The Case of the American Sheeple

On the corner of 53rd and 3rd Ave in New York City, a posted flyer read “Learn How to Blog!” The advertisement, like so many on New York City streets, is easily dismissed, but if one stops to really consider the message, it offers a profound insight into the American psyche. Blogging is by its nature an informal form of individual expression. There are no rules, only a means for individuals all over the world to churn out their personal ideas. Sure there are ways one can create a more reader friendly blog or learn strategies to successfully publicize their writing, but does anyone really need to “Learn How to Blog!?

Blogging is inherently democratic. It is something that every individual can do, if they only have the ideas to opine on. However, the advertisement was not offering an opportunity to learn how to promote a blog, but a class to learn how to blog. In other words, it was targeted at people who liked the concept of blogging, but did not necessarily know what they wanted to write about. But more importantly, it reveals a conceptual inability for many Americans to truly think for themselves. The targeted consumers of the course are not joining the blogger bandwagon because they have ideas they wish to present, but because they are drawn to the concept of blogging. To them blogging is not a public version of their journal, but a thing to do. Because of this blogging is not natural; they need to be told how to blog.

Now, it was not clear from the flyer what the precise curriculum of this course was or how successful it has been; that is beside the point. What this minor episode offers is a window into the American condition and in particular the recent resurgence of populism. Over the past few years, populist movements have been growing in force on both the left and the right. This is a worrying trend that could have disastrous effects on American policy.

Obama became President, in part, due to a groundswell of populist support. His campaign, which was brilliantly executed, appealed to the everyman without offering (or possibly hiding) any real political ideology. His troubles of the past year are largely because many Americans saw through his populist veneer to what lies beneath. The campaign promises were either bogus or simply infeasible (Guantanamo). Many of his former supporters on the center-left and in the middle are disappointed with their choice, but are now unfortunately stuck with a President who does not represent their wishes or values.

In response, a very similar movement – the Tea Party – has been rising on the right. The Tea Party is steeped in many sound principles and ideas: opposition to big government, excessive taxes, and socialist programs. However, it is based more on emotion than on ideas. Politicians, such as Sarah Palin, have been brilliant is cultivating and stoking this sentiment. This is all too evident in Palin’s recent speech before the Tea Party.

The cultivation of populist movements is often very beneficial for a politician. It has skyrocketed both Obama and Palin to national preeminence. However, it is questionable what benefits such movements have for the governance of America. First, by being devoid of any concrete intellectual basis the movements can do little to change the deep flaws that may exist within the American system. Palin’s speech did not offer ideas to change America, but preyed upon emotion to support an amorphous cause.

Second, the movement can quickly and unexpectedly change tack, directing politicians down dangerous policy trajectories. The routine attacks on Wall Street from both sides of the aisle are evidence of this possibility. While finance or the so-called Big Business is certainly responsible in part for the current economic crisis, a complete attack on the system will hurt all Americans. In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Donald Luskin outlines the risks of a rightwing populist attack on business.

Populism is a movement of passion.  While there are very often real concerns, real ideas, and real issues imbedded in a populist movement, they are generally secondary to the emotion.  Emotion should not be dismissed, but it cannot be the primary factor in the American political system.  Instead, the emotions of populism must be analyzed and understood.  New ideas must be developed and considered to address the political issues of the polity.  In his discussion of the American Revolution, Irving Kristol wrote:

All revolutions unleash tides of passion, and the American Revolution was no exception. But it was exceptional in the degree to which it was able to subordinate these passions to serious and nuanced thinking about fundamental problems of political philosophy. The pamphlets, sermons, and newspaper essays of the revolutionary period… were extraordinarily “academic,” in the best sense of that term. Which is to say, they were learned and thoughtful and generally sober in tone. This was a revolution infused by mind to a degree never approximated since, and perhaps never approximated before. By mind, not by dogma.

Populism runs counter to this notion because it is innately anti-intellectual. To be sure the passions of the masses are necessary and proper, and all democratically elected leaders need to be in tune with what the people want. But stoking raw emotion for political gain is dangerous and against the very foundations of the American Republic. All men may not be independent thinkers, but all statesmen should govern based on ideas.

