Telegraphing a Wipeout

The Democrats have taken to blaming the voters in recent days. Vice-President Joe Biden has even blamed the Democratic base and told it to buck up and stop whining.

Folks like John Podhoretz are telling the Democrats that this is very bad tactics, even though Joe Biden is right.

So what if President Obama has delivered just about all that his progressive base could expect, given that there is such a thing as a moderate Democrat in the land? The base wants more.

The big problem for Democrats this year is that politics runs on rage. You get your best turnout when you are out of power and you are telling your supporters that the current incumbents are crooks, liars, and tyrants. But once you get into power, the motivation of your supporters becomes a much more difficult matter.

In 2002 and 2004 the Bush team performed miracles of voter mobilization, staying in power under difficult circumstances. But by 2006 the base was exhausted, and the Democrats motivated moderate voters to cast their votes against the tired, corrupt Republicans.

Mind you, it takes a special talent to turn your base into discouraged complainers in a mere two years.

But forget all the talk about stupid Democrats bad-mouthing their supporters. What the top Democrats are really telegraphing is that the battle is over for 2010. They have lost and they know it.

But it is kind of mean-spirited to start blaming their supporters for lack of energy. Let's face it, when you know that the battle is lost, it becomes very hard to get up the energy to keep on fighting. Nobody wants to be the last guy to die for a losing cause.

After a losing battle the generals generally get to fly away in their helicopters. The grunt on the ground may well lose his life in the agony of defeat.

Our Subversive Individualism

I'm reading Francis Fukuyama's Trust, and there's a fabulous chapter where he compares the individualism of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism with the east Asian Confucian tradition.

Confucianism puts a big weight on conforming to society, particularly to the elders in the family.

But US Protestantism is radically individualistic. It began by cutting out the mediating position of the Catholic Church; now believers could have a direct relationship with God with no human gatekeepers in between.

In the long run, the individual's ability to have a direct relationship with God had extremely subversive consequences for all social relationships, becaue it gave individuals a moral ground to rebel against even the most broadly established traditions and social conventions.

Yet, Americans, freed from conformity, actively seek out voluntary relations in our famous aptitude for voluntary associations. So, in a way, by freeing us from the age-old obligations of being born into an existing social world, our individualism frees us to be freely social.

Here's an example of this working out in practice, with the American Thinker's recovering liberal, Robin of Berkeley. She notes how she has always been a perfectionist, ever since her mother threatened to withhold her love.

This is my first childhood memory, a hazy image seared into my brain: I am in my bedroom at around age 5 with my mother, having just done something naughty. My mother explodes, "If you keep doing things like that, I won't love you anymore."

Night after night, I cried myself to sleep, overwhelmed with despair at this potential tragedy. It didn't seem humanly possible to survive without her love.

Robin solved the fear of being cast out into loveless isolation by becoming a perfectionist. "I became an anxious adult, a pleaser, someone who bent over backwards not to offend." It meant, of course, that to make a mistake was always an appalling trauma.

Until now, until the scales fell off her eyes when Obama became president.

Recently, Robin made a mistake in one of her articles. But it wasn't a matter of life and death any more. Now she could ask God for forgiveness.

I realized this: it doesn't matter ultimately what any person thinks of me. I am living my life before an audience of One. And in the end, it is only His judgment that matters.

It is a profound mystery that, in her life as a liberal, Robin of Berkeley was imprisoned in a cruel world where there was no redemption except through liberalism. But the liberal priests never quite offer their congregants absolution and redemption. Certainly not Obama.

The extraordinary power of Protestant individualism is that, by loosening the age-old bonds of social conformity, it liberates us from our personal demons and empowers us, most of all in these United States, to open our hearts and enter into voluntary friendly social association with the whole world.

What a country.

"Pledge" a Start or a Cop-out?

What are we to make of the House Republicans' "Pledge to America?"

Veteran pundit Michael Barone is mildly complimentary. He writes that the Pledge has two pretty serious proposals, to roll back discretionary spending to 2008 levels, and repeal ObamaCare.

