![The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection]()
by Brian Nygaard | May 19, 2011
How is it possible to resist the charms of any elected official offering the dual benefits of fairness and protection? After all, is not being treated equitably, while simultaneously being spared the pain of those who would seek to harm us, not of ultimate worth? Fairness must certainly be the quintessential American value, right? And our entire system of justice; is it not specifically designed to bring both fairness and protection?
Over the next year and a half we will hear the word fairness as if the word encapsulates the complete and final animation of the American ideal. We will also be offered a basket overflowing with governmental “protections†from rapacious bogeymen, both known and unknown. This little “benefits package†will come neatly wrapped in the form of a vague threat that would have us believe any alternative to this package would immediately result in enslavement. It is only demons that would offer us, the American people, anything less.
The real wonder in all of this is how Thomas Jefferson seemed to have completely missed the significance of the beatific vision of the liberal left. To have settled for such suboptimal and simple notions as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must clearly validate the marked progression in our political thinking. Alas, we are talking about a couple of centuries of human achievement. If we can build an iPad, we must certainly be able to build a perfectly integrated, transparent, and high-functioning system of governance. We call this “political science,†as if it was somehow scientific.
Hope and change was the first chapter. Fairness and protection are now emerging as the second chapter. The only remaining question we now have is in determining which of these sets of notions is the most utterly naïve. There is, however, no remaining question as to which is more dangerous. Chapter Two is an unmitigated societal, moral and economic horror show.
Like hope and change, fairness and protection are proffered without definition or object. One man’s version of fairness is another man’s version of purgatory. To suggest that protections are being afforded is to beg the obvious question, “Protection from what or from whom?†The suggestion, of course, is that the government will become both the ultimate dispenser of fairness, and the protector from anything that is “not-government.†This is a binary universe in which the government is the center of virtue, and everything and everyone else is either mundane or oppressive.
In a hypothetical world where half the citizenry are drunken bums and the other half are productive and hard-working citizens, what represents a fair tax rate? Apparently, there is a fair answer to this question, albeit that the obvious answer seems to elude most of us common people. Not to fear, in the liberal mind, they have the answer. And if regulation doubles the price of that which we seek to consume, we must presume that the level of “protection†is worth paying for. Just ask them. They not only have all the answers, they are willing to impose them on everyone else.
They spin a web of myths. It is only unfortunate that these myths are so seemingly beguiling.
When Mr. Jefferson offered his modest notions of a sustainable basis for societal success, he understood that the government can only create a set of conditions where people can optimize their unique futures. He had seen the fairness and protection “themes†played out in history and seen the implications of the associated governmental arrogance. Mr. Jefferson was willing to look at humanity in a more positive light than many of his contemporaries. Even he could not begin to fathom the negative implications of what is now being offered as the standard offering of the Liberal Left.
When the markets create a willing buyer, and a willing seller, at a given price, most of us would agree that the “trade†was fair. On the other side of the equation, when the government intervenes in anything, it is not fairness and protection that we receive. It is rather just someone’s version of coercion. The liberal definition of fairness is just another form of arbitrary and completely baseless enslavement. It cannot be heard in any other way.
Fairness is only found in established conditions. It is never found in a quest for derived outcomes. When liberals transmute the definition of fairness into an effect, as opposed to its native state as a cause, they turn the world inside out. Viewing fairness as an effect is, by definition, fundamentally unfair. And the result is always predictable, and never pretty.
![The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection]()
by | May 17, 2011
The story of Presidential candidate Herman Cain begins and ends with personality. That is not to say that the middle doesn’t contain a large amount of substance, because it does, but his emotive presence in a sea of dry politicians refuses to be overlooked. He, and his presence, were on hand to address a group of about eighty people Monday at The Smokey Row Coffee Shop in Des Moines.
As he gave a brief opening statement and took questions from the crowd one could quickly come to the conclusion that his personality, and not his impressive business experience, may be his biggest weapon moving forward. The current world of Presidential politics is one in which the media can conjure up a negative narrative on a candidate faster than a State Fair artist can draw you a self-portrait. When it comes to Herman Cain, this will not be so easy.
