As Angelo M. Codevilla argues with great eloquence in the current issue of The American Spectator, we may have two parties but we are governed by a single political class, and most Americans recognize that neither party actually represents them.
The first obstacle might seem to be insuperable. As a number of critics of my book pointed out, and as one such critic, William Voegeli, has argued with considerable verve in his fine new book Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State, it is hard to imagine that today’s conservatives can succeed where Reagan failed. There are, however, two reasons why we should think the improbable now within our grasp. In two different regards, we are now better situated than was Ronald Reagan.
First, where he had Carter, we now have Barack Obama. President Carter lost in 1980 because he had persuaded the American people that he was not up to the job. President Obama has, to be sure, done the same thing – but he has also done something else of very great importance. As the emergence of the Tea-Party movement demonstrates, he has alarmed Americans. They fear that his policies will ruin their lives, and they fear in a tangible way that he is intent on taking away their liberty. His predecessors were surreptitious; he has chosen audacity. And in threatening to take access to medical care out of our hands into those of his minions, he strikes at our freedom to manage our own lives in a fashion that only the willfully blind can miss.
Second, the welfare state that Barack Obama inherited from his predecessors is bankrupt. The birthrate in this country has dropped, and our fellow citizens are living longer lives. As a consequence, there has been a dramatic decline in the ratio of those working to those retired; and, this year, for the first time, the Social Security Administration is paying out more than it is taking in. Medicare and Medicaid are similarly insolvent. To maintain the current system, it would seem to be the case that we would have to raise taxes drastically – but we cannot do that, as Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt proved in the 1930s, without restricting economic growth, and, in the absence of economic growth, we will be unable to support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As Richard Lamm, a Democrat who served three terms as Governor of Colorado, recently observed, “The New Deal is demographically obsolete. You can’t fund the dream of the 1960s on the economy of 2010.”
In short, the first of the two obstacles I identified in my book is no longer what it was. More Americans fear federal intrusiveness than would like more; their fears are palpable; and their alarm coincides with a crisis likely to be fatal to the welfare state. We can no longer pay civil servants as we have; we can no longer maintain Social Security in its current form; and we can no longer sustain Medicare and Medicaid. Something has to give. Even if Barack Obama had not thrown away a trillion dollars in so-called “stimulus” measures designed to reward constituencies supportive of his party, even if Congress had not enacted a healthcare reform guaranteed to radically increase costs, we would have had to face the facts before long. As things stand, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Emanuel have brought things to a head. In their zeal not “to waste” one crisis, they have precipitated another – the crisis of the administrative state.
The second obstacle – the one posed by the ineptitude of the Republicans in Congress and by their repeated betrayal over the last thirty years of the people whom they pretend to represent – is more serious. Here lies a problem that must be addressed. And the clock is ticking. The first Tuesday in November draws nigh, and this problem must be solved within the next few weeks or the moment will pass and the opportunity will be lost. The iron is hot; it is time to strike.
Showing posts with label Paul A. Rahe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul A. Rahe. Show all posts
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
The "tyrannical ambition" behind Obamacare could be the "last gasp of the Progressive impulse"
...we have not yet entirely lost the American spirit. What happened at the town halls in August, what took place in Virginia, in New Jersey, and, most dramatically, in Massachusetts proves the contrary. Barack Obama and his minions are indeed persuaded that public sentiment does not matter. They could not care less that the citizens do not consent, and they believe that what they have done cannot be undone. “Yes, we can,” they chant. But the truth is they can’t, for they are wrong.
Never, in the history of the United States, has a political party dared, in the face of public opinion fully formed and fiercely adverse, to carry so ambitious a bill without a modicum of cover from the opposition. What the Democrats have done is a breathtaking expression of contempt not just for public sentiment as revealed in the polling data but also for the verdict handed down by the people of Massachusetts at the polls in January. What they have done would never have been attempted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had a healthy respect for public opinion. What Barack Obama calls the audacity of hope is reckless in the extreme.
...Abraham Lincoln was right when he wrote, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” What this means in the present circumstances cannot be overestimated. The Republicans, if they seize the occasion, will have the rapt attention of their compatriots. If they expose fully the tyrannical ambition at the heart of the healthcare bill, they not only can, they will prevail. All that they then have to do is to restate in contemporary terms what FDR said with an eye to Herbert Hoover and the business progressives of the 1920s and the early 1930s: that “a small group” of his fellow Americans was intent on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives,” for, as is perfectly obvious, that is precisely what Barack Obama and his minions are attempting to do.