But Andrew McCarthy thinks it's a cop-out. "It's big wind, little rain," he complains.

Listen, retorts Jonah Goldberg, it's just an opening bid.

Hey, fellahs, this is politics. You do things a step at a time. The Republicans cannot tell the American people that we'd like to rip the welfare state out by the roots, even if we do eventually want just that. It would just scare the pants off them.

Sure, we believe that the liberal culture of compulsion should be repealed, and that the natural sociability of the American people should replace the force and injustice of the liberal administrative state.

But here's the big difference between conservatives and liberals. We want to persuade the American people, step by step, that a voluntary, sociable society is better than a compulsory centralized state.

Our liberal friends, as they have just demonstrated with ObamaCare, don't believe in stuff like that. They believe that the way you get social change is to hustle the American people into a vast expansion of government and create new special interests to defend the new order so that, when the American people find out what ObamaCare will cost them, it will be too late because the special interests will take out any politician that dares to cross them.

It's important to understand the difference. Social democracy is the triumph of the compulsory and the powerful expert. Then there is middle-class democracy. For middle-class democracy, the process is the point, not the destination.

Can we reform the welfare state? Will the American people ever agree to give up their entitlement benefits in return for freedom and voluntary, shared provision of necessary social goods like education, health care, and relief of the poor? Nobody knows. But the American people certainly don't like the idea of the sudden, overwhelming increase in government power and spending under the Obama administration.

And that's a start.

They Just Don't Get It

As liberals survey the wreckage of the car they drove into the ditch, they ask themselves: how did it happen?

It feels like one moment they were accelerating rapidly into the fast lane, and the next moment they were in the ditch.

But there is a glimmer of understanding over at The Atlantic. Joshua Green rewinds to the successful effort of Sen. Schumer to elect Democrats to the Senate in 2006 and 2008.

Democrats have always claimed to be the party of ordinary working families, but Schumer thought they were deluding themselves. Most Democratic policies, such as the earned income tax credit or increasing the minimum wage, were geared not toward the middle class but the poor. When middle-class Americans heard Democrats describe their problems, it did not resonate because they were actually the problems of the working poor. Schumer believed that the true middle class comprises people in the prime working years of 25 to 60, whose median household income is around $68,000. He urged his candidates to tout aspirational policies that would appeal to them.

So Schumer concentrated like a laser on appealing to the middle class with candidates that ran on aspirational themes in their campaigns. But now it's all in the toilet. How could that be?

Democrats did health care. And they fixed the financial system, which will help middle class 401(k)s.

Pursuing a different agenda might have been more popular. But the real frustration for the White House is that each of these policies does benefit the middle class, but the benefits tend to take the form of increased security or cost savings difficult for most people to quantify. Over time, health insurance will be more comprehensive, secure, and affordable; Wall Street meltdowns won’t occur as often, and when they do occur they’ll cost taxpayers less. Clearly, these advances have not registered, or have not been sufficient.

What planet are you on chaps? The fact is that Obamacare is going to hurt most Americans, now and forever, and only help wasters that ought to have health care, but are skating, for now. The bank bailout was necessary, but the middle class rightly feels that it should never have been necessary. The bailout was government cleaning up the mess it made of the credit system, not government cleaning up after a natural disaster.

Get real Democrats, and stop deluding yourselves. You had the sense to know that you had lost your appeal to the aspirational middle class. What you didn't have the sense to do is dump your policies that screw the aspirational middle class. Obamacare, stimulus, auto bailouts, cap-and-trade: these are all policies aimed at the Democratic base, from union stalwarts to the benefit recipients, to the government employees to the gentry liberals. There is nothing in the Obama record that benefits the aspirational middle class.

If Democrats really wanted to appeal to the aspirational middle class they would have ditched the entire agenda and implemented a program of spending cuts, to release resources for new businesses that could hire the aspirational middle class.

But they didn't do that, and now they are going to pay. The only question remaining is the price: will it be a modest 40 seats in the House, or a massive 80 seats? Will it be 6 seats in the Senate or a massive 10 seats?