His personality is a rare mixture. I would call it one part warmth, one part energy, and two parts forcefulness. Though we won’t find out unless he raises his profile, if the media is able to demonize this man…then nobody is safe.
However inescapable it was, this campaign stop was about much more than his personal traits. He took about twenty questions from the group, running the gamut from Pakistan to pre-school.
Ripping into the Obama administration was consistent throughout. He addressed spending most adamantly, calling for an across the board cut of 10% from each Federal department, a capital gains tax of 0%, a payroll tax holiday, and implementation of the Fair Tax. He broached the subject of Social Security reform by re-stating his position of following the Chilean model by creating an optional system that is “not privatized, but personalized.â€
He all but announced he is running, joking he couldn’t say it officially until his announcement on May 21st. This being the case, we here at The Conservative Reader will have an in-depth look at his background and positions in the coming days. His personal story in many ways is an inspirational one, while his platform is a unique blend of policy positions. He will no doubt win over some of you, intrigue some of you, and frustrate the rest.
For the time being though it is safe to say his position in the race is more solid than one might think. Recently he got glowing reviews of his first debate performance, and this week the good news kept on coming. The last 72 hours has seen the exit of two candidates whose supporters could easily gravitate towards Cain, but for far different reasons.
Though Donald Trump’s candidacy was hardly serious, his high poll numbers were not all name recognition. A percentage of them represented a group searching for either a fighter or a business approach to government. Enter Herman Cain.
Most beneficial to Cain though is the disappearance from the scene of Mike Huckabee. Of any of the figures on the National landscape it is Huckabee that Mr. Cain most resembles (yes they are both former preachers too). The scores of voters, especially in Iowa, who found themselves drawn to Huckabee’s warm affability will find it hard not to be drawn in by Herman Cain and his most powerful weapon…his personality.
Capturing a significant number of these “released delegates†would afford him the ability to stay viable for the next few months. If he indeed is able to stick around he will be required to provide more specific details than currently offered by his 17 page document “The People’s Platform.†Meeting this challenge, and seeming Presidential while doing it, could punch his ticket to the Finals.
Though a lot has to go right, a path for him to enter the upper echelon of contenders is starting to become visible. At this stage in the game, a realistic chance is all an upstart candidate can ask for. If he is able to connect with the masses as well as he did with the folks at this event on Monday, you may not want to bet against him.
by | May 17, 2011
Monday night I got to see essentially the same man I saw a year ago at the 2010 Polk County Republican Spring Banquet. This is a guy who has spent the past 12 years of his life dedicated to working with smart people to come up with solutions to America’s problems, and who comes across as thoughtful, smart (make that brilliant), and ready to work.
I say “the same”, because even a year ago, Newt Gingrich already seemed like a man bent on the idea that we can fix the American healthcare system without creating a yet another new bureaucracy incapable of bending to the people’s will. A year ago he was pressing substantive health care reform ideas that acknowledged the deepest problems the Federal government has with running programs like Medicare… the government is just incapable of managing the fraud and abuse that have become one of the largest tax-payer boon doggles of all time.
I say “the same”, because a year ago Newt came to Des Moines with not only an air of confidence in himself that comes from decades of experience in the public eye, but a sense of purpose in his own life beyond giving a speech to a room full of Republican activists. He seemed a man already on a mission, perhaps already trying to find ways to do the job of president without the title. Some would call him a “statesman”.
But let’s say he was also a different man.
On Monday, the former House Speaker seemed to have eschewed the grim demeanor he carried in 2010. It was almost as if making the decision to run for President had taken a weight off of his shoulders instead of putting it on. He answered questions from the press and from a very receptive audience of about 200 with ease. He handled the big question of the day, regarding his comments on Sunday on Meet the Press, (where he confounded conservative Republicans by apparently criticizing Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan as “too big a jump” to the right), with a good explanation of his comments. For those of you who are interested, he essentially stated he had not communicated his thoughts well and was concerned about making dramatic changes to a program that impacts every single person in America. His emphasis seemed to be on caution and taking more of a phased approach to any changes in Medicare. Frankly, the transcript from Sunday’s program seems to say about the same thing, so I’m struggling with why people are upset about his comments.
