Dems to Retake House in 2014?

When I first read a piece connecting President Obama's take-no-prisoners tactics with Nancy Pelosi's plan to retake the House in 2014 I did a double-take.



Taking back the House in the sixth-year of a presidential term?  Are they serious?  But maybe what they are saying between the lines is that they are going to pull out all the stops to limit the damage.



Now there's a lefty report from Mother Jones on the fabuloso meeting of all the progressive groups to work out a "massive new liberal plan to remake American politics."



What might that be?  Well, it's nothing more than a three-part program to push Democratic advantages at the polls:

1. getting big money out of politics, 


2. expanding the voting rolls while fighting voter ID laws, 


3. rewriting Senate rules to curb the use of the filibuster to block legislation.

Oh.  Is that all?

What is really interesting in the article by Andy Kroll--all these lefties seem to write under nicknames--is the absurdity of their demonization of Big Oil and the Koch brothers.  Really.  Here we have all the progressive institutions, "labor officials, environmentalists, civil rights activists, immigration reformers, and a panoply of other progressive leaders" all planning a campaign in a "the kind of meeting that conspiratorial conservative bloggers dream about."  Ya think?

We are talking about this sort of thing:

"It was so exciting," says Michael Brune, the Sierra Club's executive director. "We weren't just wringing our hands about the Koch brothers. We were saying, 'I'll put in this amount of dollars and this many organizers.'"

Really.  And just what have the Koch brothers with their millions achieved recently against the Sierra Club and its billions?  And this:

 Greenpeace's Phil Radford notes that for decades conservatives have aimed to shrink local, state, and federal governments [in a] "a 40-plus-year strategy by the Scaifes, Exxons, Coors, and Kochs of the world…to take over the country."

There is a profound misunderstanding of what conservatism is all about in remarks like that, particularly where Exxon is concerned.  Exxon, dear liberal friends, is just a big corporation that knows it must pay protection money to keep the feds off its back.



But of course, that's what the left is all about.  It believes in a profound division between supposed "haves" and "have-nots" epitomized by "capitalists" that represent the modern incarnation of the feudal lords of the feudal era.



I realized, while writing a chapter in "An American Manifesto" a week or so ago that this is a complete fantasy.  It is just not true that capitalists sit astride modern society like feudal lords.  Capitalists are not and never have been a ruling class, except in the thousand years of the Serene Republic of Venice.



Oh, and by the way, the ruling merchant aristocracy in Venice was a pretty good governing elite.  You could check it out.



Today's ruling class is the ruling class of the educated elite.  Ours is an aristocracy of politicians and publicists, not a plutocracy of businessmen.



But the idea that businessmen rule the world is essential to the rule of the educated elite.  That is why The Communist Manifesto remains modern and vital.  Its message is the means by which the modern ruling class divides employers from employees.  And politics, let us never forget, is division.



That is why the progressives descant endlessly on "the Scaifes, Exxons, Coors, and Kochs of the world."  Their rule depends on workers mistrusting their employers.



I am reading right now the Hardt and Negri Commonwealth.  Today, the Marxists want their revolution to transcend both the capitalists and the welfare state, because they see a life in common among the multitude of "biopolitical production" meaning the modern creative economy in cities of individuals creating a spontaneous combustion of creative work and "affect."  These people will not submit to the control of the capitalists, that only slow them down, or the state either.



The trouble is that the common man has never been either a helpless proletarian or a creative singularity in the multitude of various lefty narratives.  Most people are social animals that go along to get along in the society and the economy of the day.  They work for employers because it is easier than working for themselves.  They take a fixed wage instead of the uncertainty of the market and its risks: what's not to like?  They resent the income and the power of their employer, well, just because.  Some people are creative; some people want to build a business.  But most people just want to fit in and stay out of trouble.



The saving grace, for conservatives, is that each progressive lurch ends in disillusion as the folks inspired by the New Deal or the New Frontier or the First Black President eventually realize that the incandescent hope of the great political hero isn't really going to make a difference in their lives.



In the rhythm of American politics that disillusion seems to set in about the sixth year of a presidential term.  The only exception seem to be when the disillusion sets in in the first presidential midterm.  And the rule seems to work whatever cunning plan the president's partisans may have to persuade themselves that this time is different.

