Representing All Americans

A unfortunate tenet on the left and on some segments of the right, is to accept that the government can justly represent just a small slice of the electorate; one's supporters, or base, interest groups, and political allies. But the reality is that for there to be any true level of justice in our political system, our leaders must truly represent all Americans. They must design policies and laws with this fundamental principle at the forefront of their minds; because, while as a political system we believe in majority rule, we also have a strong commitment to minority rights. No in-group or out-group should be offered special privileges or unfair treatment. Every American should be treated equally under the law.

It seems like a relatively simple principle when stated in a succinct manner, yet unfortunately it is frequently and readily ignored by America's politicians. It is a staple of the Obama administration's political ideology. For those on the left it is more than simply appealing to their base or providing pork to associated special interests, but a deeply enmeshed belief that the government has a responsibility to treat individuals differently in certain circumstances. Government, from this perspective, serves to ensure specific outcomes, or at least push the outcome in the desired direction. Explicitly, it accepts the notion that a just government should focus on the end result, aiming to create some arbitrary notion of equality—an impossible and unjust task.

When Obama lauds his success, as he recently did at a United Auto Workers' conference, of "saving" the auto industry, this ideology is displayed in its most unflattering light. If one was the chairman (or czar) of the auto industry, he would surely applaud the preservation of his interests. An individual, in the role of autoworker or auto company owner, may be ecstatic at receiving special dispensation, tacitly ignoring both those that paid for their rescue and those who were not rescued. But receiving such perks of money, influence, or connection, however historically common it may be, does not make it the proper way our system should be run.

However the argument here is not about the economic efficacy of such policies—there are plenty of economic rejoinders that would challenge those that tout such bailouts as fiscally sane, which can be addressed elsewhere.^[1] What is at question is the ideology that the government has the right to treat one group differently than another. These type of policies support the incorrect belief that the government can (justly) protect or injure certain segments of society using arbitrary criteria (and yes, regardless of how logical such criteria may be to one or another, they are arbitrary when they discriminate between different individuals). 

The problem, to be fair, is not singularly one of the left, but also unfortunately present on the right. When Rick Santorum stands on the podium arguing for special treatment for manufacturers through tax incentives, he concedes reliance on the same backward philosophy. When congressmen from agricultural red states fight for special subsidies to farmers, they too erode the just role of government. When oilmen or bankers (or union-members) are given carve-outs, the same philosophy is at work.

This is an issue that goes beyond the charges, often correctly made, of "picking winners and losers," which is certainly problematic. The problem is the vision of government that does not consider all Americans as equal before the law. That is an ideology that, for whatever electoral or political reasons, believes that a politician can treat different Americans in different ways. 

While the political roots of this problem are understandable, the long-term consequences are potentially disastrous. Our system has moved a long way from its foundations, where the government was supposed to serve as an impartial arbitrator, as an entity that facilitated the common space but did not try to fill that space, to a near feudal model of patronage and special privileges. The system, historically speaking, may never have worked as philosophically as it strove to—there are certainly too many examples of its failure—but historically (or maybe its simply an effect of rose-tinted lenses) the philosophy seems to have greater popular currency. Today, it appears to be rarely thought of or discussed. 

American politicians need to strive to represent all Americans and the electorate should hold them to that standard. If the people eschew demands for special treatment, the politicians will have to change their electoral strategy. If privilege to the few at the expense of the many becomes anathema in the American political system (right now it is only anathema if the "few" are not you), it will help rebirth the idea that the government needs to represent all Americans, providing a system that is nimble, light, and does not impede the individual. The alternative is a bloated, heavy, and cumbersome system (daresay European) that struggles under the weight of entitlements and carve-outs. The latter is a system that not only veers away from the correct formulation of a just government but will crush the unique spirit that has made America great.

---

[1]Did an investment in the auto industry reap the best return for the government's investment when compared to other options? Could that money have been used to create or save even more jobs in other sectors or been better used by the taxpayers? Is having a large auto industry really in the best long-term interest of our economy? Would it have been smarter to facilitate structural changes in the economy rather than prop up a failing industry? Certainly, demonstrating that the auto industry is alive today and that jobs have been "saved" in isolation, as proponents are wont to do, does little to answer if the bailout was a smart financial decision.

Grabbing the Center

Elections are won and lost in the center. So seems to be an increasingly vocalized mantra from some of the more sensible on the right. The argument is fairly simple: while America is generally a center-right country, a large number eschew extreme candidates, whether on the far left or right. The politician that can successfully grab the middle stands to win the election.

Some conservatives, though, have long been arguing against this perspective, claiming instead that a more "pure" (read: further right) candidate is needed. But this logic fails. The far-right will vote for a moderate conservative over the leftist Obama, and, given their intense dislike of the incumbent, will undoubtedly head to the polls for Mitt Romney rather than seeing the president re-elected.

The independents, those who voted for Obama three years ago and are now sorely disappointed, will be more hesitant to vote for what appears to be an extreme GOP candidate, than a more moderate one, like Romney. Since, these are the powerful swing voters, their apprehension could be disastrous, giving Obama yet another four years.

Karl Rove, architect of the Bush Jr. campaigns, seems to agree. He has argued that a successful candidate needs to draw votes from both the left and the right and be representative of all of America. This is the strategy that worked for the "Big-Tent" Republicanism of Ronald Reagan, who created an entire new group of Democrats - the Reagan Democrats.

In the Wall Street Journal, syndicated radio show host Michael Medved provides a powerful argument to this effect.  He concludes:

In short, the electoral experience of the last 50 years does nothing to undermine the common-sense notion that most political battles are won by seizing and holding the ideological center. In the last two presidential elections, more than 44% of voters described themselves as "moderate," and no conservative candidate could possibly prevail without coming close to winning half of them (as George W. Bush did in his re-election). 