Perhaps if people took the time to read the transcript instead of the headlines. Just sayin’.
With the last in mind, I will say, “the same”, because he does and may for some time, struggle slightly with how he communicates a message that may have significant research, analysis, and a team of high-valued brain-power behind it, in a way that can be understood by folks who have not had time to walk through the thought-process with him. He seems sometimes to suffer from a mild form of “Keyesitis” (for those of you who recall the enigmatic and hyper intelligent former US Ambassador and former Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes), or a predilection to speaking exactly what’s on his mind, even if the listener is unable to grasp the meaning easily. More simply put, he can sometimes be too smart for his own good. I don’t think he lacks the ability to explain himself, but in an age of entertainment, technology, and the 15 second sound bite, it is substantially more difficult to get these ideas across when the attention span of your listener is so severely limited, and the assumption that everything one needs to hear can be boiled down to a dozen words.
I suspect that as his campaign proceeds, he will work with his staff to formulate a message that can be more easily understood. His biggest risk may be answering questions for which he has not prepared a clear and simple answer, unless he can get to where he can regularly think and explain himself candidly at the level of a high school student or college undergraduate.
It was good to see Newt again, and I’m looking forward to seeing other candidates as the lead up the Iowa Caucus continues!
More comments on Newt’s Des Moines event can be found at Kathie Obradovich’s blog.
![The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection]()
by | May 16, 2011
“They are all weasels.†“You can’t trust any of them so why should I care?†“All they care about is getting re-elected so what’s the point?â€
For generations the biggest criticism of politics, and one that drives
millions of Americans to “tune out,†is that politicians say one thing then do
another. This is the sentiment expressed by our friends who hate politics, and we all have them, when they say various forms of the quotes listed above. The sad truth is that even for those of us who love it, it’s a point that proves hard to argue.
If the problem was this simple I would say that the solution would be equally so, but there is more at play here. The surest and quickest way to remove political hypocrisy and gamesmanship from the landscape is to stop electing and re-electing career politicians. There are certainly potential downsides to electing less experienced political leaders, I won’t go into them here, but dishonesty and duplicity are not among them. By both nature and definition it stands to reason that politicians will play politics, and that you have a much better chance of getting principled leadership and conviction from those who are not. While far from groundbreaking this logic is undeniable and the beauty of it is that it would work equally well for both sides of the aisle…a true bi-partisan solution. So what’s the catch?
While this addresses the much complained about problem of political hypocrisy, it leaves untouched a problem that no one ever seems to talk about…voter hypocrisy. That’s right, it’s time to turn the lens on the American voter and call them out for being engaged in the same hypocrisy that they so readily detest. In doing so we will see that this group is subject to the same conflicting pressures encountered by our political class and that in some ways, even beyond continuing to elect legi-saurs, they are partially to blame for the unsatisfying results.
While a large number of Americans complain that politicians in general do not have the conviction to say what they’ll do and then do what they say, when an impasse on a piece of legislation is reached between the parties what do the people want then? Ah yes…compromise. Poll after poll tells us that a majority want the sides to work together and get something done. After all that’s why we send them to Washington right? When the politicians don’t, a plurality of people decry this terrible gridlock and say it proves that Washington is broken.
These utterly conflicting desires create a picture harder to decipher than a kindergarten finger painting. Beyond illogical, this could be a case study for a class aimed at teaching how to construct a circle of confusion. Here would be the lesson plan; first claim that politicians are dishonest weasels because they toss aside principle by saying one thing and doing another. Then when, precisely by staying principled, they encounter resistance from the other side, then tell them that they should discard their principles in favor of a compromise in order to get something done. This is voter hypocrisy. Though they both sound nice when considered separately, you simply can’t champion conviction while calling for compromise. You have to pick one or the other.
I for one, and likely you since you are reading this, decided long ago that compromise is seldom the best choice and is even less often a righteous goal. While it may work in deciding where to go for dinner or what movie to see, the middle ground of diametrically opposed political philosophies is an unlikely place to find a sound solution. All ideas are not equal. More often than not a specific problem has one solution that is superior to all others. If you and a friend get lost while hiking in the woods and you think the way back to the car is North and they think its South, you don’t “compromise†and start walking East! A political compromise that consists of a mixture of a right and wrong approach is a different scenario, but yields the same result—you heading in the wrong direction.
