The Freedom Fighter's Journal: Gratitude, Humility, Principles and Top News Stories

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says that Republicans need to show "gratitude," "humility," and "principles." That's a pretty good list—if they can actually follow through on it.

Top News Stories

Commentary by Robert Tracinski

1. Gratitude, Humility, and Principles

There are a few things to gloat about in last Tuesday's election results—like the thought of thousands of Democratic political operatives out of work and shoved into the lovely economy their bosses have created. Or the increasing speculation among Democrats that they should have voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries because she would have performed better as president (which she might have—but not by much).

But I have been heartened to see how little gloating and celebrating there has been. John Podhoretz describes the "utter lack of triumphalism" after Tuesday's vote:

In 1994, riding their previous tsunami, Republicans literally danced in the Washington streets and partied for 48 hours. In 2008, Democrats wept and sang. There was none of this last night, even though the GOP victory might have been larger and more decisive than either of those.

The somber mood of this victory is appropriate, because we still have such a long way to go. The Tea Party movement isn't in this to elect Republicans—we're here to reverse Obama's policies. So until Congress repeals ObamaCare and balances the damn budget, we're not celebrating.

As for Republicans, I think they realize that they still have a long way to go to regain the people's trust. John Boehner seemed to understand this in his speech Tuesday night. Here are a few highlights.

I'll be brief, because we have real work to do—and this is not a time for celebration, not when one in 10 of our fellow citizens are out of work, not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt, not when our Congress is held in such low esteem.
This is a time to roll up our sleeves....
Across the country right now, we are witnessing a repudiation of Washington, a repudiation of Big Government, and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people.
I'm here tonight to tell you that our new majority will be prepared to do things differently, to take a new approach that hasn't been tried before in Washington—by either party.
It starts with cutting spending instead of increasing it; reducing the size of government instead of expanding it; reforming the way Congress works and giving government back to the people. And for all those families asking "where are the jobs?," it means ending the uncertainty in our economy and helping small businesses get people back to work.

He then talks about the need for "standing on principle," which he describes as "checking Washington's power, and leading the drive for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government." Well, he's right. That would be a new approach not tried before by either party.

See also the comments below from the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, whose conclusion says that Republicans need to show "gratitude," "humility," and "principles." That's a pretty good list—if they can actually follow through on it.

"'Listening to the People Who Sent Us Here'," Mitch McConnell, November 4

Two days ago, those worries gave way to a new optimism. For the past two years, Democrat lawmakers chose to ignore the American people, so on Tuesday the American people chose new lawmakers. They held their elected representatives to account. And they demonstrated to all of us that Constitutional conservatism is alive and well.
This isn't a reason for Republicans to gloat; rather, it's a time for both parties to realize who's really in charge—the people—and to be grateful for the opportunity we now have to begin to turn this ship around. Tuesday was a referendum, not a choice. It was a report card on the administration and anyone who supported its agenda, plain and simple....
"So the voters didn't suddenly fall in love with Republicans; they fell out of love with Democrats. And while they may have voted to send more Republicans to Washington, they're sending them here with clear marching orders: stop the big-government freight train and respect the will of the people who sent you there. As Churchill once observed, 'Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; [and] courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.' And I can't think of a better way to sum up Tuesday's election than that.
[W]hile the media was still groping to define the 2008 election, Republicans were taking stock. We knew the principles that had made our party great were the same principles that had made America great, and that if we were going to solve the problems of the day, we would have to embrace and explain those principles, not discard or conceal them. So we renewed our commitment to our core principles—win, lose, or draw.
If we had not done this, the administration would never suffer the consequences for pushing policies Americans opposed, and Americans wouldn't have a clear alternative. And that is why this, in my view, was the single most important thing Republicans in Congress did to prepare the ground for Tuesday's election. By sticking together in principled opposition to policies we viewed as harmful, we made it perfectly clear to the American people where we stood. And we gave voters a real choice on Election Day....
Through oversight we'll also keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now use to advance through regulation what it can't through legislation. Potential backdoor efforts in this area could include imposing a new national energy tax through the EPA now that cap-and-trade is dead, additional health care provisions through HHS, Card Check through the National Labor Relations Board, and some form of immigration change through the use of administrative amnesty and the selective enforcement of our laws....
But whether or not the administration has a mid-course correction, Republicans have a plan for following through on the wishes of the American people. It starts with gratitude and a certain humility for the task we've been handed. It means sticking ever more closely to the conservative principles that got us here. It means learning the lessons of history. And, above all, it means listening to the people who sent us here. If we do all this, we will finish the job.

