The Economist's Lexington columnist has a post up reflecting on President Obama's second inaugural address, surely the topic de jour about 28 hours ago. As Ben said in a tweet yesterday, Lexington seems to have taken the speech a bit personally. I think it exposes the big weakness in many conservative pundits reaction to the speech.
They can't disagree with the ideas so they decry the seeming lack of comity in speech. What sensible Republican can say that equality for all is a bad thing? That having a social safety net is a bad thing? That we must consider all before considering ourselves is a bad thing? I enjoy reading Lexington from time to time. He's largely a very sensible conservative, not prone to chasing the specters that entrance your average Tea party supporter, but since he can't object on substance he objects to the President's tone. It's too combative. It's not conciliatory. He's not reaching across the aisle.
I'd respond by asking what four years of comity has achieved for this President? If he reaches across the aisle he's as likely to have his hand shot off as to find someone to work with. He come out swinging in his second term because he was tired of absorbing the scurrilous punches thrown by his political opponents. How long can one remain amiable when your opponents question your birth certificate? Your religion? Your secret socialist tendencies? Please don't tell me the President's tone was off putting after he's been heckled on the House floor and been compared in equal measure to Marx and Hitler.
No, the President painted today's GOP into a corner. He laid down a gauntlet and said, "Tell me the part of my vision for America you disagree with." It's a savvy strategy. In the first term it was the GOP's own revulsion that someone like Obama was elected that pushed them to the right. In his second term, the President seeks to chase them further right offering a vision most Americans will rally behind. I will agree with Lexington on one thing though. The president does want "to complete the Great Society project of progressive forefathers as both Roosevelts and Johnson, and make it sustainable in an America that faces unprecedented global competition." Tell the the part about that you don't like?
They can't disagree with the ideas so they decry the seeming lack of comity in speech. What sensible Republican can say that equality for all is a bad thing? That having a social safety net is a bad thing? That we must consider all before considering ourselves is a bad thing? I enjoy reading Lexington from time to time. He's largely a very sensible conservative, not prone to chasing the specters that entrance your average Tea party supporter, but since he can't object on substance he objects to the President's tone. It's too combative. It's not conciliatory. He's not reaching across the aisle.
I'd respond by asking what four years of comity has achieved for this President? If he reaches across the aisle he's as likely to have his hand shot off as to find someone to work with. He come out swinging in his second term because he was tired of absorbing the scurrilous punches thrown by his political opponents. How long can one remain amiable when your opponents question your birth certificate? Your religion? Your secret socialist tendencies? Please don't tell me the President's tone was off putting after he's been heckled on the House floor and been compared in equal measure to Marx and Hitler.
No, the President painted today's GOP into a corner. He laid down a gauntlet and said, "Tell me the part of my vision for America you disagree with." It's a savvy strategy. In the first term it was the GOP's own revulsion that someone like Obama was elected that pushed them to the right. In his second term, the President seeks to chase them further right offering a vision most Americans will rally behind. I will agree with Lexington on one thing though. The president does want "to complete the Great Society project of progressive forefathers as both Roosevelts and Johnson, and make it sustainable in an America that faces unprecedented global competition." Tell the the part about that you don't like?
The president does want "to complete the Great Society project of progressive forefathers as both Roosevelts and Johnson, and make it sustainable in an America that faces unprecedented global competition." Tell the the part about that you don't like?
ReplyDeleteInstead of asking what's not to like, the better question is what there is to like. Since FDR and LBJ are mentioned, let's review some of the various programs they implemented. Roosevelt created Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a program that was expanded during the 1960s and saw a dramatic increase in the number of recipients. Interestingly, the poverty rate -- which had been steadily declining before AFDC's expansion -- stabilized around 1969. While correlation is not proof of causation, this would seem to mesh with the thesis that welfare encourages government dependency and halts upward progression from poverty. Furthermore, it's worth noting that welfare reform -- which pared back this program -- is arguably the biggest public policy success of the last 20 years.
The Great Society also had an education component, significantly increasing federal spending on education and establishing Head Start. Fine, except that increased federal expenditures correlate with zero improvement in student test scores while the federally-funded 2010 Head Start Impact Study concluded that, despite $180 billion spent on the program since 1965, "the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole."
As for Social Security, this program is a Ponzi scheme that would be illegal if any company tried to set it up as a pension program, the taxes required to support it have gone steadily up since its inception while projections for the number of years until the trust fund is exhausted are steadily revised downwards. There is evidence, meanwhile, that Social Security's disability program is rife with abuse and even Nick Kristof has highlighted some of the deleterious effects of Supplemental Security Income (which falls under the umbrella of Social Security).
Medicare, meanwhile, is the country's number one fiscal problem.
Why Barack Obama or anyone else views such programs as an inspiration or something to be expanded upon given their numerous and documented problems is beyond me.
Social Security and Medicare are incredibly popular programs, and it is not unusual for a developed economy's citizenry to decide a social safety net is a desirable thing, even if every program doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteAnd even more to the point, President Obama didn't outline an expansion. Indeed, Lexington's own word is "sustain," so your protestation about expanding them is away from my point.
Social Security and Medicare are incredibly popular programs
ReplyDeleteIs that the new standard for assessing the desirability for public policy? Popularity?
Indeed, Lexington's own word is "sustain," so your protestation about expanding them is away from my point.
Lexington said "complete the Great Society project of progressive forefathers..." If something needs to be completed, that suggests it is currently incomplete, and thus must be expanded upon. So actually my comment was right on point.
I don't think popularity is a "new standard" in a democracy for assessing the desirability of public policy. That popularity is tempered, ideally, but the elected representatives, but yeah being a popular program means it's desirable to the people.
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to take it up with Lexington for any perceived linguistic inconsistencies.
And I would suggest that as much of the Great Society project was about equality, the part that needs completing might be related to LGBT rights. Of course, I'm not omniscient of Lexington's exact thoughts as he wrote it.
being a popular program means it's desirable to the people.
ReplyDeleteAnd this tautology means what? Should we determine the desirability of programs or policies based upon their popularity? If not, what is your point?
It's a democracy Colin. Vox populi. Should we completely and solely determine the desirability of public policy based on popularity? No. But in a democracy, if a policy is popular it's far more likely to endure. And surely because it is desired by the people it must enjoy a measure of popularity.
ReplyDeleteBut in a democracy, if a policy is popular it's far more likely to endure.
ReplyDeleteNo kidding, but isn't the better question whether programs should endure?