We will know in about a month.

Gov. Default: Not When But How

We peasants have the wrong idea about government default. It doesn't necessarily mean that the government flat out defaults on its debt. Most governments are smarter than that. Nor does default necessarily mean hyperinflation. Most governments aren't Weimar Germany or modern Zimbabwe.

The best way to think about default is this. Governments make promises all the time; politicians make promises to get elected. But once elected politicians must choose which promises to keep. The result is that governments default on their promises all the time. But this time is different. This time it is going to be worse. Here how Arnuad Mares puts the argument:

In other words, some or all of its stakeholders must suffer a loss: either taxpayers (through a higher tax burden), or beneficiaries of public services (through lower expenditure) or bond holders (through some form of default).

When you put the argument like that, you realize that governments are defaulting on promises all the time. Usually, they default on taxpayers. Sometimes they default on the voters that get government benefits. Occasionally they screw the bondholders. And they are doing stuff like that all the time. You think that they never default on the bondholders in advanced countries like the US? Think again.

Examples include: the revocation of gold clauses in bond contracts by the Roosevelt administration in 1934; the experience by then Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Dalton of issuing perpetual debt at an artificially low yield of 2.5% in the UK in 1946-47; and post-war inflationary episodes, notably in France (post both world wars), in the UK and in the US (post World War II).

The basic skill of politics is to default in the least damaging way--for the ruling class, of course. Today's situation is interesting because the government is clearly coming up against the limits of taxation. Meanwhile they are trying stealth default on Medicare promises through the reduction in Medicare Advantage benefits. And they are inflating the dollar, which screws the bondholders.

The question is: what's an asset holder to do? Dodge the IRS? Don't get completely dependent on government benefits? Keep out of dollar-denominated assets?

The problem with a defensive strategy like that is that in the long run we are all dead. You could reduce your tax exposure, but that takes money in lawyers and tax accountants. You could stay robustly independent, but why pass up the free money? You could stay out of bonds and bank accounts, but that means getting into riskier equities and "real values."

Most likely, the government will squeeze through with some tax increases, some spending cuts, and some inflation.

But with the highly competent Obama administration, you never know.

A Separation between Economy and State

Everyone seems to agree that the separation between church and state is a good thing. You don't want ministers legislating morality, and you don't want a "theocracy." When the political and the religious collapses into one, especially in the modern era of secular religions, you get tyranny and terror.

But what about separating economy and state? For some reason there is a lot less enthusiasm for that.

But why? The record on government meddling in the economy is dismal. Since time immemorial governments have abused their power to regulate currency, visiting untold miseries on their people. And governments have often thought that they had a much better idea of how to run a business than the business owners themselves. Has there ever been a case when a government has actually picked a winner?

At the US founding, people were divided about whether to encourage an agricultural economy or a manufacturing economy, the famous divide between Jefferson the landowner, and Hamilton the businessman, lawyer, administrator, and central banker. In the event their posturing was meaningless. The economy flowed and swelled into thousands of channels, more or less ignoring the government when it could. The federal government did have a lot of influence, of course, mainly by screwing up the credit system again and again.

Of course, nobody is suggesting that the economy should be completely separate from government. Business needs settled and predictable law about thousands of things, and it needs government force, on occasion, to enforce contracts that have gone bad, and wind up the affairs of bankrupts.

We stand at a moment that is particulary propitious for a change in the relationship between the economy and the state. We have had a particularly nasty banking and credit crisis mostly caused by government meddling in the market for housing credit. Government has encouraged, over the last century, reckless lending and borrowing for home mortgages. That is to say, the government has encouraged homeowners to get mortgages loans very close to the value of their homes. As we have seen, that sort of thing creates a systemic risk. When millions of homeowners can't pay their mortgages and/or have mortgages underwater, it raises questions about the solvency of major financial institutions, from banks to government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie and Freddie.

