The Economics Of Peter And Paul

April 9, 2010 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Economic issues, Europe, Healthcare, Political Philosophy, economy | 4 Comments 

Maybe they’re on to something across the pond. It was announced the other day that the next national election in Great Britain will take place on May 6, and the stakes will be high. A 30-day campaign—can you imagine that?

Of course, the reality over there, as here at home, is that political posturing is a 24/7 proposition—relentless and unmerciful. But just the idea that an actual election can be set for a single month cycle is (pardon the pun) a foreign concept to us. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his leftist Labor party have been gaining ground on David Cameron’s Conservatives, closing what was once a 20-point gap to single digits—lately around 7 per cent—so the timing seemed right.

And while America is being dragged kicking and screaming to the statist left, our increasingly distant cousins could possibly be on the verge of an ironic power-shift. One that has been described “as potentially the most pivotal since the one in 1979 that brought the conservative Margaret Thatcher to power and recast the fundamentals of British politics and society.”

In other words, the culture that gave us Lloyd George, Churchill, and Lady Thatcher, could soon witness “the fundamental transformation” of their nation. Some are calling the campaign of the Tories a “back to the future” effort. Indeed.

Of course, conservatives in the United Kingdom are nowhere near clones of their nomenclature counterparts in the United States. Tories there would barely qualify as “moderate” Republicans here. But the trend is unmistakable and it is not being sufficiently noticed in our neck of the political woods.

Emerging as the hot button issue in the British election is a Labor-backed planned 1% increase in the National Insurance Tax. The Tories oppose this and have countered with an “efficiency saving” program that would address the chronic financial hemorrhage situation in the National Health Service. The NHS, by the way, remains an object of envy to many in our government. Go figure.

Most Americans—especially the nearly half who will pay no income tax this year—haven’t a clue as to how a single payer system works in places like Great Britain. Over and above already oppressive income tax rates, workers must pay a National Insurance Tax, with exemptions only for those who earn, say around 105 pounds per week, then it increases immediately to 11% of income up to 770 pounds per week. Over that, it costs an additional 1% of each worker’s income. So under the new Labor proposal most British workers would be paying a minimum of 12% of their income to fund their single payer system—in addition to already high income taxes.

Even a cursory examination reveals that this is a tax burden that falls squarely on the middle class—something the Brits have been more honest about than some in the current administration in Washington. Of course, the “official” position of the powers that be here is that a single-payer system is not on the table. But for anyone willing to think this political chess match through a few moves ahead, it is clear that there is gleeful hope in many quarters that the recent “reforms” will so stress our current system as to bring it and the country to its knees, paving the way for our own European-style set up.

What Americans need to note is that for a government to operate here as it does in other places will eventually require a great sacrifice on the part of the middle class. We are being sold a bill of good these days, one that some Americans seem all-too-willing to accept. The big lie du jour is that we can have all the purported “benefits” of socialism without the burdens.

Tax cuts for low and middle income families were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year. As a result, nearly half the country will benefit from everything the government does without paying a dime for it! And it is not just the poorest of the poor. There will be people who made $50,000 or more in 2009 paying no income taxes. In fact, 47% of workers in America will pay nothing.

And this is, in many ways, a cancer eating away at our national character. We are almost at the place of critical mass where those who derive a benefit from the government outnumber those who pay the bills. And as the old saying goes: “If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul!”

The irony is that this house of cards will ultimately collapse. Americans who think it’s all a pretty cool deal today—the idea of getting a free ride paid for by someone else—need to look closely at places like Great Britain. Yes, they have exemptions for some in their tax system, but you have to earn less than 6,000 pounds to qualify (roughly 12K in U.S. dollars, give or take). Everybody else pays. In fact, that family making the equivalent of 50K in U.S. dollars over there will pay heavy income taxes plus an 11% National Health Insurance tax for all that “free” stuff.

The other day, the New York Times wrote about the “growing power of the state in British life” noting that “more than half of all those in employment have government jobs, and just over half of the economy is accounted for by government activity.” Is this really what we want for America?

The truth of the matter is that the programs being touted today as to be paid for by the very rich will soon start costing all of us. In fact, it will be a rude awakening one day—if current trends persist—when a worker making an income that had long kept him below a tax-paying threshold sees a big chunk of change taken out of his paycheck.

Yes, they plan to soak the rich right now. But one day, they’ll come for everyone else needing dollars to feed the big entitlement machine. Saul Alinsky, in “Rules For Radicals” talked about the struggle between the “haves” and the “have nots.” And this became the basis for the kind of political energy that brought Barack Obama to the White House. People were trying to get their perceived “fair share.” Social Justice is now all the rage—let’s reshuffle the deck and give everyone a New Deal.

