Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of "The Intellectual Activist (TIA)" and contributor to "The Freedom Fighter's Journal."
This was a bit of a new milestone for Objectivist political activism. Dave Littel—a TIA Daily reader from Hampton Roads who took the initiative and did a marvelous job organizing the event—noted that in this candidates' forum, there was not only an Objectivist as moderator, but an Objectivist as organizer and two Objectivists as the timers (Dianne Geier and Paul Levitt). Now obviously, at this kind of event, the emphasis is on the candidates themselves, who do most of the talking. But we can have an influence over the questions that are asked and the things that the candidates are required to reveal about themselves. And I found that this made a real difference.
In the fifth district, we had seven candidates. The second district has done us one better, literally: they have eight candidates. It's a god-awful number, and the first thing I told the candidates before I began was that voters are looking for excuses to start striking people off of the list, and my job was to help them do it.
And we did. More on that in a bit.
I want to note, however, that I found most of the candidates to be personally very impressive. Virginia's second district has been described as "the most military district in America." It's chock full of Navy and Air Force bases, and as I was chatting with Dave Littel after the event, I could hear the distinctive sound of sustained small-arms fire off in the distance, presumably from one of the area's training facilities. So it's no surprise that all but one of the candidates have served in the military. Several are retired career officers who have achieved high rank. Three are former Navy SEALs. You have to have a lot of respect for these men.
Drawing on the experience of the Charlottesville debate, I did a few things differently. One great idea—which came from the tea party folks in Lynchburg—was not to have all of the candidates answer each question. Some questions do have to go to the whole panel, because you want every candidate to go on the record on certain issues. But getting the views of all eight candidates takes a long time and limits the number of questions you can ask. So for most of the debate, I broke up the candidates into panels of four. I asked one question to four of the candidates, then another question to the other four. And as the debate went on, I chose different combinations of four-and-four so that we didn't always have the same match-ups.
This has three advantages. First, it allowed us to get through a larger number of questions; in the Charlottesville debate, we asked 12 questions. In this debate, we got to about 20 questions. Second, having smaller panels made it easier to compare the candidates and distinguish them from one other, because you only have to sort through four different answer at a time. Finally—and this is what originally inspired the idea—we found in the Charlottesville debate that after about the third answer to a question, the candidates begin to run out of new things to say and start to "ditto" one another.
Or worse, they figure out from the first few answers what are the applause lines that the audience is responding to—and they repeat that.
This leads to my greatest disappointment of the evening. My favorite question to ask—because it is so revealing—is: "Please name the moral, political, or economic thinkers who have been most influential on your view of the proper role of government." It's one of those questions that the candidates are not very likely to get from anyone else, and the first few answers were really worthwhile. Bert Misuzawa, a highly decorated career officer with a very impressive life story, answered "John Stewart Mill," citing Mill's book "On Liberty" and even using the word "utilitarianism." That confirmed my impression that he is the most "technocratic" of the candidates, the one most likely to justify freedom by reference to economic arguments rather than moral arguments.
But a few questions in, one of the candidates came up with the idea of invoking that hallowed conservative saint, Ronald Reagan—and everybody else sensed that this was the easy way out of the question and jumped onto that bandwagon.
But even this was revealing, because it captures my overall sense that this slate of candidates was less substantive and intellectual than the folks we have in the fifth. Perhaps it's the difference between a university town like Charlottesville and the less introspective culture of a military town. Whatever the cause, I found that if I asked a question that required some deeper thinking about the Constitution or about a moral or legal issue—in Charlottesville, I would get at least one or two candidate who would grasp the intent of the question and really dig into it, while in Virginia Beach I was lucky to get one substantive response.
As a result, I found that I had a harder time in this debate saying that any one candidate really stood out from the crowd. The only one who might qualify is former SEAL Doug Hutchison—except that he is not actually running for the Republican nomination. He's running as an Independent, and he was clearly the most "libertarian" candidate in the group. I think it was a good idea to include him in the debate because he will goad the other candidates largely in the right direction. But as an Independent, he has no chance of winning.
There were a few candidates, though, who managed to distinguish themselves by being worse. Kenny Golden was marginally worse than average. He had a habit of answering questions by standing up and bellowing out a "red meat" applause line meant to stir up the audience—instead of giving a more original or substantive answer to show us that he's really thinking about the issue.