2. The Tea Party Caucus

The Republican leadership is saying some good things after the election—but I'm not placing too much trust in them. Mitch McConnel's speech above, for example, has bad things to say about bailouts. But in October of 2008, when it really mattered, McConnell voted for TARP.

I expect that the Republican leadership will blow with the prevailing wind—and the people who I expect to be filling those sails are the new Tea Party types who have just come into Congress. The left is already complaining about the radicalism of these new congressmen, particularly their widespread denial of the global warming hysteria.

How big will this Tea Party Caucus be in the new Congress? According to one estimate, "About 40 new House members, two-thirds of the incoming freshman class, are affiliated with the Tea Party. Five of the seats Republicans picked up in the Senate were Tea Party candidates."

The Tea Party is already pushing for a House leadership post. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who heads the House Tea Party Caucus, is running for Republican conference chairman, the No. 4 leadership job, against Jeb Hensarling, a Texas conservative who has the backing of House majority leader-to-be Eric Cantor. Bachmann's caucus could grow to include a third of House Republicans, enhancing her influence and helping her move the party to the right, particularly on financial matters.

And so the best post-election statements came from some of these new incoming members of Congress. In Florida, Senator-elect Marco Rubio gave a speech that was a heartfelt paean by a "son of exiles" to "the single greatest nation in all of human history."

[W]hen you're 35 points down in the polls, and the only people who think you can win live in your house, and four of them are under the age of 10, you better know why you're running. When you have to drive four hours to get back home after speaking to 50 people and it's 1:30 in the morning and the Garmin says there's still an hour and a half to go and you're not sure how you're going to stay awake, you better know why you're running....
[I]t was about the fact that we are privileged and blessed to be citizens of this extraordinary society, and that that is something worth fighting for. That we have the opportunity to ensure that our children and grandchildren are the freest and most prosperous Americans that ever lived.
If only we are willing to do what the Americans that came before us did: to stand up and confront the great challenges of our time. To say as those who came before us said: that we will not leave our problems for our children unresolved. We will not allow them to inherit our debt and our mistakes. But rather that we will do whatever we must do to ensure that for them, life will be better than for us, that for them, our country will be better than the one we inherited, that tomorrow will be greater than today, that our history will surpass our heritage.

As for the Republican Party, Rubio put it nicely: "we make a grave mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance. A second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be."

Rubio's speech was moving, but it did not have much ideological content. Rand Paul, on the other hand, delivered a speech that cut straight to the core constitutional and ideological issues. If Marco Rubio wants to know more about why America is the single greatest nation in all of human history, he'll have at least one colleague who can explain it to him.

"Rand Paul's Victory Speech: 'Freedom Is Best'," Rand Paul, Examiner.com, November 3

They say that the US Senate is the world's most deliberative body. Well, I'm going to ask them, respectfully, to deliberate upon this. Eleven percent of the people approve of what's going on in Congress. But tonight there is a Tea Party tidal wave and we're sending a message to 'em.
It's a message that I will carry with them on Day One. It's a message of fiscal sanity. It's a message of limited, constitutional government and balanced budgets.
When I arrive in Washington, I will ask them, respectfully, to deliberate upon this. We are in the midst of a debt crisis and the people want to know why we have to balance our budget—and they don't.
I will ask them, respectfully, to deliberate upon this. Government does not create jobs. Individuals, entrepreneurs, American men and women create jobs—but not the government.
I will ask them, respectfully, to deliberate upon this. Why is America great? Why are we the greatest, richest, and free-est country ever known to man?
America is exceptional; but, it is not inherently so. America is exceptional because we embraced freedom. Because we enshrined it in our documents, and because we have lived and fought for the principles of freedom.
America will remain great if we remain proud of America. If we remain proud of the American system, the system that is enshrined in our founding documents, the system that protects and promotes free exchange of goods, the system that protects capitalism—that has made this country great....
I will ask them, respectfully, to deliberate upon this. Do we wish to live free or be enslaved by debt? Do we believe in the individual or do we believe in the state? Thomas Jefferson wrote "that Government is best that governs least." Likewise, freedom is best when enjoyed by the most. America can rise up and surmount these problems if we just get government out of our way.

3. The Anti-Industrial Coup

President Obama has so far shown no inclination to accept that the American people have rejected his statist ideology and no inclination to pull back his agenda. So I now expect him to fall back on the unilateral, dictatorial powers that Congress has given away to the executive branch over the decades.

The left is already urging him to do so. See the column below, which urges Obama to take on the powers and ambition of a dictator by ignoring Congress and imposing his agenda by fiat, particularly the EPA's carbon regulations, which would give the president sweeping control over the entire American economy.