But the problem is that eventually the “have nots” will get all they can extort from the “haves.” Then the “pay nots”—those who have grown accustomed to someone else paying the tab—will have to become “pays.”

The other day, I was listening to BBC America on satellite radio and I heard a round table discussion bemoaning the fact that America has so much more entrepreneurial activity per capita than the U.K. These bright bulbs pondered the reasons and never seemed to have an “A-Ha!” moment. They talked about how maybe if the government gave more “grants” to those who wanted to start businesses.

Clueless.

Years ago, I heard a quote, I don’t remember where—or from whom—to the effect that if you want to see what the U.S. will be like in 40 years, look at the UK now.

Come to think of it, I heard that said just about 40 years ago.

Pelosi-land

March 19, 2010 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Richard Nixon | 3 Comments 

The Economist returns to a point that Frank Gannon made a couple of years ago:

WHEN Nancy Pelosi moved to San Francisco, she struggled to find somewhere to live. For months, and with four small children, she lodged with her mother-in-law. So she was relieved when she found a perfect home to rent: big, childproof and with swings in the garden. She was about to seal the deal when she discovered that the owner’s husband was heading east to join the Nixon administration. “We won’t be able to live here,” she said. “I could never live anyplace that was made available because of the election of Richard Nixon.”

If this story were told by a Republican, Lexington would dismiss it as apocryphal. It confirms too neatly the caricature of Mrs Pelosi as a petty and tribal partisan. But the source is Mrs Pelosi’s autobiography, “Know Your Power: a Message to America’s Daughters”. And in case you think it out of character, she adds that her daughter Alexandra “often says to me that she knows everything she needs to know about me by hearing that story.”

Issa on RN and President Obama

March 10, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

At National Review Online, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) observes that some commentators have favorably likened our current president to Richard Nixon.  He argues that there are key differences, too:

Regrettably, President Obama is failing where Richard Nixon succeeded. Nixon was ever-willing to meet at the negotiating table, but only as a tactic that complemented his overall strategy of engagement. Thus far, POTUS 44 almost exclusively prefers the policy of outstretched hands and summits, without the diplomatic finesse and appreciation for American power that can keep our enemies guessing. Nixon never showed all his cards, and somehow managed to convince the world that he was holding trumps. President Obama, like Carter before him, gives the endless impression that his strongest bet is always a bluff.

Barack Obama–Administrator: A Story Of Tomorrow

March 5, 2010 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Healthcare, History, Political Philosophy, Politics, Presidents, Public Opinion, U.S. History, White House | 1 Comment 

Did you know that the word, “manufacture” is from the Latin and literally means: “to make by hand?” Of course, the term has long since been connected with things made by machines. The word no longer means what it meant.

Language—any language—is like that. “Brave” used to mean “cowardly.” Really. And “nice?” Well, it originally meant, “not to know,” or another way to say someone was ignorant.

Nice.

Etymologists—those who study word origins and meanings—tell us that words change for several reasons: generalization—specialization—degeneration, to name a few. Now, apparently, we must add politicization to the list of word-changers. Most of the time, such linguistic morphing is subtle and hardly noticed. But right now before our eyes, a very good word is becoming something quite unlike what it originally meant.

Reconciliation—a word rich in nuance, meaning, and historic impact; a term that has for centuries indicated the removal of barriers and the restoration of relationship—may be rendered virtually meaningless soon. What is now being planned for the whole health care fix in this country, all other avenues having failed those who just know they know better than the rest of us, will likely come to pass in some form via a political process now known famously as Reconciliation.

George Orwell would be proud. What once meant the end of hostility and all parties coming together in good will, soon will likely stand for the raw exercise of party and power politics. And in the process it will leave in its wake anything but the fruit of real reconciliation. In fact, all indications are that we are on the verge of entering a fierce period of vituperative political conflict—one even worse than what we have recently seen.

Yes, I understand that, in this case, the word is being used in an accounting sense. But when you “reconcile” your bank statement, isn’t that also called “balancing?” Where’s the balance in such a political maneuver?

Of course, the idea—and in fact, the practice—of reconciliation in matters of legislation has been around for more than 35 years. And the process was used in the past by Republicans, giving some credence to the charge of hypocrisy now being hurled by the Democrats. But a closer look at matters handled in the past via the Byrd-rule suggests that nothing prior even comes close to comparing to what is being suggested and orchestrated now—a takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

It’s all part of that “fundamental transformation of America” that was being talked about in 2008.