But the person I really helped strike off the list was Jessica Sandlin. I had already identified her as a potential "squishy moderate," but I found that her real problem was deeper. She had a pattern of responding to substantive questions by assuring us that she would look at the issue and come up with an answer. The implication is that we were supposed to send her to Washington purely on trust that she's a good person, so that she will make good decisions once she finally gets around to examining the issues in detail. My sardonic take on this is that she is Sarah Palin without the substance. Like Palin, Sandlin is trying to run on a spunky personality and a "regular American" sense of life, rather than running on well-articulated ideas or policies. But Palin is more charismatic, better at projecting an appealing sense of life—and lately has produced some more substantive opinions, especially on energy issues.
Also unlike Palin, Sandlin seemed from my research to be the most pro-environmentalist. So I set up a question that I have to admit is a bit of a "gotcha." But it's a legitimate gotcha. I asked: "What is your understanding of the meaning of 'Climategate,' and what does this scandal imply for what Congress ought to do on the subject of global warming?" The "gotcha" part was that I didn't provide the meaning of Climategate, so this question is designed to trap and expose any candidate who is uninformed about the facts of the case. That's legitimate for the same reason that Charlie Gibson's famous "gotcha" question to Sarah Palin about the meaning of the Bush Doctrine was also legitimate. If you're running for vice-president, you ought to know off the top of your head the basic foreign policy doctrine of the previous seven years. And similarly, anyone who shows sympathy for environmentalism has to show that they have some response to Climategate.
Sandlin's answer to this question was rambling and awkward, and indicated that she has no clue what "Climategate" is. She just hasn't followed the news on the subject. Like I said, that's one candidate checked off the list.
Aside from that, however, I found that the overall trend is good news. As in the fifth district, I found that while the quality of the candidates' understanding varied, as did their ability to articulate their views, there was a solid consensus on most of the big, important issues: the need to reduce government spending, to reduce the government's control over our lives, and to reassert the Constitution's limits on government. Most talked in terms of scaling back and semi-privatizing Social Security. And oh yes, all of the candidates (even Sandlin) vowed to repeal ObamaCare.
But the most interesting response was to this question: "So far, the tea party movement has emphasized the issue of economic freedom, of free markets and small government, and has avoided the so-called 'social issues' or the agenda of the religious right. Are you comfortable with these priorities? Do you place a higher priority on the 'social issues'?" Many of the candidates took this as their opportunity to make a pro forma declaration of their opposition to abortion (or at least to federal funding for abortions)—but they all agreed that the issue of economic freedom was paramount and would be their real priority. As I recall, Doug Hutchison had the best answer to this question, describing his stance on the "social issues" in terms of freedom—but I'll have to check the video, when it becomes available, to refresh my memory on exactly what he said. Ed Maulbeck, another of the former SEALs, described himself as a "single-issue candidate," with the one issue being to reduce federal spending—not just to reduce the growth in federal spending, but to reduce it in absolute terms. (As a single-issue candidate, Maulbeck also made spending the central point of his answer on foreign policy, saying—correctly—that America's fiscal crisis makes us "beholden to others," diminishes our influence in the world, and makes us unable to afford the military power we need to protect our interests.)
All of this confirms my overall impression of the current political environment. The events of the past year and a half—and the enormous impact of the tea party movement—have "radicalized" the Republican Party, pushing it much farther toward a staunch pro-free-market, limited government position. My sense is that those who were already involved in politics have felt pushed to take more radical positions. But also, candidates who would not have run in previous years, because they thought their views would not be accepted by the mainstream, have been emboldened to think that maybe this is the year they could get elected. The fact that the candidates running for the second district were not especially substantive, the fact that they are not deep thinkers or intellectuals, makes their answers all the more significant because it means that they were echoing what they now sense is the standard, uncontroversial line on the right: reduce government spending, limit the role of government, repeal new welfare programs, de-emphasize the religious agenda. And of course, we did our part Thursday night to reinforce that new consensus.
You'll notice that the headline of today's Daily implies that there is a "part 2" to this story. I'll look soon at another prominent example of the radicalization of the right—and its limits.
I will also use my experience in this debate to develop more lessons to apply to future events. It looks like it's on to New Jersey next, then maybe Colorado, where I have hopes of a new Objectivist milestone: a debate with an Objectivist moderator, an Objectivist organizer, and an Objectivist candidate. If you want to see us keep going and take advantage of all of these opportunities, please consider supporting our efforts at www.TIADaily.com/support.—RWT
How big of a rising political star is Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan?
Here's how big: when he gives a speech to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, it's news.
The text of that speech was carried as one of the top links a few days ago at RealClearPolitics, and with good reason. It is an excellent example of the radicalization of the right that I've been talking about. It is a speech that employs some rhetoric and some ideas that did not used to be so prominent in speeches by Republican politicians.
