The difference between Keynes and Hayek is that Keynes’s theories were primarily concerned with providing politicians cover for expanding government control of the economy, whereas Hayek’s were concerned with explaining how things work.
Archive for the 'Politics' Category
Does that headline seem a little overblown? Well, don’t worry, it’s not from me. But it’s entirely possible that in the wake of Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts’s special election to fill the Senate seat left vacant following Ted Kennedy’s death, you’ve seen a few similar headlines around the blogosphere. I know I have. Not shockingly, they’re all from liberals. Now I’m not going to say that liberals shouldn’t be upset about the Brown victory. After all, if you subscribe to that particular political philosophy, then Brown’s election is a stinging rebuke, and will almost certainly derail the “progressive agenda” for the time being. That’s a hard pill for some people to swallow. However, I think that a little perspective is needed.
Yeah, I think it’s that time.
Scott Brown’s electoral victory is nothing less than the single most cataclysmic electoral event of my lifetime, and yes, I’m including Obama’s election in 2008. The pendulum of national politics swings back and forth between Republicans and Democrats with some regularity, and despite the fervor that surrounded Obama during his campaign, he was still ultimately another Democrat who won a small but decisive majority in a national election. Scott Brown, on the other hand, ran a quixotic campaign in the bluest of all blue states, and literally came out of nowhere two weeks before the election to claim victory. No one was prepared for this, especially not Martha Coakley, who seemed content to twiddle her thumbs until her preordained coronation. The implications of Brown’s victory are far-reaching, and will doubtlessly have a tremendous impact on the national debate between Right and Left, the legislative process, and the Obama presidency. It will be seen, justly, as a referendum on the direction the country has taken under President Obama, and moderate Democrats who were already leery of being associated with the party’s Left wing will begin to hedge their bets (as Evan Bayh has begun to do).
In short, a tremendous night, and one with huge implications.
UPDATE: It begins!
So we have a health care “reform” bill that 61% of Americans don’t want passed; that liberals hate because it amounts to a massive subsidy for private insurance companies; that conservatives hate because it allows the government to expand its reach into an already heavily-regulated industry; that doesn’t lower the cost of health premiums; that will increase the federal budget deficit in a time when it has already surpassed the legal limit; that will not fully cover the forty-five million Americans who don’t have health insurance; that will force individuals to buy government-approved health insurance under penalty of imprisonment (for “tax evasion”); that will fund abortions with taxpayer money; that will cut Medicare benefits to seniors; and that will transform health care conceptually from a purchased good to an entitlement. It is a tragically flawed bill, a poorly-conceived, poorly-executed rush-job that does more harm than good, and no one is satisfied with it.
No one except Barack Obama.
On October 2, 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate hit a twenty-six year high at 9.8%. Real unemployment is somewhere closer to 17%, and the country has now been hemorrhaging jobs for twenty-one consecutive months. Despite President Obama’s reassurances and Vice President Biden’s insistence that the stimulus package passed earlier this year is working “beyond [his] wildest dreams,” it is obvious that the White House’s plan has gone horribly awry. Not that such a development should surprise anyone – after all, did you really expect a novice politician with two years experience as a Senator and no legislative victories when he announced his candidacy could possibly enter office ready to govern? But what is surprising is the President’s staunch refusal to recognize the realities before him, and his insistence on continuing to govern as a celebrity in chief.
When Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States, it was because voters believed that he was the herald of a new kind of politician, one that thrived on optimism, sensibility, and competence.
Oops.
This column was originally posted at The D.C. Writeup.
Wednesday night’s Very Special Episode of the Barack Obama Show has come and gone, and the most memorable thing about it was an interruption by an unruly member of the audience. The President’s Historic Game-Changing Speech is beginning to look like just another in a long line of pointless rhetorical exercises.
Note: This column was originally posted at The D.C. Writeup.