In the past, the opposite of reconciliation—in fact, a key reason for the term’s existence in language—was alienation. Now, however, reconciliation will not be healing alienation, rather it will be exacerbating it. And what is striking and enduringly frustrating about the whole thing is that at every turn Americans have been sending not-so-subtle signals to those breathing the rarified air inside the Beltway. The message has been consistent and persistent: Read our lips—no new Health Care. The things that are weak in our current system can be fixed, not by moving away from market-based economics, but by creating incentives for the market to fix itself.

One particular thing that makes my skin crawl every time I hear it is this idea that under Obamacare all Americans who are happy with their current health care can keep things as they are. While theoretically (i.e., outside the actual real world) this may sound reasonable and reassuring, the facts speak otherwise.

Most Americans did not choose their current coverage—their employers did—or, at least, some entity within the business, corporation, or union organizational structure. That means that decisions about future coverage will not be in the hands of employees, but rather such decision makers. And if a business owner or CEO sees a better deal, or feels pressure to alter the plan—does anyone really think a mere employee has much of a say?

Why, then, the big push in the face of overwhelming political ill will? The only reasonable answer is that those pushing the Obamacare agenda have made up their minds that they know best and that those opposing the measures are simply ignorant. In other words—it’s arrogance.

And when political arrogance meets perceived public ignorance, it can only mean one thing: The spirit of Woodrow Wilson is back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Like the professor who knew better way back then, Mr. Obama and company honestly feel that if this thing can be passed, even by the thinnest of razor margins, Americans will ultimately like enough of the plan once implemented that they’ll tend to embarrassingly forget what all the fuss was about. They are also banking on the fact that once a generation grows accustomed to a certain entitlement, it is almost impossible to reverse it.

But Woodrow Wilson learned a thing or two the hard way about the folly of political arrogance. Self-assurance, crusader-zeal, and personal charisma can only carry a politician so far. History shows that leaders who rely on such traits long-term are eventually devoured by them. One day the cheering actually does stop.

Interestingly, such arrogance also smacks of something out of a work of fiction that flew close to the flame of fact nearly 100 years ago. Published anonymously in 1912, the year Mr. Wilson was elected as the 28th President of the United States, was the novel “Philip Dru—Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, 1920-1935.” The author was actually Edward House (he was referred to by the purely honorific “Colonel” House), a man who became Woodrow Wilson’s alter ego—he was the Rahm Emanuel of the day, only much better at it.

The book tells the story of a man, Philip Dru, who becomes the dictator of America—but as a despot he was of the benevolent sort (I told you it was fiction). He was a leader who took unprecedented power, only doing so for the good of the people. Father knows best. In the book’s dedication, House wrote:

“This book is dedicated to the unhappy many who have lived and died lacking opportunity, because, in the starting, the world-wide social structure was wrongly begun.”

One gets the feeling that the ghosts of Philip Dru, Edward House, not to mention Woodrow Wilson are not merely haunting the halls of the White House these days.

In fact, they’re part of the team.

Nixon, Obama, and Health Insurance Price Controls

February 25, 2010 by admin | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Healthcare, History, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Steve Chapman writes of the president’s proposal to control health insurance premiums:

Barack Obama has often modeled his policies on Franklin Roosevelt. Lately, though, he’s been coming across more as Richard Nixon Lite.

In 1971, fed up with the steady rise of wages and prices, Nixon had a big idea: Attack inflation by imposing strict controls on wages and prices. A federal board was created to establish guidelines and enforce compliance, on the assumption that government officials were wise enough to decide the correct price for millions of products and the right wage for millions of workers.

This analogy is not encouraging.  As mentioned here last year, RN  cknowledged in his memoirs that price controls had been a mistake:

What did America reap from its brief fling with economic controls?  The August 15, 1971 decision to impose them was politically necessary and immensely popular in the short run.  But in the long run I believe that it was wrong.  The piper must always be paid, and there was an unquestionably high price for tampering with the orthodox economic mechanisms.

A Vital Political Question For 2010

February 5, 2010 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Intelligence, International Affairs, Iran, Islam, National Security, Obama administration, Political Philosophy, Presidents, Terrorism, War on Terror | 1 Comment 

In the waning days of the 1980 presidential campaign, Republican nominee Ronald Reagan used his allotted time in the closing moments of his only debate with President Jimmy Carter to ask a question. It was one of the most effective rhetorical devices in American history.

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

Because most Americans answered a resounding “No” that night, Mr. Reagan was able to pull the line out again four years later, this time as President and against Walter Mondale, who ran a quixotic campaign to oust him. And Americans answered by electing Reagan to a second term.