Ryan begins by describing the health care bill as a new Intolerable Act and proceeds to an extraordinary interpretation of this November's election.
Last week, on March 21st, Congress enacted a new Intolerable Act. Congress passed the Health Care bill—or I should say, one political party passed it—over a swelling revolt by the American people…. Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots, but the "causes" of both are the same:
Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power, or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?
Should irresponsible leaders in a distant capital be encouraged to run up scandalous debts without limit that crush jobs and stall prosperity, or should the reckless be turned out of office and a new government elected to live within its means?
Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism, or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free?
We are at the beginning of an election campaign like you've never seen before!
We are challenged to answer again the momentous questions our Founders raised when they launched mankind's noblest experiment in human freedom. They made a fundamental choice and changed history for the better. Now it's our high calling to make that choice: between managed scarcity or solid growth, between living in dependency on government handouts or taking responsibility for our lives, between confiscating the earnings of some and spreading them around or securing everyone's right to the rewards of their work, between bureaucratic central government or self-government, between the European social welfare state or the American idea of free market democracy.
Ryan's argument—which I think is absolutely correct—is that we are being called upon to re-decide America's Founding. We have reached a "tipping point" at which the American Revolution is either overthrown or begins to be restored. No wonder this has given rise to a new "tea party" movement.
Ryan acknowledges that "the United States has been moving slowly toward this path a long time. And Democrats and Republicans share the blame." That's a good admission—the first step for Republicans is realizing that they have a problem.
I also particularly liked another observation Ryan makes at the end of his speech: "Ronald Reagan used to say: 'Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.... It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for [our children] to do the same.' We are that generation." Representative Ryan and I are about the same age, and this made me realize that he is right: we are the next generation after the Reagan Revolution. And what I think we have seen in the past year and a half is that the momentum of the Reagan-era "turn to the right" had sputtered to a halt—and that we, the next generation, need to renew it.
In a fascinating observation, Ryan shows that he understands the relationship between America's economic system and its political system—and that when the government pays for everything, it dictates every aspect of our lives.
All told, 60 percent—three out of five households in America—were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama's budget last year will raise this "net government inflow" from 60 to 70 percent. Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus—through government—supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous.
It raises a subtle but real threat to self-government when the few are paying more and more of the bill for government services and subsidies to the majority: "He who pays the piper calls the tune." The next chapter is the rule of "crony capitalism," where those who pay most taxes get the privileges, and government by and for the people is replaced by government by and for the few. The end of this story is soft despotism.
We already see enough of "crony capitalism." When government sends bailout money to Wall Street firms they label "too big to fail," that's "crony capitalism." When government buys shares in General Motors, names their management, and dictates their salaries, that's "crony capitalism." When big health insurance companies, instead of competing for market, team up with Congressional Health Care writers to order every individual to buy their products, that's "crony capitalism." When thousands of small businesses have to meet bottom lines with no government bailout, well, you're too small to succeed—good luck!
What is most interesting about this speech is Representative Ryan's presentation of contemporary politics in philosophical terms. This comes after a somewhat muddled presentation of the history of "Progressivism." The Progressives were a political movement in the late 19th and early 20th century that laid the groundwork for the modern left. This focus on the Progressives instead of "liberals" as the enemies of capitalism and the American system seems to be the influence of Glenn Beck, who has made this a major theme of his radio and television shows. I view this as a sort of progress, because "Progressive" is a less vague, more overtly ideological term than "liberal." It is a step toward understanding the opposition to capitalism on a deeper, more philosophical level.
Indeed, Ryan traces the Progressive back to the influence of European universities and the German philosopher Hegel. He then proceeds into this philosophical section:
Last January President Obama said: "There are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years."
He was right. So let's examine these "philosophical differences" of government….
The Progressivist ideology embraced by today's leaders is very different from everything rank-and-file Democrats, independents, and Republicans stand for. America stands for nothing if not for the fixed truth that unalienable rights were granted to every human being not by government but by "nature and nature's God." The truths of the American founding can't become obsolete because they are not timebound. They are eternal. The practical consequence of these truths is free market democracy, the American idea of free labor and free enterprise under government by popular consent. The deepest case for free market democracy is moral, rooted in human equality and the natural right to be free.
A government that expands beyond its high but limited mission of securing our natural rights is not progressive, it's regressive. It privileges the powerful at the expense of the people. It establishes the rule of class over class. The American Revolution and the Constitution replaced class rule with a better idea: equal opportunity for all. The promise of keeping the earnings of your work is central to justice, freedom, and the hope to improve your life.
