances. Farewell, social security! Au revoir, Medicare! The reason entitlements are hard to repeal is that the Republicans care about getting re-elected. If they didn't-if they were willing to undertake this sort of suicide mission-then the legislative lock-in you're counting on wouldn't exist. . . . If the GOP takes the legislative innovations of the Democrats and decides to use them, please don't complain that it's not fair. Someone could get seriously hurt, laughing that hard.Democrats murdered the tooth fairy, with hammers. John Taylor, President of the Virginia Institute of Public Policy, is even more effusive:
Kudos to President Obama for creating the modern Tea Party movement; for planting the seed in the minds of the American people that we need to completely reconsider the morality of entitlements; and for shining the light of day on how authoritarian the Progressive movement's agenda actually is. In November, we'll all be saying, "Couldn't have done it without you..."We should also thank nearly 50% of the citizens of Minnesota, without whom none of this would be possible, as well as countless others who, in a moment of sophomoric idealism, voted to elect the current government of unprincipled influence peddlers touting a molecule-thin veneer of "hope and change." Thankyou! Like the Democrats, we too "have a dream." It is to re-establish a country based on the generality principle of non-discrimination; a country that needs no entitlement bureaucracy awarding the spoils of political interest. We considered the dream unreachable, until now...
Did Rep. Boehner say "...and return comedy to the nation," because that's what I heard? I like not this feeble, decrepit, I'm-cleverer-than-you, PC, John Stewart humor. Bring me other humor!
I'm up past my bedtime and should probably sleep before posting this, but I'll try now, anyway:
As aghast as I am at this turn of events, I'm still not quite willing to make the blanket statement that Democrats are completely unprincipled. (There are some exceptions, of course, and I know and avoid some in real life.)
It is more, in my opinion, that they have misunderstood the value and purpose of one set of principles, in their zeal to advance another.
The principles they're trying to (or, now, succeeding to) advance are noble: Care for the sick and the disadvantaged. People laugh at extreme Libertarians for a reason, and that is that no humane person will really stand idly by and watch someone starve. It is really hard to argue against health care on principle alone. Who does not, on principle, want to care for the sick?
But the principles they've forgotten are the principles of honesty, the principles of respect for differing opinion, the principles of sober thought... in general, principles of conduct. Which are, in the long run, important principles that can prevent you from running off any number of cliffs.
For all I know, things could go much better than I expect. We could discover a cheap cure for half the nasty cancers out there next year. We might get cardiac stem cell therapies that hugely reduce heart disease and heart attack costs in 2015. But... I don't really think so. Not that dramatic, not that fast, and if that's what we wanted we could have accelerated it by other means. And so the Democrats have probably driven us all off a terrible cost cliff.
And when I started hearing, even last year, the debate being framed with no options but to agree, to be stupid, or to be evil-- even while knowingly gaming the CBO scoring mechanisms-- I knew we were driving off (another) cliff of simple civility. And worse, because not only are Republicans going to feel empowered to cast a "Fuck you!" vote in 2011, it's probably going to be just as stupid as this one. I suppose I'll have the last laugh on my Dad if they do kill Social Security.
On the other hand, since I will now blame every minor hang-up my elderly parents have with their medical care on the Democrats-- they pretty much own it, now, for good or ill-- and since I can't do anything but vote against my congressman until replacement, there's not much to be done about it.
Principles of conduct aren't something you abandon just because you think you're right, and they're not some gift you give to other people if you happen to like them. Principles of conduct are a revelation of who you are in contrast to simply a declaration of what you want, even if you want something for someone else. And based on that, the Democrats are not people I want to know right now.
I look forward with grim anticipation to the Republicans going down the same road in three years.
he principles they're trying to (or, now, succeeding to) advance are noble:
There is not a single person in the United States who would oppose Democrats caring for the sick and disadvantaged to the last dollar they have. There's nothing noble in extortion, which is what they're doing.
People laugh at extreme Libertarians for a reason, and that reason is the inability to comprehend the existence of compassion without coercion.
Who does not, on principle, want to care for the sick?
I don't want that badly enough to steal from you, and I'd appreciate it if you returned the consideration.
I'm already irritated enough, bgates, so do me a favor.