Over the years, the question about being “better off” has been used to great affect by many politicians, including later aspirants to the White House. It became, in effect, a rhetorical trump card.

Now there is another question in the room—one that was asked, in a manner of speaking, during several recent special elections and will be commonplace this November as all of us go to the polls in the “off-year” ritual. The question is: “Are you safer than you were four years ago?”

It is hard to find anything about President Barack Obama’s first term—at least anything of substance—that can be realistically characterized as successful. And by successful, I mean accomplishing one’s stated goals. Whether it was the healthcare bridge too far, cap-and-trade, or dramatically improving the economy, this administration has simply not delivered on what it promised. Of course, in the area of national security they have tried to make good on pledges, but have found the resistance to every move to be surprising strong.

And one gets the feeling that not only did they not see failure coming in the euphoria of those early halcyon days in charge—but they really don’t have a clue as to where to go from here. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the area of national security and dealing with the very real threat of Islamist terror. And nowhere are the stakes any higher.

The other day, Leon Panetta, Director of CIA, in concert with other leaders in the national security community, told Congress that a terror attack (the indication being that this would be an attempt of significant magnitude) is likely during the next three to six months. It was also suggested that this warning is based, at least in part, on information gleaned from the man who tried to blow up an American airplane en route to Detroit on Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Presumably, this so-called “underwear-bomber” has been cooperating with authorities lately, following the intervention of some of his family from Nigeria, such intervention being prompted by FBI visits to that country.

With its too-sad-to-be-farcical “you-could-have-had-me-at-enemy-combatant” Miranda prolonged delay, this episode is in a real sense a window into the thinking—some would say, lack thereof—of the Obama administration on the whole issue of terror, Islamism, “detainees,” and national security. It seems that there is this naïve insistence on seeing and framing the issues as something nuanced—an almost “shirts versus skins” game—instead of a very grave matter of life and death.

A President is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and by extension, therefore, those under its cover. The founders and framers did not fashion a document for global governance, nor did they seek to extend its protection beyond “we the people.” But these days we are witnessing the most ambitious attempt ever to broadly interpret its provisions.

On the domestic side, “we” the people is giving way to “for” the people, as those wiser-than-the-rest-of-us seek to “fundamentally transform” (to use Mr. Obama’s words) America. And when it comes to foreign policy and international issues, apparently now this new-improved understanding of our Constitution—one that makes Franklin Roosevelt look like a paleo-conservative in comparison—reads, “they” the people. It covers not only illegal aliens, but also non-U.S. citizen enemy combatants, giving them more rights than any of us would ever receive in some Islamist majority country.

“Are you safer than you were four years ago?”

Iran moves arrogantly and confidently forward to develop the materials and technology to soon become a nuclear power. Just the other day, its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, talked of delivering a blow to “global arrogance” as that nation marks the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution on February 11.

Sure we protest, but words from a teleprompter don’t make much impact on a man who thinks he gets his ideas directly from Allah. And at any rate—the whole first year of Mr. Obama’s administration and its mea culpa “we like you” overtures to the Islamic world, notwithstanding—there is no evidence that anyone who hated us when George W. Bush was in town, hates us any less now.

In fact, someone in the White House should take a look at something else the mahdaviatist President of Iran said the other day in that same speech:

“If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles.”

Did you see that? The enemy is “liberalism and Marxism.” So as the current administration tries to pursue some kind of rapprochement with Iran and other Islamist nations, while at the same time trying orchestrate a decidedly more liberal agenda domestically—one that smacks of “Marxist” thinking at many turns—something ironic is happening. The new “good guys” who tell us that America is now going be loved more around the world because bad old George Bush and the cranky conservatives are gone, have missed a key plot-point: Islamists hate democratic liberalism—with its socialist vision—even more than they hate militaristic neo-conservatism.

Oops.

Of course, I hope and pray that we are spared any such terror attack this, or any, year. And I pray that there remains a sufficient remnant of discerning men and women in key areas of expertise and responsibility across the land, people who have not bowed the knee to the Baal of liberal statism and diplomatic naïveté, in place to forestall such a disaster.

But I must admit, there seems to be an inexplicable zeitgeist, combining lackadaisical apathy with arrogance that makes me feel anything but safe.

Someone talked to me recently about how, if we are attacked, people will rally around our new president like they did George W. Bush in 2001. I countered that I wasn’t so sure. That was a different time—before we really knew what terrorism meant on these shores. Post game analysis back then revealed so many areas of weakness leading to that dreadful day of terror on Sept. 11.