One element of the health care debate that hasn’t received much attention is the underlying economic and philosophical misconception behind the Democrats’ proposals. While we’ve heard countless reports about the “necessity” of providing health care coverage to those who can’t afford it (or don’t want it), there’s been relatively little discussion concerning one of the central tenants not only of health care reform, but also of modern liberalism. The Left’s rush to embrace radical health care legislation and, more broadly, an economic package premised on redistribution, is the result of its unyielding but erroneous belief that capitalism is ultimately a zero-sum game. In liberals’ minds, there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and the acquisition of wealth by one party necessarily comes at the expense of another party.
Okay, first the good news:
President Obama's Approval Rating (Source: Rassmussen Reports)
Now before we get into it, let’s take a moment to acknowledge why Republicans’ spirits seem to be rising lately. It’s hard not to get excited, I’ll admit, when we see Barack Obama’s support collapsing under the weight of his own colossal sense of self-importance. With elections coming up in just a couple of months, Republican candidates Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell seem poised to take back the New Jersey and Virginia governorships, respectively, which could have the same energizing effect on the GOP as Jon Corzine’s and Tim Kaine’s elections did on Democrats in 2005. And as of yesterday, Republicans now lead Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot by seven points, according to the latest poll release by Rassmussen Reports. After a brief period in the wilderness, Republicans are now being presented with the opportunity to assert themselves once more. Many analysts are now predicting double-digit gains for the GOP in the 2010 Congressional elections, and some optimistic conservatives are even fantasizing about a return to the majority in the House.
Bottom line: it’s easy to get excited right now. Things seem to be going well and momentum seems to be on our side. But brace yourself, because here comes the cold water.
Momentum in politics is unpredictable, and popularity lost can almost always be regained if the individual in question knows what he’s doing. How many times have we seen a politician defeated, discounted, and discarded, only to triumphantly rise from the ashes and leave us in disbelief? History is rife with examples, including Harry Truman’s electoral victory in 1948 and Richard Nixon’s stunning comeback in 1968 after six years of irrelevance. Given Americans’ fondness for second chances in politics, it would be naive to assume that President Obama’s recent decline in popularity reflects a permanent shift in the way people view he and his policies. Furthermore, we would be wise to remember that other first-term presidents have overcome similar trials and tribulations.
President Clinton's Approval Rating (Source: Wikipedia)
Let’s not forget that Bill Clinton spent much of his first three years as President with an approval rating below 50%. And while his early troubles did result in the Republican takeover of Congress, the GOP did have a number of factors working in its favor that year beyond Clinton’s unpopularity, not the least of which was the rise of a new generation of Reagan-inspired politicians and the emergence of Newt Gingrich as arguably conservatism’s most powerful post-Reagan leader. Clinton’s decline, coupled with the Republican’s readiness to lead as exemplified in the Contract With America plan, resulted in an unprecedented transfer of power from one party to the other during a midterm election.
President Reagan's Approval Rating (Source: Wikipedia)
Additionally, we must remember that following the spike in public support after his shooting, President Reagan’s approval ratings declined for nearly a year and a half, bottoming out in early 1983 just before the economic turnaround kicked into high gear. Reagan’s unpopularity allowed the Democrats to increase their majority in the House of Representatives, although the Senate remained firmly in Republican hands. Until the end of 1983, many considered Reagan a vulnerable President with little remaining political capital, and it was considered likely that a strong Democratic candidate would throw him out of office in 1984.
Both men were, of course, reelected.
The point is that Barack Obama’s current unpopularity is by no means a permanent condition. It is still entirely possible that he will right his ship and sail to victory in 2012. Republicans cannot take for granted that they will have an easy road to Congressional majorities and the White House. They must instead fight with passion and vigor if they intend to truly return to power, and they must do it wisely.
