ObamaCare vs. Conflict of Visions

Thomas Sowell's 1987 book, Conflict of Visions has a simple argument. All the political differences between conservatives and liberals come down to a different vision of human possibilities.

Conservatives believe in a "constrained" vision that humans are all about the same in ability, and that social systems and cultures evolve by millions of interactions between millions of people.

Liberals believe in an "unconstrained" vision that certain humans are more evolved than others. These evolved folks have the ability to teach the others how to advance to a higher plane and they have the ability to organize the future in specific political projects.

Like ObamaCare.

In Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America, authors Grace-Marie Turner, James Capretta, Thomas Miller and Robert Moffitt take the "constrained" vision of conservatives, that you cannot design a system of health care in a 2500 page law and expect it to work. Grace-Marie Turner:

The law claims that experts in Washington are going to figure out what is the right treatment, and what's going to be the protocols. Doctors are going to be judged based on how they follow those protocols whether or not it's the right thing for their patient.

The ObamaCare assumption is that you can design a protocol in Washington and apply it in a one-size-fits-all centralized mechanism to the whole country. Reality, says Turner is different.

We're moving toward ever more personlized care, where we can find out before somebody starts a round of chemotherapy, for example, whether or not that chemotherapy is going to work with them through genetic testing. That's where science is moving, to make sure that treatments are targeted toward what we can learn about that individual patient.

In other words, effective health care is care individualized for the individual patient in a collaborative process between doctor and patient.

This is the basic conflict between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives say that society, culture, and the economy are all discovery processes where people interact and discover through organic processes like the price system what works and what doesn't. Liberals believe that an avant garde of advanced experts and ethicists can design and implement a positive plan that can be administered by a central administrative structure.

Conservatives have said again and again that the market system has demonstrated that the liberal vision is just wrong. Whenever liberals have designed and implemented a rational top-down system, whether in Social Security, Medicare, public education, clean energy, or welfare, it always fails because the world is just too complex a place to be fitted into a one-size-fits-all plan.

Thus ObamaCare is a vast real-world test of the liberal vision, more ambitious and more risky that any previous of their national plans. We will see in the coming months and years whether the American people will put up with this top-down plan, and also whether it can work at all without utterly breaking up the health care system.

Dems Should Worry About President "Present"

This week the conservative herd all seems to be talking about President "Present." President Obama certainly does seem to be avoiding all the hard decisions, on Libya and everything else while he tosses teeny little chicken bones to his liberal base, as Kimberly Strassel writes: "A quip here about the Wisconsin labor dispute, a gun-control op-ed there. A promise to quit defending the Defense Against Marriage Act."

Yes. But. Shoring up his popularity rating isn't going to cut it for 2012. The president is that he needs to make decisions yesterday on the economy and the budget so that the economy will be in good shape by summer 2012. My guess is that by the summer of 2012 we will see nasty inflation in the 7 percent range, still high unemployment in the 8.5 percent range, increasing interest rates as the Fed starts to panic about inflation. The MSM will do their best to protect the president but I suspect that the American people won't be interested.

The chickens are all coming home to roost on our liberal friends, but they are huffing and puffing like southerners in the 1850s.

Back then, the South became more and more truculent as the political tide turned against it. Hey, they said, slavery is a great idea: let's push it out west! (As in: hey, labor unions made the middle class by championing pensions and health care benefits) Hey, they said, the North will never go to war over secession, because the Northerners were wimps that don't understand war. (As in: Harry Reid saying that the Tea Party will fade away).

The truculence of our liberal friends is breathtaking. But maybe it's already too late. It is now pretty obvious that President Obama should have reversed course on his economic policy, by cutting spending, boosting the economy with tax rate cuts, and cutting the deficit with a quick economic recovery. His actual policy was to let Congress throw money at liberal constituencies in a trillion dollar orgy--understandable after 20 years of Puritanical Republican restraint. Except of course that, in the years of so-called Republican restraint, liberal government workers were all partying with big pay increases and big health care and pension subsidies. Liberals seem to have no idea about what is coming.

My guess is that when the crash comes and the Feds have to cut something like $500 billion a year, the biggest cut will come out of Medicare/Medicaid. Why? Because that's the place where you can do smoke and mirrors. Social Security is a pretty clear-cut program. You get a check every month. You can tell if it gets cut. But with Medicare you can get up to all kinds of mischief by changing the rules on the health care industry and then blaming the doctors and hospitals when the system starts to crack. It's like attacking the oil companies for price gouging when the government's inflation policy starts to bite.