This is, as Mark Steyn insists, a very dangerous time. In my judgment, however, it is also a time of almost unprecedented opportunity. We have options that have not been vouchsafed to the friends of liberty for more than sixty years. For, if the Republicans manage to articulate, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the rationale for limited government as that rationale is pertinent to the healthcare bill, they will at the same time have articulated the grounds for doing away with the administrative state, and everyone will recognize the consequences.
The larger danger – which I analyzed in detail in Montesquieu & the Logic of Liberty and in Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift – has never been that we Americans would succumb to socialism as a consequence of a coup d’état of the sort being attempted by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their acolytes. The larger danger has always been what Tocqueville feared: that the citizens of liberal democratic republics would gradually and unobtrusively come to depend on centralized administration for help in every aspect of their lives. Our propensity to drift in the direction of obliviously surrendering our liberties one by one in search of a security that no government can really guarantee has always been where the greatest peril lay.
...I view Barack Obama as “one of the most consequential presidents in history,” but not for the same reasons. In my view, he and today’s Democratic Party represent the last gasp of the Progressive impulse. The tyranical ambition hidden at the heart of Progressivism’s quest for what Franklin Delano Roosevelt termed “rational administration” Barack Obama has made manifest; and to all with eyes to see, the danger that we have temporized with for nearly a century is now perfectly visible. As Obama himself has insisted in speech after speech, the moment in which we now live is a “defining moment.” What is required in what he calls “this defining moment” is what Abraham Lincoln once called “a new birth of freedom.” The period we just entered could be our finest hour.
Never, in the history of the United States, has a political party dared, in the face of public opinion fully formed and fiercely adverse, to carry so ambitious a bill without a modicum of cover from the opposition. What the Democrats have done is a breathtaking expression of contempt not just for public sentiment as revealed in the polling data but also for the verdict handed down by the people of Massachusetts at the polls in January. What they have done would never have been attempted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had a healthy respect for public opinion. What Barack Obama calls the audacity of hope is reckless in the extreme.
...Abraham Lincoln was right when he wrote, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” What this means in the present circumstances cannot be overestimated. The Republicans, if they seize the occasion, will have the rapt attention of their compatriots. If they expose fully the tyrannical ambition at the heart of the healthcare bill, they not only can, they will prevail. All that they then have to do is to restate in contemporary terms what FDR said with an eye to Herbert Hoover and the business progressives of the 1920s and the early 1930s: that “a small group” of his fellow Americans was intent on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives,” for, as is perfectly obvious, that is precisely what Barack Obama and his minions are attempting to do.
This is, as Mark Steyn insists, a very dangerous time. In my judgment, however, it is also a time of almost unprecedented opportunity. We have options that have not been vouchsafed to the friends of liberty for more than sixty years. For, if the Republicans manage to articulate, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the rationale for limited government as that rationale is pertinent to the healthcare bill, they will at the same time have articulated the grounds for doing away with the administrative state, and everyone will recognize the consequences.
The larger danger – which I analyzed in detail in Montesquieu & the Logic of Liberty and in Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift – has never been that we Americans would succumb to socialism as a consequence of a coup d’état of the sort being attempted by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their acolytes. The larger danger has always been what Tocqueville feared: that the citizens of liberal democratic republics would gradually and unobtrusively come to depend on centralized administration for help in every aspect of their lives. Our propensity to drift in the direction of obliviously surrendering our liberties one by one in search of a security that no government can really guarantee has always been where the greatest peril lay.
...I view Barack Obama as “one of the most consequential presidents in history,” but not for the same reasons. In my view, he and today’s Democratic Party represent the last gasp of the Progressive impulse. The tyranical ambition hidden at the heart of Progressivism’s quest for what Franklin Delano Roosevelt termed “rational administration” Barack Obama has made manifest; and to all with eyes to see, the danger that we have temporized with for nearly a century is now perfectly visible. As Obama himself has insisted in speech after speech, the moment in which we now live is a “defining moment.” What is required in what he calls “this defining moment” is what Abraham Lincoln once called “a new birth of freedom.” The period we just entered could be our finest hour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