There are, obviously, bound to be occasions when the financial system will fail. I am thinking of nuclear war devastation and an asteroid collision. But it is unacceptable to have a financial system that fails in peacetime. When that happens there is only one answer. The system was set up to fail.

We know why the system failed. It was corrupted and weakened by a thousand different government interventions where the government warped the economic system to achieve political ends, and reserved the power to intervene in routine economic relationships for political gain.

Of course, businesses play their part in this racket. They importune for subsidies and privileges on the grounds of national defense or energy security, or local economic benefit. Usually, they are merely trying to raise the bar against new entrants into their business.

Obviously we can't change everything overnight. The government has got into the micro-management of business over decades, and a reckless change would be foolish. But here are some principles that could guide us in separating the economy from the state.

1. Privatize the credit system. The government has utterly failed to manage the monetary and credit system safely. In fact it has used it, again and again, for political gain.
2. More equity, less debt. Two hundred years ago we needed banks because there wasn't a big market in debt and equity securities. Today equity is easy, and it could be cheap.
3. No government businesses. They are inefficient and they compete unfairly.
4. No administrative regulation. In the recent meltdown the SEC failed, the Fed failed, the regulators of Fannie and Freddie failed. So what's the point?
5. No more subsidies. Subsidies just encourage corruption, and waste resources.

Well, that's a start. The fact is that government is terrible at supervising business, and business ought to keep its hands out of bribing politicians. If they can do that, then we will all benefit, for it is the wealth created by business that provides revenue for government and it is the regime of peace provided by government and the performance of promises supported by law that allows business to thrive.

Surely that's something we can all agree on.

America's Unchanging Two Party System

According to the political scientists, the United States has enjoyed five party systems, ending up in today's Republican/Democratic Party division.

But really, it's always been the same.

There has always been a middle-class commercial party and there has always been a populist power-to-the-people party.

The Federalist/Whig/Republican Party has always believed in an America where if you study hard and work hard you can make a decent standard of living for yourself.

The Anti-federalist/Democratic-Republican/Democratic Party has always believed that you need a politician to fight for the people against the powerful.

For the rich and powerful, there has always been a temptation to lead the populist party. Thus Thomas Jefferson, slave-owning landowner, affected a man-of-the-people image when he arrived in Washington DC to become president in 1801. Ditto Franklin Delano Roosevelt, scion of Dutch padroons. Ditto the Kennedy clan, rich kids of a successful Wall Street speculator.

When they first emerged onto the political stage the Progressive movement of educated youth ran against the powerful city machines and their patronage politics. It was the genius of the liberals of the 1930s to convert the elite Progressivism of the turn of the 20th century into a vanguard cadre to lead the down-scale big city machines and give their crude patronage/clientage politics a patina of good government.

President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress have scorched off that patina in an acid bath, and the great middle class in America now sees the Democratic Party as an unalloyed patronage party, to which you belong if you think that the only way to get ahead is as the rank-and-file in some political army.

The defeat of Mayor Fenty last week is a sign that maybe the white gentry liberals, the heirs of the elite Progressives of 100 years ago, are reaching their limit in the patronage/entitlement/identity/jobs-for-the-boys politics of today's Democratic Party.

The Tea Party, on the other hand, is a pure expression of middle-class commerical politics. Worried about debt and ruinous spending, it is forcing the Republican Party away from a mushy capitulation to patronage politics and back to his origin, the robust politics of the commercial industrial state conceived by Mr. Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, in the early 1790s.

How will it all turn out? My judgement is that the key to the future is middle class women. The feminist movement turned women to the left, and got them to believe in patronage politics for a while. But I think that middle-class women are not voting their interest when they vote for patronage, identity, feminist politics. Women stand or fall by the families they build and the children they raise to adulthood. Welfare state patronage politics plays merry hell with all that, and women are not stupid. They are trusting, and they believed the feminists when they told them that they needed to stand for women's rights. But women are not stupid. They know what their children need in a global competitive economy, and it is not the patronage politics of the Democratic Party.

All this is to say that the two party system lives and you ain't seen nothing yet!