If such a thing, or anything similar, were to happen these days, I am not sure that those in charge now would get the kind of good will that translates into a political pass—or future.

The Next Castro?

January 3, 2010 by Jim Gallen | Filed Under Afghanistan, Annals of the Obama Administration, Cuba | 1 Comment 

With the coming of a New Year we are again reminded that on January 1, 1959, now 51 years ago, Fidel Castro and his band of rebels rolled into Havana and established a Communist government in the Western Hemisphere.  Castro is now enjoying his senior status as a thorn in the side of his eleventh American Administration.  Originally regaled as the “Robin Hood of the Caribbean” and the “George Washington of Cuba”, the gradual realization that Castro was a Communist became an embarrassment to President Eisenhower and may have hurt Vice-President Nixon in the 1960 election.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco, intended to oust Castro, weakened the credibility of the new Kennedy Administration.  Claims of Castro’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination have never been completely silenced.  Castro backed insurgencies throughout Latin America presented shifting challenges to the Johnson and Nixon Administrations.  Intervention in Angola would attract the attention of President Ford and contribute to the impression of a bungling President Carter leading the U.S. into a period of decline.  Castro’s support for the Sandinistas in Nicaragua would lead President Reagan into aiding the Contras, which spawned the greatest scandal of his administration.  With the fall of his Soviet sponsors, Castro faded into the role of a minor irritant whose major influence on the U.S. was to drive the Cuban community in Florida, with its growing influence, into the arms of politicians seen as “tough on Castro.”  With the rise of his soul-mate, Hugo Chavez, Castro became a cult hero whose comments were given enhanced attention.  Despite decades of attempts by Exiles and the CIA to achieve regime change or assassination, Castro, protected by his status as a Head of State and Soviet missiles, has lived to peacefully transfer power to his brother and slide into the role of an elder revolutionary.  Absent unforeseen turmoil, Fidel will probably pass on quietly of natural causes.

While Fidel’s influence and irritation coefficients have been declining, those of Osama Bin Laden have been rising.  Slated for capture or death by President Clinton and the target of cruise missiles in 1998 because of his role in attacks on U.S. Embassies in eastern Africa, Bin Laden became Public Enemy # 1 after the September 11 attacks.  Despite President Bush’s proclamation that he was “Wanted: Dead or Alive” and over eight years of manhunts, Bin Laden remains at liberty to fire periodic audio or video messages of threats or suggestions to the Western public and their leaders.  Speaking of the Tora Bora Battle of December 2001, John Kerry said:  “When Bush had an opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden, he took his focus off of him, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords and bin Laden escaped.” He would later claim that Bin Laden’s last minute tape cost him the 2004 election and, as recently as last month, wrote:  “If we had captured or killed Bin Laden, the world would look very different today. His death or imprisonment would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat, but our failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism. It left the American people more vulnerable, and it inflamed the strife that now threatens to engulf Pakistan and Afghanistan.”  Now President Obama is entangled in the War in Afghanistan which was begun to deprive Bin Laden and Al Qaeda of sanctuaries from which to launch further attacks against the West.  Through all this, Bin Laden, protected by his band of tribal militants, roams the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan.  For how long will this outlaw avoid justice?  For how long will Western politics be influenced by his tapes and even his continued life?  For how many presidents will the capture or death of Bin Laden be an elusive goal?  Will he, in the end, be the next Castro, who will continue to avoid the long arm of the U.S. until, full of days, riches and, in the eyes of some, honors, he will die, perhaps at a time and place unknown to his pursuers?  The story develops.

Obama, Nixon, and Peace Through Strength

December 13, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Terrorism | 1 Comment 

President Obama mentioned RN in his Nobel acceptance speech.  Michael Goodwin of the New York Post perceptively notes what the president left out:

Annals of the Obama Administration

December 8, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | 1 Comment 

Barry Blitt’s cover for this week’s New Yorker:

Provocative Nonsense

December 5, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Afghanistan, Annals of the Obama Administration, Democratic Party, War on Terror | 13 Comments 

At the Huffington Post, Tom Shachtman writes:

Former Vice President Richard B. Cheney in a recent interview with Politico labeled President Barack Obama’s drawn-out process of deciding on a troop surge for Afghanistan as projecting “weakness,” and charged that this and other “signs of weakness” would embolden our adversaries in the world. In articulating this position, Cheney embraced the concept of “provocative weakness” promulgated many years ago by the mysterious Pentagon civilian adviser Fritz G. A. Kraemer.