If the Tea Parties want a long-term campaign that will help restore the "consent of the governed," they should take up this cause: reclaiming the legislative authority of Congress by revoking the vast "rule-making" authority ceded to the regulatory agencies.

"Obama Can Pursue Ambitious Agenda Without Congress's Help," Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, November 4

If [Obama] and his advisors are finally ready to acknowledge that the source of voter unhappiness was government ineffectiveness—rather than government overreach, or a general economic malaise—then there's plenty of room for him to maneuver on his own.
Indeed, progressives are urging him to seize the opportunity to take a more muscular approach with his executive powers, starting by getting much tougher on banks. They also hope Obama will use his regulatory authority, his enforcement powers, and his prerogatives as commander in chief to make decisive moves that can't be sabotaged by Congressional Republicans....
The president of the United States oversees a massive regulatory apparatus that, when wielded appropriately, can help level the playing field for the middle class....
"Because Dodd-Frank [the financial regulation bill] left so many things to the regulators, in truth much of the bill has yet to be written," Damon Silvers told HuffPost.
"There is very significant delegation to the administrative agencies to figure out how they're going to carry out the spirit of the law," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. And because regulatory implementation "plays to the strength of the insiders," as Weissman puts it, the process "will require a commitment by the administration to stand up to powerful corporate interests."...
"The Supreme Court has basically given the EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions," Ornstein explained. In theory that means Obama could impose a cap and trade system solely by executive authority....
At his press conference on Wednesday, Obama...said: "I think it's too early to say whether or not we can make some progress on that front. I think we can." Then he added: "Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."...
"There's simply no doubt that organizations like [Karl Rove's] American Crossroad GPS are basically thumbing their noses at the clear intent of [campaign finance] law," Ornstein said. Were the IRS to classify them properly, he said, "donors could theoretically be held liable for at least a gift tax—as well as disclosure of who they are."

4. The Power of the Purse

President Obama's fallback position is to use the unconstitutional power of the regulatory agencies. The Republicans' fallback position is to use the constitutional power of the purse. With a hostile president and a majority in the House but not in the Senate, Republicans cannot repeal ObamaCare or pass any other legislation. The only really unambiguous power they have is the power to write the federal budget.

But by design, this is an enormous power. The article below discusses how Republicans expect to use this power to de-fund the implementation of ObamaCare.

"GOP to Fight Health Law with Purse Strings," Robert Pear, New York Times, November 6

Republicans, who will control the House starting in January but will remain in the minority in the Senate, acknowledge that they do not have the votes for their ultimate goal of repealing the health law, the most polarizing of Mr. Obama's signature initiatives.
But they said they hoped to use the power of the purse to challenge main elements of the law, forcing Democrats—especially those in the Senate who will be up for re-election in 2012—into a series of votes to defend it.
Republican lawmakers said, for example, that they would propose limiting the money and personnel available to the Internal Revenue Service, so the agency could not aggressively enforce provisions that require people to obtain health insurance and employers to help pay for it. Under the law, individuals and employers who flout the requirements will face tax penalties.
Moreover, Republican leaders said, they plan to use spending bills to block federal insurance regulations to which they object....
The House Republican whip, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, described the strategy this way: "If all of Obamacare cannot be immediately repealed, then it is my intention to begin repealing it piece by piece, blocking funding for its implementation and blocking the issuance of the regulations necessary to implement it."
"In short," Mr. Cantor said, "it is my intention to use every tool at our disposal to achieve full repeal of Obamacare."...
The number and variety of restrictions Congress can impose in spending bills is almost unlimited. A bill passed by the House last year, for example, stipulated that no federal money could be used to buy light bulbs unless they met certain energy efficiency standards. The same bill said, "No funds appropriated in this act may be used for the transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance in any school."
House Republicans could easily pass similar provisos stating that no federal money could be used to carry out specific sections of the new health care law....
The Congressional Budget Office says the Internal Revenue Service will need $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years to determine who is eligible for tax credits and other subsidies intended to make insurance affordable. The Department of Health and Human Services will need at least that much to carry out changes in Medicaid, Medicare and the private insurance market, the budget office said....
"House Republicans cannot enact legislation the president won't sign," said R. Scott Lilly, a former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. "But the president cannot force them to appropriate money they don't want to appropriate."

5. Balancing the Damn Budgets

The article above describes attempts to de-fund ObamaCare on the federal level. But there will also be a lot of opportunities to de-fund ObamaCare on the state level, by refusing to create the state-level insurance exchanges and other regulatory apparatus mandated by ObamaCare.