The Second Amendment March on Washington

Obviously it will be a while before Republicans get a chance to enact good conservative legislation for America.  Even if they wanted to.  It is clear with his appointments that President Obama is going flat out to enact the most liberal agenda he can before time runs out.



Although I wonder about the idea that the Dems can retake the House in 2014.  Do they really think that or is it just bluster?



Meanwhile here is something we can do.  We can march on Washington to celebrate the Second Amendment.  Based on news reports that Americans are descending on gun shops in their tens of thousands and buying all the guns available, you have to think there is gold in them thar hills.



But I don't think we should have just the regular "march" where people gather on the Mall to hear speeches.  That is so lefty.



What I have in mind is a real march.  Men (and women) marching in companies.  In step.  Maybe they should be singing the "Song of Angry Men" from Les Mis.  They should be marching in companies because the company of 150 men is the natural size of a face-to-face body of men.



And there should be flags.  Usually your average regiment will have two flags, so I suggest a US flag and a "2" flag.  You know what the "2" is for.



Now I don't know Washington DC so I don't know how you'd do this march.  But I see the companies marching past a viewing stand somewhere on the Mall, at which huge articulated puppets, as in War Horse, representing the three great presidents, would review the marchers.



I see the three puppets representing Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan.



When the marchers pass the reviewing stand they would recite, from memory, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Then the marchers would head home.



I think a march like this would be a good morale booster for all conservative Americans.



And it would utterly flummox our liberal friends. 

Lose the "Low-information Voter" Sneer

Everyone on the right is sneering about the "low-information voter."  Even the sainted El Rushbo has succumbed.



I say: Let's lose this loser excuse, and for a simple reason.  We are all low information voters.



If we are liberals we get our information from NPR and the New York Times.  Now there's a reliable way to get information!



If we are conservatives we get our information from FoxNews and a host of online rants.



If we are ordinary Americans that don't gorge on political propaganda every day then we get our information from the local TV news, from reality TV, and from Hollywood.



So who's the low-information voter?



Let us recall tha the late great election was decided on about one and a half issues, as all elections are decided.  What were the issues?  The rich should pay a little more: funny how the president forgot to mention that FICA taxes would be going up on the 99%.  Jobs: but maybe the American people reckon that those government benefits are a better deal, for now.



Given the choices, who is to say that the low-information voter is wrong?



The fact is that the government runs about 20,000 programs and just about every one of them stink.  But what voter has the time and inclination to study up on even 100 of them?



That's one reason conservatives call for limited government.  There is no way that voters can pass judgment on a government of 20,000 programs.



Let us forget the "low-information voter" whine and get back to work.  Work means persuading the folks in the middle that we are the good guys, we are the ones that care about them, we are the ones that care about families, and we are the guys that have a plan.



And, of course, it won't hurt that in 2016 the Dems will be running a white guy and the race card will be worth a lot less.  So the Mitt Romney of 2016 will be able to continue his negative ads into the general election and do the character assassination that he couldn't do on Barack Obama.



Here's more.  It won't hurt in 2014 and 2016 that Republicans and conservatives can start bellowing about a "lost decade" and blaming Barack Obama for everything.  That is the reason the presidency seldom gives one party more than two consecutive presidential terms.  After eight years of the usual miserable and corrupt governance, low-information voters rightly decide it is "time for a change."  Or even time for "hope and change."



I wouldn't be at all surprised if the low-information voters will want "change" in 2016.  What will conservatives say then?

The End of a Dynasty

For years and years I used to wonder about the dynasties in China.  I would read about how a dynasty got old, how it failed to keep up the armed forces, how eventually marauders from the north--Mongols, Bannermen, whatever--would sweep down and kick the existing dynasty out.



OK, fine, I would think.  But how does it work?



I think I can now understand the process, face to face, as it unfolds before our very eyes.  Of course it helps to read Reinhart and Rogoff in This Time is Different.



The simple fact is that governments are armed minorities, and they stay in power by giving money to their supporters.  When a government first takes over, by military conquest or by a political movement, it doesn't have too many supporters to support.  So it has plenty of money to spend.



But over the years the government has to pay out more and more to keep the supporters happy.  And the organized supporters get better and better at extracting support from the government.  Eventually the government runs out of money, it defaults on its sovereign debt and on its promises to its supporters, and finds itself unable to resist some new political force that swoops down out of the north--or the east or the west.