Go back, and read my post again. Pay careful attention to key words-- admittedly subtle ones-- like "aghast," and "driven us off a cost cliff," and "blame every minor hang-up... on the Democrats," and "Democrats are not people I want to know," and ask yourself:
Do you really think I in any way supported this travesty? When I talk about voting against my congressman until replacement, do you think I mean voting Democrat?
I don't think we've ever been guided by a principle of generality in any major social legislation, and every step we've taken on this road of progressivism has made the country weaker, and divided it on its founding values... because this was the intent. I have nothing against caring for the sick, I just don't want some fool in Washingon pulling the strings of the industry that cares for the sick. I want them out of the loop. We can't do this in 2010, because the President still has veto power and will use it. But we can elect a cadre of genuine reformers, committed to saving America and beginning the process of creating a politics of principle, and whatever Constitutional Amendments are necessary to enshrine the principle of generality in our institutions. And we can elect governors in preparation for redistricting for the 2012 election. And then, after electing a new President in 2012 and a new Congress committed to those principles more than to their short term careers, we can rip a page from the Democrats' playbook and "get 'er done"!
Moreover, this will be absolutely the last chance. The opportunity will never come again. This is the last opportunity to preserve the American Experiment according to its founding principles. After that the curtain of history closes.
I suggest also that what we aim at is neither liberal nor conservative/libertarian, but a principle that transcends both. For instance, if we instituted a flat tax/demogrant program a Marxist would adopt something close to a 100% tax with a redistribution of most of the proceeds in equal grants. A libertarian might be more toward a 0% tax with a $0.00 demogrant. But both are acceptable and conform to the principle of generality. Everyone is treated the same. This is not the only kind of program that conforms to generality, but it's illustrative of the principle.
You know, it's funny. The white house has considered the tea parties instrumental in their success so far. Every time they get to frame their opponents as "Glenn Beck", they win.
Either way, they've got two years to make a better case. And if the economy improves, they're screwed (even if Obama isn't responsible for that success).
Alchemist, I'm slightly confused by your use of "they." So voters in MA voted against Glenn Beck? Voters won't take economic success for granted, but attribute it to Democrats... sort of like the way Brits attributed success to Churchill after the war?
The "case" is simple. Politics by Principle, Not Interest. Is there some kind of majority constituency that's anti-Principle that I don't know about?
Don't get me wrong, Demosophist, I agree with your goals. I find myself seriously contemplating things I have never done before: Registering as a member of a party in order to vote in primaries (possibly just to mount primary challenges) for instance, or donating to political campaigns.
I have the sense that I am not making idle threats in mind, that I will still be mad in November, and will have followed through.
But those things don't make me happy, because they leave me feeling compromised, or having to admit that some of my core philosophies have been just plain wrong. And I'm certain, if I find myself forced to vote straight Republican in protest, that the Republicans will misinterpret, take advantage, and eventually do something just as viciously stupid. What worried me about your post was when you mentioned that the Democrats had handed you the strategy and the tactics. It seemed ominous, is all. Being tired, I probably expressed that badly.
After all the delusional self congratualation on the site last month, I thought it might be useful for people to read something written by a Republican realist, that is in line with what I have been saying about the party for the past 2 years
I think it is high time for all of us to grow up and get our get our heads out of Tea Party - Rush Limbaugh rear ends, before we are handed another defeat in November.
Here it is:
Waterloo
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
More here: http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
In case you haven't noticed, politics is not a gentleman's game. If you expect it to be anything other than expediency, you are bound to be eternally disappointed.
Sorry, obviously trying to write too fast.
Every time (the white house) frames their opponents (ie tea partiers) as led by "Glen Beck" the white house wins.
Really, Obama and the tea-party both have two years to make their case. If the economy is improving, the white house has a much strong standing.
Besides, there's two ways to view MA. As a referendum on healthcare (which MA already has) or as a referendum on a terrible candidate. My in-laws all live in MA, and even solid blue D's had trouble deciding whether Coakley was worth their vote. (I haven't talked to them since the election though).