But Medicare cuts won't be enough. That means that liberal government workers are either going to have to take big benefit cuts or big layoffs. All the truculence of the liberal base cannot get around the fact that, when the government starts getting into difficulty selling its debt and paying the interest, the government is going to have to cut programs and cut government employment.

Of course, my theory is that President Bush deliberately staged the financial meltdown to sucker the Democrats into a big debt-ballooning stimulus that would eventually eat the liberals' lunch. Call me a conspiracy theorist!

No kidding! Here's a nickel that says that some headline liberal pundit will push the Bush-Did-It meme out there as President Obama sinks out of sight in the polls in September and October 2012.

Springtime for Freeloaders

The big problem for humans, indeed all social animals, is freeloading. Whenever you have a society, there is always a temptation for the individual to lie, cheat, or steal. It's the nature of society that the benefits are spread widely and can be enjoyed by all, even those that don't contribute much, or perhaps, anything.

In the society of the great apes, the freeloading problem is solved by the dictatorship of the alpha males. But ancient human society in the hunter-gatherer groups, evolved, we believe, from the great apes, was egalitarian. So how did the hunter gatherers deal with the free-rider problem? The answer is: religion. Instead of a real life alpha male forcing the freeloaders up to the mark, they discovered that the gods were willing to do this job, thus avoiding the need for overbearing alpha males. And, as a special bonus, even if the gods didn't get around to punishing evildoers in this life, they would punish them in the next one.

Every society must deal with freeloaders; the question is how? Clearly, there is a spectrum of response, from a pure this-worldly alpha male model to a pure other-worldly alpha male model.

In our society we seemed to have developed a different approach, and I suspect that it is a consequence of the rise of capitalism.

Capitalism relies upon a network of trust. Capitalist actors, consumers, producers, and middle-men, build up long-term relationships of trust, backed up by a legal system that deals with the egregious defaulters. Science backs up this model with the Prisoners Dilemma concept, where it turns out that the best strategy is to trust people that act in a trustworthy manner towards you, and have nothing to do with people who demonstrate untrustworthiness.

But there has been, since the beginnning of capitalism, an opposing meme, that the capitalist trust network is fundamentally unjust because it creates unequal results. Hard workers, or just lucky workers, make more, and unlucky or less endowed workers make less. This offends the hunter gatherer instinct for equality.

There is a double catch here. On the one hand, some capitalists succeed not by hard work, but by luck. On the other hand, some unlucky workers are not just unlucky, but freeloaders taking advantage of the successful work of others.

In the 19th century, in a spontaneous process, people developed new social structures to ameliorate the luck quotient by developing labor unions and fraternal associations. These social institutions extended the solidarity among blood brothers outwards to non-related people who declared themselves the moral equivalent of brothers. Thus unlucky people could be assisted by their union or Masonic brothers, and nascent freeloaders encouraged to mend their ways, or get expelled from the brotherhood.

We threw the fraternal model away in the early 20th century and replaced it with the welfare state.

But the welfare state is a full-on encouragement to freeloaders. It tells members of society that if they are victims, they deserve help; that is their right. There is no mechanism to encourage social behavior. If you qualify for help, you get help. Obviously there is no limit to this sort of thing. It encourages everyone to discover a "right" and to demand support from the rest of society because of some disability.

We can see, from the recent Wisconsin events, that it is very difficult to tell the benefit recipients that the money is gone. Typically they react with rage. Freeloaders, like most evildoers, are not like Shakespeare's Iago, who delights in his villainy. They justify their evildoing with lies and self-deceit. They persuade themselves that they deserve what they steal; they have a right to it.

But obviously, the Springtime for Freeloaders is coming to an end, the welfare state is running out of money.

The question for reformers, working to restore a society of trust out of the debris of the age of freeloading, is how to proceed? Hawks like radio host Hugh Hewitt are pushing Republicans in Congress to press the pedal to the metal, and set up a showdown with Democrats, replicating the actions of Gov. Scott Walker (R) in Wisconsin.

But I wonder. I think that the freeloaders are going to have to see the bottomless pit opening up under them before they will be willing to give up their "rights," and I don't think we have reached that point. I don't think the average benefit recipient has a clue how close we are to a real financial meltdown.

Against that is the call of conscience, the need to be right with the divine judge. It is all very well to plan strategy and put your opponent in an impossible position. But against that is the moral imperative, to do the right thing.

And the right thing is to repair the government finances, no matter who it benefits today, or who it benefits tomorrow.

Because in the end we all must stand before the divine judge.