You can see the process working on our present dynasty of the educated elite.  It started in the 19th century with a moral crusade to help the working man, and prevent exploitation of the miners and the factory workers by their ruthless employers.



Today it's simply a racket.  The government takes in huge bounties from working people in the payroll taxes and even more from businesses in the form of incomes taxes and regulations, and then distributes the loot to its supporters.



The urgency with which the Democrats in power are using every ounce of political muscle to increase federal taxes is just an illustration to show what is going on.



The problem is that the more the government expropriates to spread out among its supporters the less is available to grow the economy.  Liberals tell themselves bedtime stories every night about how government spending is essential if everyone wants to be tucked in at night, but the numbers tell a different story.



When the government gets in a jam and can't sell its debt to the market, the way out is with "rescheduling debts", i.e., debt default, and spending cuts.  It's been done again and again.  Of course, when you do that you get a couple years of zero growth as the economy adjusts, but after that you get robust growth.



But the current dynasty can't afford to do that.  Their supporters are not moral crusaders, willing to give up a little for the sake of the nation.  They are simple rent seekers, whether seniors like me that want their entitlements or government employees that want their tenure and their pensions, and they want their money, now.



Otherwise, what's the point of voting for a bunch of thieves and demagogues?

The Education of Barack Obama

I know that we are all supposed to think that Speaker Boehner is an idiot, the naif that got rolled by President Obama in the fiscal cliff deal.

But I am trying to look between the lines.  Take Stephen Moore's the "Education of John Boehner" in the Wall Street Journal today.

Boehner thinks we have a "spending problem."  But the president does not.  He thinks we have a "health-care problem."

Boehner agreed with the president about the health-care problem. Said he to the president: "Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem."

But that is the sticking point.  I'll bet the president thinks that ObamaCare is going to solve the health-care problem, with all its administrative bells and whistles.  And so do all his liberal friends.

It doesn't matter whether they are right or not.  They have to believe that.  Otherwise they would be getting ready to do a bipartisan deal with the Republicans and cut spending.

And that points up the basic delusion that liberals have about government.  They think of themselves as disinterested experts and ethicists making considered public choices about governance.  That's what that Seidman chappie thinks when he rags on the constitution as an evil product of slave-owning white property owners.

But the liberals are wrong.  Starting with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrats have been running a national patronage machine.  They are buying votes and political power with government spending programs.  And they will continue to do so until the money runs out.

And by the way, the appetite for free health care is limitless, Mr. President, and your ObamaCare will become a bottomless pit of special interest giveaways and vote-buying.

The Democrats are riding the whirlwind.  Their power is based on delivering more and more benefits to their voters.  But we all know how grateful gift recipients are.  For about one minute.  Then they want more.

So the Democrats must keep offering more, or go out of business.   They cannot say: gee, it looks like we are going to have to cut those benefits in the future, 'cos there ain't no more money.  What do you mean no more money?  They have justified all that spending in moral terms: helping mothers with disabled kids, fighting inequality, etc.  How can you compromise on a moral agenda?

Both sides in the political arena call themselves rational and sensible and the other guys mean and delusional.  That's the way that playground fights go.  And so's your father.

But the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts until they have sent their supporters over the cliff.  It's not because they are evil, but because their supporters won't agree to spending cuts until they are lying in red ruin, like a herd of buffalo at the bottom of a Plains Indian buffalo cliff jump.  There's one up in Alberta, thoughtfully called Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump.

But by then, President Obama will be long gone.  I expect President Rubio will be to blame.

Critique of Pure Politics

Our liberal friends like to make the rule of their administrative welfare state seem mild and beneficial, as all rulers do.  But we conservatives, trying to stem the tide, have a different idea of their politics.

We see four highly charged electrodes that will do serious damage to society unless carefully handled: government, politics, culture, and system.

Government is force.  This is so obvious that it often gets forgotten.  Government operates by taking money from people by force and spending that money on its supporters.  It starts with the money government takes to fund its armed forces and its police forces and goes on from there.  The question about any government program should be: "why does this need to be done by force?"

Politics is division.  If you put a bunch of Americans into a room to solve a problem they will solve it, and solve it in a way that gives everyone a piece of the action.  If you want to divide them then put a politician into the mix.  Politicians divide people into the 51% and the 49%.  Nothing wrong with that; it's just what they do.  But divide they will, wherever they go, and so it's a good idea to minimize the amount of politics going on.  Politics, after all, is civil war by other means.