An Assault on Petraeus and Free-Speech

Recently at Georgetown University, General David Petraeus, current CENTCOM Commander, was shouted down by student protestors when attempting to give a lecture. This is relatively unsurprising as it is all too common at elite American universities for students to attempt to prevent those they disagree with from talking. A New Republican discussed a similar incident that occurred at UNC last April. Predictably, many rushed to defend the protestors in the name of free-speech. In an editorial in The Hoya, Georgetown’s school newspaper, one of the senior deans in the School of Foreign Service, James Reardon-Anderson, called the incident “one of those learning moments that makes campus life more interesting.” Such defenses trash the concept of free-speech and make a mockery of everything America and these universities are supposed to stand for.

Reardon-Anderson’s argument is simple. Freedom of speech means minority groups have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. He states, “Freedom of speech must allow for a minority to annoy and discomfort the majority….” But freedom of speech does not work this way. Freedom of speech prevents encroachment on the individual’s (or group’s) ability to speak its mind. The concept exists to prevent the quashing of dissent, to facilitate the free flow of ideas, and to promote discourse that will better the lives of all. This is the liberal principle which our nation is built upon.

The Georgetown protestors are decidedly illiberal in their approach. Their actions are not about promoting free-speech, but about silencing a perspective with which they do not agree. Reardon-Anderson tacitly acknowledges this by refusing to condemn the students’ removal. In fact, he applauds the success of the system:

Happily for those who found these interruptions improper, the system worked: The offending parties were warned to stop and — when they failed to heed the warning — they were removed from the hall or they left of their own accord. There was no threat to the health and safety of anyone. The event proceeded without further disruption.

The fact that he acknowledges that their removal was appropriate signifies that the protestors were not behaving in accordance with the concept of free-speech. If they were, any attempt to silence them should be castigated. The error that Reardon-Anderson and so many like-minded supporters make is that they confuse speech with noise. Free-speech prevents restrictions on the contribution of ideas to the community; it does not allow individuals to create noise to drown out others speech. Silencing Petraeus by talking over him is tantamount to duct-taping his mouth closed.

While it is the opinion of ANR that the constitutional right to free-speech is (or should be) only applicable to the government’s ability to limit speech and is not necessarily a restriction on private institutions ability to limit speech, we do support the voluntary commitment to this principle that institutions such as Georgetown profess. It is important to note that tyranny need not just come from the majority (if Petraeus is even part of the majority) or the government. Tyranny comes from anyone who unjustly abrogates the rights of another. Free-speech, as a principle, protects against this injustice. In this instance, the protestors are committing the highest form of tyranny by silencing another. They should have every right to present and discuss their perspectives, but only if they allow others to dialogue as well. The irony is that they are defended in the name of the very principles they cease to respect.

A Supreme Political Scuffle

The Obama-Alito controversy has been gathering steam in the blogosphere and mainstream media. Setting aside the correctness of the Supreme Court’s decision for the time being, there are a number of interesting issues that have arisen. First of all, there is the issue of etiquette and precedence. Second, is the issue of the media’s and the Democrats’ treatment of the scuffle-by-proxy.

During the President’s State of the Union address, Obama criticized a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign financing.  He stated, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections." (See video at Real Clear Politics). In response, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, one of the justices who voted in favor of the ruling, shook his head in disagreement and apparently mouthed “not true”.  What was "not true" from his perspective is not clear.  According to etiquette, the members of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) are separated from general politics-as-usual. They and their decisions are never directly attacked and they refrain from displays of political support or disdain.

First, there is room for discussion on whether the historical procedures of etiquette are worthwhile or should be followed. Should the SCOTUS and its decisions be respected and left independent? Or like the majority of our government are they fair game for political attacks? ANR tends to believe that the Supreme Court should maintain a position above politics to assure the objectivity of its decisions. This has historically been the norm, forcing Presidential disagreements to be at most muted and often unsaid. Particularly, this has been true in large, public announcements or speeches such as the State of the Union. Obama clearly breached this etiquette by becoming the first President to attack the SCOTUS in a State of the Union address. If one ascribes to the view that this etiquette is important than Obama’s breach is particularly worrisome. If, on the other hand, one has no concern for such precedent then one should simply shrug their shoulders and move on.