Schachtman identifies Kraemer as the “shaper” of Henry Kissinger and a neoconservative guru.  Kraemer was one of Kissinger’s mentors, but so was William Y. Elliott of Harvard, an apostle of realism.  In suggesting that Kraemer was responsible for the idea of provocative weakness, Schactman is being ridiculous.  The notion that weakness invites aggression has been around for a very long time.  Consider:

• ” There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness.” — Andrew Jackson, special message to Congress, February 22, 1836
• “Weakness and unpreparedness invite aggression” — 1940 Democratic Platform
• “The disintegration of our military forces since the surrender of Germany and Japan is an encouragement to nations who regard weakness on the part of peace-loving nations as an invitation to aggression. And the countries whose people share our ideals, and who look to us for leadership, but who are weak in resources or manpower, lose faith in our ability to support the principles for which we stand.”  — Harry Truman, June 7, 1947
• “Weakness invites aggression. Strength stops it.” — Dwight Eisenhower, October 9, 1956

RN, BHO, and KSM, continued

November 21, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Election 2008, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

When RN mistakenly declared Charles Manson guilty during his trial, problems ensued.  From a contemporaneous report in Time:

In Los Angeles, the effect of Nixon’s remarks on the Manson trial was instant and dramatic. While the Los Angeles Times came out the same afternoon with a four-inch headline reading MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES, Judge Charles Older went to great lengths to ensure that the jury, which has been sequestered since the trial began, would not learn of Nixon’s remarks. The windows of the jury bus were whited over with Bon Ami so that no juror could glimpse the headline on street newsstands. If the jury discovered Nixon’s verdict, the defense might have grounds for a mistrial. His efforts were to no avail. Next day Manson himself displayed a copy of the Times to the jury for some ten seconds before a bailiff grabbed the newspaper from his hands. Judge Older called a recess, then questioned the jurors one by one to satisfy himself that their judgment would not be affected. An alternate juror convulsed the courtroom when he announced his disclaimer: “I didn’t vote for Nixon in the first place.”

RN & Manson, Obama & Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

November 19, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Terrorism | 1 Comment 

From AP:

President Barack Obama appeared to be taking a page from Richard Nixon’s playbook Wednesday when he seemed to declare the suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed guilty and deserving of the death penalty.  In Nixon’s case, he pronounced cult leader Charles Manson guilty of several murders while Manson was being tried in a California state court for killing actress Sharon Tate and others.

Here’s what happened.  In an interview, the president had this exchange with Chuck Todd of NBC:

TODD: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

OBAMA: I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

TODD: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction – I mean one of the purposes of doing – going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the the world our fairness in our court system.

OBAMA: Well –

TODD: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

OBAMA: Look – what I said was people will not be offended if that’s the outcome. I’m not pre-judging; I’m not going to be in that courtroom, that’s the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury.

The RN remark came on August 3, 1970.  He was criticizing the media for glamorizing criminals, and used Manson as an example:

I noted, for example, the coverage of the Charles Manson case when I was in Los Angeles, front page every day in the papers. It usually got a couple of minutes in the evening news. Here is a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.

Ron Ziegler immediately retracted the remark, noting that RN had intended to say “alleged.”  But the comment caused big problems for the prosecution — as Obama’s remark probably will.

There are a couple of differences.  Nixon admitted error. At a press conference several months later, a reporter asked him about the Manson trial and other cases in which he suggested that criminal defendants were guilty. ”I think sometimes we lawyers, even like doctors who try to prescribe for themselves, may make mistakes. And I think that kind of comment probably is unjustified. “  Obama, by contrast, insisted that “when” really means “if.”

Also, the text of Nixon’s original comment was (and is) available on the public record.  But the Obama White House, unlike its immediate predecessors, does not routinely post interview transcripts.  To find them, one must search online in other places.  And as any Googler knows, things often disappear from the web.

The First Pacific President?

November 14, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

In Tokyo today, President Obama said: “As America’s first Pacific president, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world.”

The president was in error.  Though he was apparently referring to his birth in Hawaii and brief childhood sojourn in Indonesia, he is not our nation’s first Pacific president.  If a “Pacific president” is one born and raised in a Pacific state, that distinction belongs to Richard Nixon, born in Yorba Linda, California in 1913.  Indeed, RN spent a much greater proportion of his life near the Pacific than President Obama has.  He grew up in Whittier, went to Whittier College, practiced law in Southern California, did naval service in the Pacific, represented California in the House and Senate, ran for governor of the state, and for years had a home in San Clemente.  Between the Vietnam War and the opening to China, Pacific Rim affairs were a major focus of his presidency.