This reflects an underappreciated aspect of last Tuesday's election: it was a bigger victory for Republicans on the state level than it was on the federal level. Michael Barone sketches out the breadth and depth of the victory.

According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, Republicans gained about 125 seats in state senates and 550 seats in state houses—675 seats in total. That gives them more seats than they've won in any year since 1928. Republicans snatched control of about 20 legislative houses from Democrats—and by margins that hardly any political insiders expected.

This has enormous implication for the drive to balance the damn budget.

On the federal level, this will come to a head when the new Congress is called upon to increase the debt ceiling. It will be a real triple dilemma: authorize a new batch of borrowing by the federal government, or impose immediate and drastic cuts in spending, or cause a default on the federal debt (since the new borrowing is required partly to service the interest on the existing debt). The second option is the only one that is acceptable—but the first is the easiest politically.

On the state level, however, prospects are much better. The sweeping Republican control in many states—plus the fact that few states, other than California, are in as deep a hole as the federal government—means that Republicans can demonstrate on the state level their ability to cut spending and balance the damn budgets. It means they have 20 or more laboratories—as with Chris Christie in New Jersey—to showcase the policies that ought to be pursued on the federal level.

And who knows? Maybe one of these spending-slashing, budget-balancing governors will become a Republican presidential candidates in 2012.

"Now in Power, GOP Vows Cuts in State Budgets," Monica Davey and Michael Luo, New York Times, September 7

States face huge deficits, even after several grueling years of them, and just as billions of dollars in stimulus money from Washington is drying up.
With some of these new Republican state leaders having taken the possibility of tax increases off the table in their campaigns, deep cuts in state spending will be needed. These leaders, committed to smaller government, say that is the idea.
"We're going to do what families and businesses all over this country have already had to do, and that is live within their means," said Brian Bosma, a Republican who will soon become the speaker of the Indiana House, alongside a Republican governor, Mitch Daniels, and a supermajority of Republicans in the State Senate....
Republicans gained more than 690 seats in state legislatures (leaving them with numbers last seen more than 80 years ago), at least five more governor seats, and, perhaps most significant, across-the-board power in the legislatures and governor's offices of at least 20 states—more than twice as many as before the election. Included in that group were Maine and Wisconsin, which the day before the election had been entirely in Democratic hands.
"It's kind of put up or shut up time," said Scott Walker, the governor-elect of Wisconsin, which experienced the largest flip in power in memory.

6. The Ayn Rand Factor

I have mentioned how I think the Tea Party is most effective when joined with the intellectual influence of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. Picture a Tea Partier waving a Gadsden flag and wearing a "Who Is John Galt?" T-shirt.

In promoting awareness of Ayn Rand as the pre-eminent philosophical defender of capitalism and a free society, we are getting some unexpected help. Leftist commentators are increasingly beginning to acknowledge an "Ayn Randian" approach as their main enemy.

Below, that takes the form of a new anti-capitalist book which blames the financial crisis, preposterously, on "deregulation" and then claims that Wall Street is promoting Objectivist ideas in order to hoodwink "Main Street" Americans into supporting their nefarious agenda.

Never mind that Wall Street is giving money to Democrats. The real importance of these claims is that they do, in fact, make the real ideological alternatives clear.

"Matt Taibbi: Wall Street Has Seduced America With Randian Pseudo-Libertarianism," Damien Hoffman, Business Insider, November 5

Last year, Matt Taibbi made huge waves when he wrote what were the most circulated articles on Wall Street. Now, he's crystallized his thoughts into a new book Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America.
"The Grifters have been getting people to support Wall Street's political agenda by seducing them with a [Ayn] Randian and pseudo-libertarian ideology. It's always been around, but it's just reaching a fever pitch now. And it's the only way ordinary people can be convinced to endorse a deregulatory agenda. I think it's going to last."
Damien: In your experience at the Tea Party events, do they understand the cosmic irony that they basically just got robbed because there were no sheriffs left in the Wild West, yet now they all stand for a movement that prefers to keep it that way?
Matt: "No, they don't see the irony at all.... Basically, government regulation is the kind of stuff a lot of them see on a day-to-day basis, but in a different form. If they're a hardware store owner, they see a local health inspector or an ADA inspector coming by to make sure they're in compliance with something. These are all little annoyances and costs that they see when they interact with government. Unfortunately, that's what they think is financial regulation. They don't get that it's a completely different ball game when you're talking about JP Morgan Chase (JPM), Goldman Sachs (GS), and that level of power requiring oversight..