There is no doubt that in a two party system like ours compromise is going to be a part of nearly every outcome. What is so confounding is how this can be so widely viewed as a desirable conclusion, and my explanation for this is admittedly cynical. While it is unavoidable, the point is that for those who take the time to learn and analyze the tenets of the two ideologies and the facts surrounding each debate, this compromise is most certainly a necessary evil. That so many Americans apparently want conviction and compromise simultaneously reflects the long known and discouraging reality that they are neither very informed on, nor engaged in, the political issues we face. Simply put, if you have an informed, developed, and therefore strong opinion on something you do not encourage compromise, you begrudgingly accept it.
These conflicting political pressures create a confusing environment for our elected officials to navigate in, and in this sense I empathize with them. If the criticism being hurled at politicians involves lack of conviction, it is usually deserved and I am largely on board. When it comes to hammering them for not compromising and blaming them for gridlock, nothing could be more ridiculous.
Though rarely defended, calling politicians dishonest weasels for not showing conviction and then slamming them for “not getting things done†when they do stand on principle is wholly unfair. Worse yet it demonstrates a shallow and hypocritical position. It is not too often that the script is flipped on the American voter and instead of giving criticism they are getting it, but you have to call them how you see them. What one sees in this case is that the politicians are not the only ones sending mixed messages.
![The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection]()
by | May 11, 2011
On Tuesday afternoon the Ron Paul Exploratory Committee officially revved its engine for the first time in Iowa by opening a campaign office in Ankeny. The office is the first one in the Nation that the Congressmen has opened in his current test drive for a White House run. Wasting no time, the Ron-voy rolled into town so the candidate could personally christen the property, introduce his Iowa exploratory staff, and take part in a brief Q and A session with the media.
Exploratory Committee Chairman Drew Ivers opened by highlighting the unique characteristics of Ron Paul’s Congressional background and summarizing his small government message. Among the selling points he covered is that, in twenty years in the House, Mr. Paul has never voted for a tax increase, an unbalanced budget, or to give the Executive branch more power. To go along with this voting record he has never taken a tax payer funded junket and has long refused Congressional benefits.
As far as the exploratory staff introductions, four of the five were on hand and introduced. They are Executive Director Steve Bierfeldt and Regional Directors Ryan Flowers, Ani DeGroot, Rachel Karnia, and Rocco Moffa. In keeping with the demographic of his most ardent supporters, all were young. Mr. Bierfeltd let it be known that the team will have a presence in all 99 Iowa counties as they try to gauge the level of support their candidate currently has with Iowa voters.
Unquestionably the biggest news to come out of the gathering was Mr. Paul’s prediction that his decision to run or not will be made within a week. You don’t have to have a John Nash-like “Beautiful Mind†to calculate what this means…The decision has been made. Unless he hired a staff, held an event to announce them, and signed a 10 day lease for his office, this time table confirms the obvious and makes his deciding to run a near certainty (a decision that likely became certain after last Thursday’s post-debate million dollar online fundraiser).
In his opening statement and subsequent answers, it is clear that Paul is banking on the high level of enthusiasm that he and his message have encountered lately, and that the quality (i.e. enthusiasm) of his supporters will eventually lead to quantity. His up-beat and energized demeanor on this scorching May afternoon surely suggested that this enthusiasm has already worn off on him.
Mr. Paul is keenly aware that the current condition of the economy and the plummeting public support of our current foreign engagements will provide his unique and decades-long message with a broader and more receptive audience than it had in 2008. While the ground is indeed fertile, just how many of these people that he and his team are able to reach and seal the deal with remains to be seen. What no longer remains to be seen, and what was on full display Tuesday in Ankeny, is how long the “exploring†in Iowa will last. It will be over almost as soon as it got started.
The Ron-voy is in full throttle and the finish line for him and his pit-crew is not in Iowa, it’s in Washington D.C.