Other presidents also had significant experience in the Pacific.  William Howard Taft served as Governor-General of the Philippines.  Herbert Hoover spent much of his childhood in Oregon, graduated from Stanford, and spent years as a mining engineer in Australia and China.  Dwight Eisenhower had military duty in the Panama Canal Zone and the Philippines.

And there was also some fellow named Reagan…

Annals Of The Obama Administration

November 10, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, International Affairs, Secretary Clinton | Leave a Comment 

In today’s Telegraph, blogger Nile Gardiner notes Secretary Clinton’s historically short-sighted remarks at the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It’s bad enough that President Obama could not be bothered to attend the celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But Hillary Clinton’s refusal to even acknowledge the role played by Ronald Reagan in the Wall’s demise as well as the downfall of Communism was highly insulting towards one of the greatest figures of our time, and reeked of petty and partisan mean-spiritedness.

The Secretary of State’s remarks yesterday in Berlin completely erased from history the huge contribution played not only by President Reagan but also by the United States in confronting the Soviet Empire. In her speech she applauded half of Europe, but could not bring herself to thank those Americans who bravely served their country and in many cases laid down their lives in defeating Communism, under Reagan’s leadership.

Here is what Clinton said in Berlin on behalf of the Obama administration:

“We remember the allies who conducted the largest humanitarian airlift in history, completing more than a quarter million flights to sustain the people of West Berlin. We remember the Poles – (applause) – who waged a campaign for liberty that began with a strike in the shipyards of Gdansk and ended by shattering a system of tyranny. We remember a Polish Pope who spoke out for the aspirations of people across Europe and the world. (Applause.) We remember the people of the Baltics who joined hands across their lands and helped to break the chains that held their nations captive. We remember the students of Prague who propelled a dissident playwright from a jail cell to the presidency of a free republic. And tonight, we remember the Germans on both sides of the wall, but particularly the Germans in the East who stood up and finally were able to say, “No more. Freedom is our birthright and we will take it by our own hands.”

Incredibly, Clinton ended her remarks, with a tribute not to the tens of millions of victims of Communism, but to Barack Obama!

“I am deeply honored to introduce now a message from someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls – of walls of discrimination, of stereotype, of character, the walls that too often are inside minds and hearts. Let me introduce a message from President Barack Obama.”

Hillary Clinton would do well to learn from Margaret Thatcher, a great friend of the United States, whom I had the privilege of working for in her private office. Like Ronald Reagan she is a statesman who understands that evil must be confronted and defeated, and a true leader who believes in the greatness of America as a force for good on the world stage.

As Lady Thatcher observed in her eulogy to Reagan at his funeral service at the National Cathedral in Washington in June 2004:

“We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape… It is a very different world, with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president. .. With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so today, the world – in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw and Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev, and in Moscow itself, the world mourns the passing of the great liberator and echoes his prayer: God bless America.”

These were the words that Clinton should have echoed in front of the Brandenburg Gate – a recognition of President Reagan’s huge contribution to the advancement of freedom in Europe and across the world.

The Muse of the Obama White House

October 20, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

In their attacks on Fox News and tea-party protesters, White House officials are cribbing from a speech given 40 years ago next month.

[W]e should ask what is the end value–to enlighten or to profit? What is the end result–to inform or to confuse? How does the ongoing exploration for more action, more excitement, more drama, serve our national search for internal peace and stability?

Normality has become the nemesis of the evening news. 

Gresham’s law seems to be operating in the network news.

Bad news drives out good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational.  Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent…

What has this passionate pursuit of “controversy” done to the politics of progress through logical compromise, essential to the functioning of a democratic society?

The members of Congress who follow their principles and philosophy quietly in a spirit of compromise are unknown to many Americans–while the loudest and most extreme dissenters on every issue are known to every man in the street.

How many marches and demonstrations would we have if the marchers did not know that the ever-faithful TV cameras would be there to record their antics for the next news show?

Pat Buchanan wrote those remarks for Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, who delivered them on November 13, 1969.

Annals of the Obama Administration

October 11, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration | Leave a Comment 

The First Lady made a charming video with Sesame Street’s Elmo about encouraging habits of healthy eating and smart  living — with the nice tag “You’re your child’s best role model.”   It’s possible that I am the last person in the western hemisphere to know about this PSA — which, apparently, was made in May.  But  I only saw it for the first time last night when I went to hulu.com to catch up on this week’s episode of FlashForward.*

____________________________________

*FlashForward (Thursday nights on ABC) combines the maddeningly intriguing ambiguities of Lost with the unalloyed adrenaline of 24 (at least it has for three episodes),  and it is phenomenal TV.   Check it out now and you can thank me later.