Culture is power.  This is something that conservatives know to their cost.  You cannot speak to anyone unless you have standing in the culture.  When you are cut out of the conversation, as conservatives are in education and in media, you might as well not exist.  The way that liberals have shut conservatives out of the culture is an injustice and cries out fro redress.

System is domination.  There has to be a system, said a liberal friend about health care.  No there doesn't.  Anytime you have a social system you have domination, because the system declares that there is one way, the system way, to do things.  Everything that the government has reduced to a system, from health care to pensions to education to welfare, is a monstrosity.  Social animals don't work by system, they work by communication and consensus.

Of course, no society can do without government, politics, culture, and system.  The point is that they are like electrodes, highly charged with energy: they can be used for good and for ill.  The great temptation is to assume that if "I" ran the government, drove the politics, influenced the culture, organized the system, that all would be well.

No it wouldn't.  These four electrodes are like sirens, seducing us into evil.  The meaning of life cannot be precipitated into government, or politics, or culture, or system.  It can only be found in the actual living of life, and life is best lived at a respectful distance from these four highly charged electrodes.  Otherwise they might electrocute you.

Obama's Crisis Politics

What will be the net result of President Obama's crisis politics?  Whether he does it by design or because that's who he is, the president seems to prefer to govern by periodic crisis rather than regular order.



Maybe he's a genius, for the best time for government to act is in an emergency, when people are more inclined to go along with the crowd.



The thing is, as Fred Barnes writes, that successful US presidents have usually governed by consensus.

President George W. Bush made bipartisan deals with Democrats on education, energy and, shortly before leaving office, the bank bailout known as TARP. President Reagan got together with Democrats on tax reform and Social Security. President Clinton reached agreement with Republicans on welfare reform, balancing the budget and Nafta's free trade. Mr. Clinton also negotiated reform of Social Security, a landmark compromise that died (before being announced) when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.

But not President Obama.  He goes for I win, you lose.  Or he seems to.  Barnes says that this will come to bite him in the future.

 The essence of bipartisan deals is win-win: Both sides are satisfied, even if not elated. Mr. Obama's approach is that he alone gets to win. The approach worked, more or less, on the fiscal-cliff deal, but it won't produce the larger bipartisan agreements that Mr. Obama now needs.

But does the president need larger bipartisan deals?  What does the president want?



My guess is that he wants to lard up the budget with as much spending as he can to make the new level of spending the new place of departure for deficit reduction.



On that view, Democrats would deal with a new Republican president in 2017 on the notion that the balanced deficit reduction plan would be part spending, part taxes, based on the baseline of federal spending at 24 percent of GDP rather than 20 percent of GDP that obtained before the Obama years.



Maybe so.  But I like to look at this another way.  I like to think that the Democrats are in an impossible situation.  Their spending cannot go on forever, so at some point it will stop.  But Democrats cannot agree to spending cuts because their whole shtick is spending.  Cut spending and you are cutting your supporters off at the knees.  Cut your supporters off at the knees and they will cut you off at the knees.



That's why I think our current politics is a replay of the ante-bellum politics of the 1840s and 1850s.  The South was pushing slavery against the tide of history, getting more and more intransigent about it with every year.  They had to, because the Southern economy was built on the expansion of the very profitable plantation slavery.  They had hyper-partisan guys in the South back then just like the Angry Left of today.  Then it all fell apart.  After the Civil War the South was reduced to a century of curdled rage, and the people that lost out the most were probably the freed slaves.



Really, the situation today is not that different.  The welfare state cannot go on like this.  It is running out of money right now, and slowing the economy with its demands for transfer payments.  When it stops, the people relying on its benefits are going to be hurting, and the longer we put off reforms the worse they will suffer.



Why, you ask, would the Democrats do this to their supporters?  I go back to Joseph Schumpeter.  Democracy, he writes, is not the rule of the people, it is the rule of the politicians, professional election winners.  The only thing that matters for an elected politician is winning the next election.  You win elections not by what you do but by what you promise.



Politics is division: you win by promising loot to the voters.  Government is force: the winners force the nation to pay the loot to their supporters.



But there is a limit to division.  You might end up dividing the country into a civil war, for politics is civil war by other means.



And there is a limit to force.  As in killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.



Is that what President Obama's politics leads to?  Only time will tell.