However, this has not been the response of the Democrats or some in the MSM. This brings us to the second point. The Democrats have gone on the attack, targeting Justice Alito for his response. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-VT attacked Alito by stating “There were days when judges stayed out of politics. It would be nice to go back to those days.”  NBC, which spoke to Leahy, supported this storyline in the very title of their article, “Justice openly disagrees with Obama in speech.” NBC’s story focused on how this was Alito’s “Joe Wilson moment”, yet diminished Obama’s greater breach of etiquette.

Now, as said before there is room for debate on the importance of such etiquette; but if anyone is to blame it is Obama, not Alito. Obama was the first to break ‘the rules’. It is only understandable that Alito, who most likely did not expect to be attacked, would momentarily lose his composure. Yes, Alito broke etiquette, but it was in a far less severe and public fashion than Obama. All eyes and ears were on the President; everyone heard what he said. Alito was merely an observer who responded in arguably an unfortunate way.

The Democrats’ response and the very fact that Obama took the unprecedented step of criticizing the SCOTUS displays the outrageous arrogance and rampant populism of the administration. The arrogance comes from Obama’s unrelenting quest to attack anyone and everyone with whom he disagrees, regardless of position, etiquette, or precedent. All of this is in the name of his populist bent, appealing to ‘the people’ as a Washington “outsider”. In this instance it is particularly damning given the history of Presidents (eg FDR) who have had much more serious issues with Supreme Court decisions yet remained mum. If the etiquette is important, Obama is the culprit; if it is not then no one should be to blame. Attacks on Alito are just downright inappropriate.

The State of the Perpetual Campaign

“We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.” So said President Barak Obama in a State of the Union address that was arguably another stump speech in a long-line of campaign speeches. The address was mainly an attempt at resetting his presidency to a time, a little over a year ago, when the President was popular and perceived he had a mandate to govern. Rather than drastically alter his direction, Obama emphasized a number of trends that have been unvarying cornerstones of the past year, namely populism, an anti-Washington sentiment, and the call for more government.

His populist stance was evident throughout the speech. While he admirably accepted some responsibility and admitted to gaffes, he largely played to the misgivings of the masses. He continuously bashed Wall Street and banks, targeting bonuses and the bailout. He said, “[W]e all hated the bailout. I hated it….”  Even while appealing to the grand notion of bipartisanship he attempted to separate ‘the people’ from the ‘elite’ by, for instance, offering an end to capital gains taxes, but only for small businesses.

This populism is rather disingenuous and anti-intellectual, as most populism is, and will only serve to foment fault-lines in American politics. All of America is responsible for the economic meltdown, not just Wall Street. By refusing to indict the average citizen for his mistakes alongside Wall Street, Obama is reinforcing a culture that dismisses personal responsibility.

The second major theme was the continued attempt to portray himself as an outsider to Washington. His repeated mantra was “Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.” It is a time-tested tactic for campaigners to portray themselves as outsiders. America habitually wants new visions and ideas and elected Obama a year ago largely based on this successfully transmitted message.

However what worked during his ‘real’ campaign will largely fall on deaf ears now. After a year in office, Obama is Washington. He said this much when castigating his party for their failures, “To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.”

Obama’s insistence on railing against Washington is interesting to say the least. It shows that he has yet to fully leave the campaign trail. From his perspective, this should be worrying as America has shown that it does not appreciate this politicking. America wants a president that leads not one that is on the campaign-trail.

The final major theme was his insistence on Big Government. Roughly two-thirds of his speech focused on the economy and rightly so. However, his entire approach of a paternalistic big government saturated his rhetoric. While his healthcare discussion was moderated, his language elsewhere continued the same cadence that drove the healthcare issue during the first year.  A prime example of this misguided economic policy was his discussion on college affordability. He stated:

And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.

Now this sounds noble and, on the surface, profound. After all, every America should have access to college and most understand the heavy load from student loans. However, if one spends a few seconds considering the ramifications of the plan the economics simply fail.

For starters, if debt is forgiven it means someone has to cover the costs. There seem to be three options – the taxpayer, the lenders, or the schools. If it falls on the lenders, well they simply will stop lending. No business will be willing to operate at a loss and so such a plan will reduce available loans. If it’s the taxpayers, well we all know the problems there. If the schools have to shoulder the burden it will reduce the quality of education as schools would be forced to cut programs, salaries, and other expenditures. Alternatively, it would give schools incentives to only admit those who could pay their own way, thereby restricting access to universities (particularly the elite) to the rich.