Culture Power and Government Power

What happened to the marriage between parents and teachers, wonders Bill Murchison? Used to be that parents backed up teachers and teachers backed up parents so that "Johnny would read. Susie would con her multiplication tables. Because the middle class expected no less." What went wrong?

Well, writes Murchison, "the compact came apart when the kids themselves took as role models all the fun-loving, war-protesting, authority dissing "campus activists," as the papers called them." Then the idea got about that "Wasn't every little kiddie a potential genius best left to himself?"

Indeed it did. I will have something to say about that. But first this from libertarian John Stossel. He's boosting a speech by black conservative John McWhorter. McWhorter wants to end the drug war because it is tempting too many young black males into the drugs business. "The attractive illegal livelihood relieves men of the need to develop skills that would provide stable legal incomes." Then they get caught and put in jail and another generation of black kids grows up without fathers.

In both of these cases, the writers are expecting government to do a job that government cannot do. Government education cannot make little Johnny read. Government drug prohibition cannot force young black kids into the drug trade. Let's illustrate this with the example of the Irish.

Back in the 1830s the big problem was the shanty Irish. They were poor, they were backward, they were criminal, and they were Catholic so the elite of the time decided that the government "common school" would be just the thing to reduce crime and cure the Irish of their Catholicism. But the whole thing was a failure. First of all, there was a massive crime explosion in the 1840s just as the government schools expansion was getting under way. Secondly, the Irish violently opposed the idea that their children should go to government schools and read the Protestant Bible. So, under leaders like John "Dagger" Hughes, the Irish built their own schools, the famed parochial school system that still notably outperforms the government schools. In planning and implementing this great project the Irish came into the mainstream of American society--by teaching the Protestant elite a lesson.

Today, of course, the government school system is in a terrible mess. It no longer seems to be able to teach little Johnny to read, as functional illiteracy in adults is at least 15 percent. What happened to the consensus on education?

How about this? Today, the educated class that drives the school agenda is no longer interested in literacy and numeracy. That is the agenda of a rising middle class. But a risen middle class takes literacy and numeracy for granted. It is interested in the uses of literacy and numeracy--in a word, creativity.

But wait! What happens to the folks like the underclass black kids whose parents still lack functional literacy? Well, there's always drug dealing.

My point is this. There is no magic government bullet that is going to solve the problems of the black community. It is the black community that has to solve its own problems. Back in the 19th century the elite didn't give a damn about the Irish. The Irish had to pull themselves up and define what it meant to be an Irish American--in defiance of elite culture and opinion.

The problem for blacks today is that they have a protector, the liberal educated class that uses blacks as political pawns to maintain liberal political power. Sheltering in the political power of the liberals blacks have been diverted from the tough, character building work of defining themselves in defiance of the current elite. That means creating an education for their kids in spite of the government, and protecting the black family in spite of the government's war on drugs.

But I am an optimist. I'll bet a nickel that even as we sit here wringing our hands about the broken education system and the broken black family the solutions are already forming and developing under the radar. Because the American Dream beats in the heart of everyone, from parents frustrated with the government education system to blacks frustrated with the government's war on drugs.

The first step is to take the Reagan pledge. "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." But you knew that.

Sowell on "Blacks and Republicans"

Thomas Sowell, the noted black conservative economist, periodically urges Republicans to get out and fight for black votes. This week he did it again.

As an economist, he points out how liberal economics hurts black people, for instance:

• Restrictive zoning. You rarely see a black person on the San Francisco peninsular. That's because of environmental politics and land-use restrictions over the past generation.
  

  But the building restrictions-- and outright bans-- resulting from the political crusades of environmentalist zealots sent housing prices skyrocketing in San Francisco, San Jose and most of the communities in between.

• Minimum wage laws lead to high unemployment among black youths. That comes from liberal politicians, and it hurts blacks.
• Job protections for union teachers hurts education. That's a big deal for blacks whose best route for advancement begins with education.

If Republicans won't talk about these issues with blacks, says Sowell, they are throwing away an opportunity to earn their votes.

But I think that economist Sowell is missing the point. People don't switch to the conservative side on these issues until they have succeeded as middle-class people and realize that the middle-class proposition--that you get an education, develop your skills, and then offer yourself to the labor market--really works.

The fact is that modern economics is not common-sense economics, any more than modern mechanics is common-sense.

Common sense tells you that you can't make anything move unless you push it. If you stop pushing, it will stop. Modern mechanics says that things move at a constant speed unless pushed. Really? Common sense says you gotta be kidding.