The notion that ideologically pure conservative candidates can win by disregarding centrists and magically producing previously undiscovered legions of true-believer voters remains a fantasy. It is not a strategy. At the moment, it is easy to imagine Mitt Romney appealing to many citizens who would never consider Rick Perry or Herman Cain. It is much harder (if not impossible) to describe the sort of voter—Republican, Democrat or independent—who would refuse to support Mr. Romney (over Barack Obama!) but would somehow eagerly back Messrs. Perry, Cain or Gingrich, let alone Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Conservatives, as well as their moderate and progressive neighbors, may have plenty of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney in favor of some rival candidate. Electability can't reasonably count as one of them.

Ideology certainly has its place, but those that are truly committed to correcting the misguided course this nation is on must be careful not to be blinded to their own detriment. Democracy is fundamentally about compromise, even if a compromise is worse than some alternative "pure" option. If the Republicans want a seat at the table, if they want to be able to influence the direction of the country, they must be politically smart as well.

American Exceptionalism, the Left, and Obama

What is American exceptionalism?  And, what is Obama's and the American left's view of it?  Shelby Steele has the answer in a well-crafted essay in the Wall Street Journal.

American exceptionalism is, among other things, the result of a difficult rigor: the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law. Over time a society like this will become great. This is how—despite all our flagrant shortcomings and self-betrayals—America evolved into an exceptional nation.

Steele's link between this "difficult rigor," essentially the American character, and our own exceptional standing as a global leader is aptly made and far too often not discussed or even considered by many.  Our own commitments to hard-work, sacrifice, innovativeness and ingenuity, individuality, and, amongst other attributes, the rule of law, have played an enormous role in developing the United States as a singularly powerful and desirable (in the terms of other people and nations wanting to be like us or join us) nation.  However, many in America, particularly on the left, do not agree with these values and especially our exceptionalism.  Steele outlines how America's imperfect history has become, for some, a cloak of repulsiveness over America's current successes and the values that helped us achieve them.

At home the values that made us exceptional have been smeared with derision. Individual initiative and individual responsibility—the very engines of our exceptionalism—now carry a stigma of hypocrisy. For centuries America made sure that no amount of initiative would lift minorities and women. So in liberal quarters today—where historical shames are made to define the present—these values are seen as little more than the cynical remnants of a bygone era.  

... 

So we Americans cannot help but feel some ambivalence toward our singularity in the world—with its draining entanglements abroad, the selfless demands it makes on both our military and our taxpayers, and all the false charges of imperial hubris it incurs. Therefore it is not surprising that America developed a liberalism—a political left—that took issue with our exceptionalism. It is a left that has no more fervent mission than to recast our greatness as the product of racism, imperialism and unbridled capitalism.

This self-loathing is bad enough as is.  It is never practically or emotionally commendable to look in the mirror and hate what you see - this is why psychologists make quite nice salaries helping individuals understand that their flaws or historical missteps do not obscure their true value.  But as so often occurs in individuals, Steele correctly argues that this systematic recasting of American values and exceptionalism as morally defunct has lead to the undermining of the very greatness of the American way.   

Since the '60s we have enfeebled our public education system even as our wealth has expanded. Moral and cultural relativism now obscure individual responsibility. We are uninspired in the wars we fight, calculating our withdrawal even before we begin—and then we fight with a self-conscious, almost bureaucratic minimalism that makes the wars interminable.

America seems to be facing a pivotal moment: Do we move ahead by advancing or by receding—by reaffirming the values that made us exceptional or by letting go of those values, so that a creeping mediocrity begins to spare us the burdens of greatness?

In Steele's analysis, this is not just a historical force of the left, but a very real problem of the current administration, who's leaders were raised in the heyday of this sort of political thinking.  Now, as leaders of the very institution they were raised to detest, they are torn between pursuing their responsibility of advancing America's position and being true to the elixir of principles they imbibed as youth.

Mr. Obama came of age in a bubble of post-'60s liberalism that conditioned him to be an adversary of American exceptionalism. In this liberalism America's exceptional status in the world follows from a bargain with the devil—an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world. And therefore America's greatness is as much the fruit of evil as of a devotion to freedom. 

...

As a president, Barack Obama has been a force for mediocrity. He has banked more on the hopeless interventions of government than on the exceptionalism of the people. His greatest weakness as a president is a limp confidence in his countrymen. He is afraid to ask difficult things of them.

All-in-all, this leaves America and the left in a very precarious position.  How do we trust a leadership that wants to "take the country down a notch" or wants to "lead from behind"?  How can the people be comfortable with representatives that were raised on an opposition ideology, who have fixated on what is wrong, not what is right with our system?  But most importantly how can those who ascribe to such beliefs reconcile the fact that their ideology is in many ways at odds with the responsibility of ruling?

A Message from Chaz

Charles Krauthammer sends a message of warning to the GOP to not take the debt limit fight to the cliff.  Arguing that Obama has politically "outmaneuvered" the Republicans, he believes that the GOP needs to forgo a large reform package in order to "call Obama's bluff".  Instead they should opt for a short-term package and then address the reform issues later, putting the burden of failure on the Democrats.

If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term, small-government, Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.

This seems to be sage advice.  As John Podhoretz reports at Commentary, a recent Quinnipiac poll suggests that if the US defaults on its debt, Republicans will be blamed by a margin of 48-34.  Republicans are right to be angry at the left's intransigence and unwillingness to seriously address our crumbling fiscal condition and are correct in the prescribed medicine of entitlement and tax reform.  Nevertheless, they must not lose perspective of the broader conflict.  It will be impossible to make the needed ideological shifts in our government, if the GOP cannot maintain a position of leadership.

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.