Likewise, Obama’s plan could create a perverse incentive for individuals to get frivolous degrees. Higher education is an investment in one’s future. While many enjoy learning, a higher degree should generally only be pursued if it offers a positive return. Such a program would encourage people to complete degrees that have little bearing on their career paths. While this is certainly noble and learning is a paramount value, it should not be done at the expense of demolishing our education system.

This is but one example of the administration’s warped economic perspective. Obama, while often pure in aims, far too often attempts to correct the symptoms rather than address the underlying problems. It is economically unwise to expand government in order to force changes in the price one pays without addressing the underlying cost of the product. This backward economic principle only serves to grow government and exacerbate problems.

However, despite the many flaws of the address, credit must be given where it is due. Obama did make a number of strong points and called for some positive changes. First he stated, “We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions.” The flow of information is a principal aspect of free competitive markets and should be applauded. Second, he called for off-shore drilling and the construction of nuclear plants (amongst other proposals) both which will create jobs and promote energy independence. Third, Obama invited both parties to offer ideas for healthcare reform. He stated, “But if anyone from either party has a better approach… let me know.” Hopefully this is not mere rhetoric and the Republicans will take advantage.

Obama has work to do. Hopefully, he can step up as a leader, dismiss the big government, partisan, and populist focus of his administration and end his political campaign. He seems to have learned some lessons from the past year, and particularly Massachusetts, but he is not quite there yet.

Massachusetts, A Blue State Goes Brown

Today, in Massachusetts’s special election for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, won an overwhelming victory. Brown defeated Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, 52% to 47%, in a race that up until a few weeks ago was a nearly uncontested competition in favor of the Democrat. This marks the first time since 1972 that the very blue state of Massachusetts has sent a Republican Senator to Washington.

The Republican triumph is a massive political event. It follows two big GOP wins in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races and serves as a stark referendum on the Obama administration and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The swing of the historically Democratic state has shown that America is thoroughly dissatisfied with the profligate spending and arrogant politicking of Obama and the left-leaning Congress.

In particular, the vote directly reflects the distaste that most Americans feel with the current healthcare package. Brown ran on a platform that promised a vote against the current healthcare bill. The overwhelming support for a Republican candidate exemplifies how out of touch the Democratic leadership’s strong-arm tactics are with the pulse of America. Furthermore, the newest Republican Senator also breaks the Democrats’ supermajority, giving the Democratic caucus 59 members. This ends the filibuster-proof Senate and prevents the Democrats from monopolizing legislative power without Republican input.

Both Republicans and Democrats should heed the lessons of this election. The win was primarily a triumph for the center. Democrats should recognize that their leftward tilt has alienated the bulk of America. Fifty-one percent of voters in Massachusetts are independents and obviously eschew extreme policies. In order to maintain their dominance, Democrats, particularly those who hail from conservative states or districts, would be wise to think twice about the supposed leftist mandate that they divined in Obama’s win a year ago. Today’s vote clearly is a harbinger of the disaster that will befall Democratic incumbents who are running for reelection in November. Brown’s win clearly shows that many other Democrats will face the ax from their moderate and conservative constituents if they fail to take note. America is primarily a center-right nation that voted for Obama on the ephemeral concept of change and as a refutation of Bush. The past year has painfully shown the Democrats that Obama’s election was not an anointment of new liberal era.

Likewise, Republicans must understand that the recent GOP success in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts were on the back of the center-right. Senator Brown is a moderate, Northeast Republican, who for instance, is moderately liberal on issues such as abortion. In contrast to the Scozzafava fiasco in Upstate New York, the entire Republican Party rallied behind Brown. This is the Big-Tent paradigm that the Party needs to continue to rely upon. If they choose to ignore this fact and shrink the party to a narrow, ‘purist’ rump they will become as disparaged as the far-Left is has become.

This election is a grand win for the Republicans, but does not imply that such successes will continue. Much depends on how both parties respond. If Democrats continue their obstinacy (for instance by refusing to seat Brown or by pushing healthcare through in a surreptitious way) and the Republicans tack to the center, the Obama administration will surely fail. However, if the Republicans pursue a path of party-cleansing or the Democrats correct their failed leftward drift, the November elections, and certainly 2012, is anyone’s game. Two cheers to Scott Brown and two more to this being the first step in the reemergence of Big-Tent Republicanism and the resurgent Northeastern Republican.