So the argument now against a politics of principle is the "realism" that expediency wins every time, so it's just some sophomoric dream to expect thug politics to sputter and die? It's more realistic to be a promise-maker than a promise-keeper, and there's no political penalty for misrepresenting an Americanist movement animated by Lockean founding ideals as a claque of racist neo-Nazi sympathizers? Maybe being a "realist" of this sort confers on some the kind of swaggering triumphalism of the toady, but I find it about as inspiring as a gang bang.
I think your post is a bit overwrought. Politics does stumble on to something other than expediency once in a while, but not very often.
I like principle as much as the next guy, but you should choose the principles you are ready to die for very carefully. The Party has not been very good at this since the rise of Rove domestically and the Neo-Cons in Foreign Affairs.
We painted ourselves into this corner and if we continue to scream that everything is a principle to die for we are going to get killed, as we have in the last 2 elections cycles and in the mid terms if we have no clear philosophy, platform or vision for the country, but instead rely on things like talk radio and the Tea Partiers to lead us out of the wilderness.
We got our ass kicked with health care because we deserved it. When one wakes up to that reality then one can do something about it. If the Party continues on the mindless course it has been on for the past 10 or so years, there won't be any party.
Everybody has underestimated this guy Obama. He is an excellent politician, as good, if not better as a communicator than Reagan and I do not say that lightly. He is tough as nails, calm in a crisis and he now has a very large Republican Scalp hanging from his belt.
If the idea is to score points, he is a better basketball player than anyone in the GOP, as a strategist, he is excellent and has the crown jewel of his presidency already in his pocket. And, I believe, he hasn't even begun his campaign.
Stop whining and start thinking like an Argive, who told the Spartans that the Athenians could be defeated by their own competence and arrogance.
This guy is very, very good. To forget that for even a moment puts us in peril.
You wrote the following in 2006:
"It seems to me that the dire condition of the Republicans in congress is due, almost entirely, to their own neglect and incompetence"
Have they gotten any better on these scores, or have they become worse?
I believe the latter.
Marcus:
Do you really think I in any way supported this travesty?
Your "opposition" characterizes the Democrats as noble and principled, if perhaps somehow overzealous in advancing a cause no humane person could possibly argue against.
Good luck convincing people they should side with the viciously stupid and laughably inhumane opposition because the Democrats should have allowed respect for protocol to temper their passion to save people's lives.
Bgates, you'ev never seen someone advancing a worthy goal by unworthy means? Really? Never?
And you've never wondered where phrases like, "The ends don't justify the means," come from?
You might want to get out a little more, becuase if ever there were an example of good goals corrupted through bad methods, this would be it.
And while I'm at it: The reason I fail-- refuse, is more like it-- to vilify and demonize the Democrats right now, no matter how aghast I am at this legislation is not because I want to do them any favors for their own sakes.
It's because I want to remain a basically good and decent human being. When I think back over the last twenty years of all the friendships that I've damaged or that friends have damaged, the very dominating theme has been this: They've all started to believe that whatever their belief system was, it was unassailably correct, and all serious disagreement was the result of some defect, some inferiority, on the part of others. My contribution to this effect has not been zero, either, although I can hope that I've trained myself out of the habits and mindsets associated with it.
When you go down that path, when you reflexively assume that the only reason for disagreement is that someone else is not just wrong, but necessarily stupid, evil, or both, you become, in some tragic but very real way, damaged goods. And it reinforces itself, because if your opponents are stupid and evil, the reasons for restraint are greatly reduced.
I will not do this to myself.
I will not be the protesters who feel entitled to issue threats of violence to my congressman, or to damage their property. I will not be the democrats, both smug and hand-wringing all at once, who conveniently forget all the opposite violence over the last few years, the burned out GOP headquarters, the burning effigies of Bush, the bullet-riddled campaign headquarters. I will not.
And it's not a favor to one side or the other, it's a favor to myself. I will not be that. I will not treat myself as a new, unique breed of human being just bceause I, like everyone else on the planet, happen to have an opinion. I am not a unique, delicate snowflake. I am not God's special child. I, like everyone else differ in genetic makeup from a chimpanzee by about 2%, and from other human beings by an amount so small we need special scientific notation to properly grasp, if we can grasp it at all.
So. Just as I defend my opponents' basic human rights to protect my own human rights, I also defend their basic humanity to protect my own. I cannot do it any other way.