We need to debate on philosophical ideas, and his idea is that government's "high but limited mission" is to "secure our natural rights"? It has been said that Ryan is influenced by Ayn Rand, and there you can see the influence.
A lot of people compared Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican convention in 2008 to the famous 1964 speech that launched Ronald Reagan onto the political scene. As I pointed out at the time, while Palin captured some of Reagan's sense of life, there was nothing in her speech remotely as ideologically substantive as there was in Reagan's. By contrast, this speech by Paul Ryan is almost the equal of Reagan's.
But of course Reagan's 1964 speech was, on the whole, better and more bracing than the actual practice of Reagan's administration, which merely slowed rather than stopping the growth of the welfare and regulatory state. So in specific terms, how does Representative Ryan propose to implement his ideas? Here, in part, is what he has to say.
A new Congress will then turn to the great problem of our stagnant economy and the debt tsunami bearing down on us. The days of pretending not to notice are over. The next Congress will understand this threat and act after transparent deliberation and real debate.
I have put forward my specific solution, called "A Roadmap for America's Future," to meet this challenge. The CBO confirms that this plan achieves the goal of paying off government debt in the long run—while securing the social safety net and starting up future economic growth.
The problem in a nutshell is this: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, three giant entitlements, are out of control. Exploding costs will drive our federal government and national economy to collapse. And the recession plus this Congress' spending spree have accelerated the day of reckoning….
Everyone 55 and over will remain in the current Medicare program. For those now under 55, Medicare will be like the health-care program we in Congress enjoy.
Future seniors will receive a payment and pick an insurance plan from a diverse list of Medicare-certified plans—with more support for those with low incomes and higher health costs. To reform Medicaid, low income people will receive the means to buy private health insurance like everyone else.
Under the Roadmap's Social Security proposal, everyone 55 and older will remain in the existing program with no change. Those under 55 will choose either to stay with traditional Social Security, or to join a retirement system like Congress's own plan. They will be able to invest more than a third of their payroll taxes in their own savings account, guaranteed and managed by the federal government. For both Social Security and Medicare, eligibility ages will gradually increase, and the wealthy will receive smaller benefit increases.
All of this would be progress, which is to say that it would be better than the current system. (The only part that is totally unacceptable is the idea of personal savings accounts "guaranteed and managed by the federal government." Do you want the same people who run Fannie and Freddie and GM to be managing trillions of dollars of our retirement savings? I didn't think so.)
But notice what kind of progress it is. It is progress from a bad form of government intervention, to a somewhat less bad form of it. We go from government paying directly for all health care for the poor and elderly, to government offering subsidies for private health insurance. We go from fully government-guaranteed retirement income to partially government-guaranteed retirement income, mixed with government-designed individual savings accounts.
That's fine. I understand how difficult it would be, politically speaking, to go directly from the current system to something that is fully privatized. So if someone proposes a step in that direction, even a relatively modest step, I'll support it. And remember that Ryan is the ranking member (i.e., the top Republican) on the House Budget Committee, so his main priority is not to totally privatize Social Security but simply to ensure the solvency of the federal government—which the Democrats have put into danger.
But notice what creates the limitations in Ryan's proposal: his assumption that we have to "secure the social safety net." What happened to government being limited to securing our rights? There's where Ryan's little exploration of philosophy runs aground. What he actually wants is a middle ground or compromise between "self-reliant" individualism and the altruist/collectivist philosophy of "society's" obligation to care for anyone who might have any kind of need. You can see that compromise in one brief paragraph toward the end of the speech.
The Roadmap plan shifts power to individuals at the expense of government control. It rejects cradle-to-grave welfare state ideas because they drain individuals of their self-reliance. And it still honors our historic commitment to strengthening the social safety net for those who need it most.
I was wondering why I had never really heard of Representative Ryan before—even though he's been in Congress for more than a decade—yet he is suddenly the man of the hour. He has risen to prominence because he, too, has been "radicalized" by the events of the past eighteen months, and so he is now beginning to reach for radical ideas about limited government. He is reaching for them, because they are the ideas that are required by the times. But as is common with such sudden "radical" conversions, he is not willing to give up the conventional altruist commitment to the "social safety net."
Ryan concludes that "I would welcome honest debate in the next Congress on how to tackle our fiscal crisis—and the larger debate on the proper role of government." So do I, because even the "radicalized" Republicans need to start taking that subject more seriously.—RWT
0 comments:
Post a Comment