Same thing with economics. Common sense tells you that the rich landlord can jack up rent any time he wants to screw the poor people. Common sense tells you that the employer can lower wages as low as he wants when he wants to screw the poor people. Common sense tells you that you've got to hang on to those teacher jobs come what may because, after all, that's where the paychecks come from.

Low income people, of any race, believe that the economy is a dog-eat-dog world in which the poor go to the wall unless protected by a powerful patron. That's why they vote for liberals. Liberals say, again and again, that they fight for the poor people and for blacks and minorities. Liberals support benefits for blacks and poor people. It doesn't matter that liberal economic policies prevent blacks from getting into the middle class. What matters to the average low-income voter is that liberals siphon some of the money of the rich into their pockets. Obviously, there is no way that conservatives can compete when it comes to benefits for poor people.

The right thing for conservatives to do is to champion modern economics over feudal liberal economics, just as scientists champion modern mechanics over common-sense mechanics. Every time a black indicates an interest in conservative ideas we should jump and push out the welcome wagon.

Years ago, liberals kept the average white working stiff in the New Deal coalition by frightening the heck out of him. Today, liberals keep the average black in the Democratic column by playing the race card. But there came a day when the average white working stiff had a house and a car and a kid in college, and he found himself voting for Ronald Reagan and repudiating the useless Jimmy Carter. The day will come when the average black voter does the same thing. That day is sooner than you think.

"The MSM is Silent"

The 2008 presidential election was a remarkable experience for conservatives. The mainstream media, in an unprecedented way, went into the tank for Candidate Obama. Not one discouraging word was allowed to disturb the narrative of a moderate post-partisan healer who was a test of America's readiness to elect its first black president.

Now, as Hugh Hewitt writes, the MSM is covering for President Obama's weaknesses and mistakes.

The president preaches fiscal restraint but advanced a reckless budget and refuses to suggest any entitlement reform. The MSM is silent.

The president imposed Obamacare on an unwilling country and then issues more than a thousand waivers to the friends of Obama and the politically connected. The MSM is silent.

And now with gas prices soaring and an angry population turning their political fury on the president, he runs from the responsibility which is surely his and claims childlike wonder at the idea that his no-growth/no-oil policies are to blame. And the MSM is silent.

Personally, I believe that the mainstream media is making a grand-strategic mistake on this. I think that the MSM needs to maintain its image as non-partisan, while bowing to the liberal line on occasion. In 2012, with a substantial army of moderates upset and reacting against the Obama first term, there is going to be a stunning opportunity to ramp up the ratings if you are pushing a center-right agenda. There is just going to be a huge demand for media that is sharply critical of the president.

The big thing in politics is that ordinary people need to feel that someone in power hears their concerns. People don't expect miracles from the political system. But they do want to feel that someone is willing to listen.

The way things are shaping up it looks as if moderate voters will be looking for media that reflects their concerns, and they won't find it from "the MSM is silent" media that is protecting President Obama from criticism. Willy nilly, they'll be finding their way to FoxNews and the various other center-right media.

By the winter of 2013 we could be talking about another step-change in news viewership, as frustrated citizens turned in 2012 from an "MSM is silent" media to a media that, while it may not be perfect, at least seems to be listening.

Social Security Isn't the Problem

Columnist Charles Krauthammer makes an impassioned case against President Obama's cavalier attitude to Social Security.

The new line from the White House is: no need to fix it because there is no problem. As Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.

Well, yes. As Dr. Krauthammer tells us, there is no "trust fund." There are IOUs, special Treasury Bonds that pay interest to Social Security. To pay Social Security benefits in the future from the bonds in the "trust fund" the federal government will have to raise taxes or reduce spending in the future.

But the president is right. Social Security isn't the problem. Medicare and Medicaid are the problem. You can see that in the Congressional Budget Office's Long Term Outlook.

If you click the image you can get to the numbers. Social Security right now costs 4.9 percent of GDP. It will rise gradually to 6 percent of GDP in 2050. But Medicare and Medicaid are a horse of a different color. Right now they are 5.6 percent of GDP. No problem there. But they will rocket to 12.3 percent of GDP by 2050 and go up from there. There's no mystery about that. Medicare and Medicaid provide subsidies for health care. If you subsidize something you will get a bigger demand for it.

Of course, it would be nice to reduce Social Security and turn it into a genuine savings program. That would be doing the younger generation a favor, because it would mean that the older generation was actually saving money for retirement, creating the capital for the jobs for the young people. But it isn't the real problem. Government health care is the real problem.

No doubt that is why President Obama is making the government health care problem worse with ObamaCare. After all, what does he care? In either two years or six years he'll be a former president, with the privileges and perquisites of that office.