But the Republican Party, as I have argued before, seems to be bereft of the Gingrich-style leader that we need to wage a successful campaign. Furthermore, we have yet to forcefully articulate an alternative view of what path the country should be taking over the next several years. We are running the risk of defining ourselves by opposition, and while it helps to argue against your opponents, it is equally important to be able to argue for yourself. It is imperative that the Republican Party demonstrate to the American voters a clear alternative to Obama’s left-wing plan, or else it will be passing up an opportunity to truly knock the young President off-balance and (potentially) out of office. Until the GOP makes the case for itself, any triumphs will be insubstantial and fleeting.
While vacationing in California this past week, I purchased the recently-released second volume of Steven Hayward’s monumental history of Cold War America, entitled The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980-1989. The previous volume, The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order 1964-1980, is a powerful analysis of the events following Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater in the 1964 Presidential Election, and juxtaposed the decline of progressive liberalism in the ’60s and ’70s with the simultaneous rise of Ronald Reagan and American conservatism as a political force. The book had a powerful effect on me when I first read it as a freshman at Middlebury College, and I was excited when I learned that Hayward was working on a follow-up.
Although eight years have passed and the political landscape has undergone seismic shifts since the first volume’s publication, Hayward doesn’t miss a beat with The Conservative Counterrevolution, which continues seamlessly from the earlier work’s concluding chapter wherein Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Presidential Election. Although his explicit goal is to prompt a reevaluation of Reagan’s presidency and its profound effect on the country’s politics and culture, Hayward doesn’t pander to his audience, nor does he attempt to project today’s concerns onto the Reagan era. Instead, he guides his readers through a year-by-year, action-by-action analysis of Reagan’s two terms, offering praise and criticism in equal measure. Consequently, a balanced portrait of the man and the times emerges, demonstrating the era’s prosperity and revolutionary (or counterrevolutionary) character as well as the contentious atmosphere and the ferocity of the political battles that raged on Capitol Hill.
While the details of Reagan’s clashes with Soviet leadership remain the most compelling parts of the story and are given due attention, Hayward takes great care to illustrate the domestic challenges facing the President as well. In addition to the well-known anecdotes about Reaganomics, judicial battles, and Iran-Contra, Hayward provides illuminating analysis of the President’s relationships with figures such as Tip O’Neill, Bob Dole, David Stockman, and Alexander Haig. He also offers examples of how Reagan’s influence affected the rise of individuals such as John McCain and Bill Clinton. Most importantly, he paints a portrait of how Reagan’s presidency changed the nature of political discourse and belief in the United States. For people of my generation, it is hard to believe that many Republicans were against tax cuts and for the expansion of the welfare state as recently as 1979. Hayward does a magnificent job demonstrating how Reagan’s presidency not only shifted the Republican Party’s ideology, but also greatly affected the American people’s views on taxation, regulation, and social issues.
What really make Hayward’s history worthwhile are his meticulous attention to detail and his deep understanding of historical context. The Conservative Counterrevolution devotes many pages to explaining the country’s state of mind before, during, and after Reagan’s presidency, and explains in great depth how the President’s actions affected it. It is difficult to comprehend that not long ago the very necessity of the office of the President was being questioned. After the failures of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, some wondered aloud whether the job was too big for one man. Reagan’s presidency restored faith in the office itself, and such questions are no longer being asked.
More critically, not many young people are equipped to understand the condition of living in a world at odds with Soviet powers, nor the reasons for the Cold War itself. Most have been indoctrinated by the liberal establishment and believe that the conflict was merely a sad and unnecessary misunderstanding between two nations that could have lived in peace. Hayward rejects this view and brings into sharp focus the ideological differences that made enemies of the Soviets, as well as the tension and the sense of urgency that defined the period. His history provides a clear picture of the era and the people who defined it, none more so than the President himself.
The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980-1989 is likely to be the best book on American history published this year. I strongly recommend it, and believe that it will one day be ranked as the definitive chronicle of the Reagan presidency. More importantly, I believe that just as its first volume sparked an historical reevaluation of Reagan, so too will this second volume contribute strongly to the increasingly robust thesis that Reagan was one of our nation’s finest presidents.
