The Budget, Entitlements, and Government

In today's Washington Post, Robert Samuelson wrote a poignant editorial on the much needed buget cuts.  He argues that government benefits, once lavished upon the electorate, are largely (politically) unremovable, becoming in the eyes of the people "property rights."  Coupled with the desire to minimize taxes this creates an untenable budgetary mess.  Samuelson correctly argues that partisan interests - whether farm lobbies, the elderly, or others receiving undue government support - should recognize a moral need for change and put aside their self-interest for the national interest.  In other words, he calls for a rewriting of the social contract.

The thrust of the argument is on the areas of the welfare state (or benefit state to construct it more widely in order to include agricultural subsidies and the like) that need to be slashed; however, he does tepidly venture into the more philosophical realm of the role of the state when he discusses the defense budget.  Samuelson argues that cuts to defense should not be treated the same as cuts in other areas of the national budget because "[n]ational security is government's first job."  He, unfortunately, does not take this to the next level, namely by opening a discussion on what the proper role of government is.  Government's role within society has expanded enormously and if America is to not only solve its budgetary issues but also resolve the government's wayward drift, the people need to pin down what, philosophically speaking, the purpose of government is.

The Tea Party Enemy

In today's Washington Post, Richard Cohen analyzed the ephemeral nature of the Tea Party.  He correctly points that this leaderless movement is a major threat to Obama, but he stops just short of making the necessary conclusion.  With parallels being made to Afghanistan, Cohen writes, "Obama is stuck in the classic dilemma of asymmetrical warfare: Who and where is the enemy?"

Cohen leaves this question hanging, going on to discuss the desire for change and raw emotion that are prevalent in the movement, concluding that, as ANR has argued before, there is much room and need to channel this into productive forums.  However, the answer to this question - and what lies at the root of Obama's problems - is that this "enemy" is America.  Whether individuals are members of the Tea Party or avoid it (possibly due to its heightened emotion) there is large agreement, across America, that the administration is out of touch with the needs of the country.  Charlie Cook, cited in another Washington Post editorial, sums it up nicely. "[Some leaders] are told all their lives that they are the most brilliant people on the planet. They don't get less bright, but hubris kicks in. [Obama] just assumed that he was going to be a success, as he had always been in life."  Maybe Obama should stop fighting this specter of an enemy and listen to the desires of America.

D'Souza on Obama

Dinesh D'Souza wrote a very interesting article in today's Washington Post.  He agrues that Obama is a classical anti-colonist who gets his ideas directly from his father, a man who once called for complete socialism (and a 100% tax rate) in Kenya.  His argument, that Obama focuses not on poverty and equality but upon "the rich, whom he accuses of not paying their 'fair share,'" has a ring of truth to it.  Obama certainly spends a lot of time stoking the populist flame by portraying the "rich" and "Wall Street" as greedy.  D'Souza's article certainly raises a new and interesting argument regarding this side of the President.

The Conservative Purity Test

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank has performed yet another analysis of the so-called conservative purity test - the call by the supposedly "pure" members of the GOP to purge the RINOs.  Unsurprisingly, a high number of historical giants within the Republican Party failed to pass muster - including both Bob Dole and Gerald Ford.  Why is it that so many insist on purging the moderate and "liberal" Republicans from the ranks of the GOP?  Isn't the goal of a political party, particularly in a two-party system, to expand the tent to include as many allies as possible?  Even if one disagrees with a liberal Republican, it is likely that there is more ground for agreement with them than a Democrat.  Driving them from the party helps no one but the other side.  If the conservative members of the GOP really want a more pure (whatever that means) party, they're better off trying to convince these "tainted" Republicans of the rightness (pun intended) of the conservative viewpoint, thus keeping them in the fold.  After all, while ideology is important, in a democracy, numbers matter too.

Is Obama an Idealist?

What is Obama's foreign policy?  The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt asks this in a recent editorial.  As Hiatt points out, Obama has recently increased his pro-democracy rhetoric; however this stands in contrast to Obama's historical approach to foreign policy.  After an early start of kowtowing to foreign powers, a refusal to work with the revolutionary movement against the Iranian regime, and an increase in relations with tyrannical regimes, it is surprising to see democracy promotion coming from the White House.  It seems unlikely this is the result of a hidden idealism, particularly in light of Obama's (inept) realist approach.  Unfortunately, it is most likely nothing more than empty rhetoric - a bone tossed to the democracy promoters in his base.