Annals Of The Obama Administration

October 7, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Art, White House | Leave a Comment 

The Wall Street Journal yesterday reported on the 45 works of art chosen by the First Lady from various government collections to adorn the White House.

Loaned art in the Residence
• Josef Albers – Homage to the Square: Elected II – Hirshhorn Museum
• Josef Albers – Homage to the Square: Midday – Hirshhorn Museum
• Josef Albers – Study for Homage to the Square: Nacre – Hirshhorn Museum
• George Catlin – A Crow Chief at His Toilette – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Camanchees Lancing a Buffalo Bull – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Mired Buffalo and Wolves – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Cheyenne Village – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Grizzly Bears Attacking Buffalo – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Game of the Arrow-Mandan – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – A Foot War Party in Council-Mandan – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Ball-Play Dance-Choctaw – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Buffalo Chase, with Accidents – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – Catlin and Indian Attacking Buffalo – National Gallery of Art
• George Catlin – K’nisteneux Indians Attacking Two Grizzly Bears – National Gallery of Art
• Edward Corbett – Washington, D.C. November 1963 III – National Gallery of Art
• Edgar Degas – Dancer Putting on Stocking – Hirshhorn Museum
• Edgar Degas – The Bow – Hirshhorn Museum
• Richard Diebenkorn – Berkeley, No. 52 – National Gallery of Art
• Nicolas De Stael – Nice – Hirshhorn Museum
• Sam Francis – White Line – National Gallery of Art
• Winslow Homer – Sunset – National Gallery of Art
• Jasper Johns – Numerals, 0 through 9 – National Gallery of Art
• William H. Johnson – Legend – Smithsonian American Art Museum
• William H. Johnson – Children Dance – Smithsonian American Art Museum
• William H. Johnson – Flower to Teacher – Smithsonian American Art Museum
• William H. Johnson – folk Family – Smithsonian American Art Museum
• Glenn Ligon – Black Like Me #2 – Hirshhorn Museum
• Giorgio Morandi – Still Life – National Gallery of Art
• Giorgio Morandi – Still Life – National Gallery of Art
• Louise Nevelson – Model for “Sky Covenant” – National Gallery of Art
• Susan Rothenberg – Butterfly – National Gallery of Art
• Mark Rothko – Red Band – National Gallery of Art
• Edward Ruscha – I think I’ll . . . – National Gallery of Art
• Alma Thomas – Sky Light – Hirshhorn Museum
• Leon Polk Smith – Stretch of Black III – National Gallery of Art
• Unknown Artist – Chief Jumper of the Seminoles – National Gallery of Art

Loaned art in the West Wing
• Frank O. Salisbury – President Harry S. Truman – Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri – Cabinet Room
• Lucy M. Lewis (Acoma Pueblo) – Vase – National Museum of the American Indian – Oval Office
• Jeri Redcorn (Caddo) – Bottle: Intertwining Scrolls – National Museum of the American Indian – Oval Office
• Steve S. (Iroquois) – Jar – National Museum of the American Indian – Oval Office
• Maria Poveka Martinez (San Ildefonso Pueblo) – Jar – National Museum of the American Indian – Oval Office
• Samuel F. B. Morse – Telegraph Register patent model – National Museum of American History – Oval Office
• John A. Peer – Gear Cutter patent model – National Museum of American History – Oval Office
• Fletcher Felter – Propeller Blade patent model – National Museum of American History – Oval Office

Loaned art in the East Wing
• Alma Thomas – Watusi (Hard Edge) – Hirshhorn Museum – East Wing

In today’s  Washington Post, art critic Blake Gopnik quotes White House curator William Allman’s observation that the Obamas’ choices express “probably more interest in truly modern art” than the previous administration.  The redoubtable Gopnik —whose article is accompanied by a slide show— then examines the selections for deeper meaning:

Working with curators at the White House and at the local museums that made loans, the First Couple selected some works whose politics are explicit, and mild. They seem to redress past imbalances in the nation’s sense of its own art. There are works by African Americans (seven paintings from three artists, out of a total of 47) and by Native Americans (four artists contributed three modern ceramics and one abstract painting). There are also 12 paintings depicting Native Americans, by the 19th-century ethnographic artist George Catlin.

But there are still only six works by women, vs. 41 by men. And there are no works at all by Latinos. (A work by the deceased Cuban American artist Félix González-Torres would have filled the gap perfectly, and added a nod to the country’s gay culture. The Smithsonian’s Hirshhorn Museum has one that could have been borrowed.)

Alma Thomas’ 1973 abstract Sky Light hangs in the private residence…….

.….as does William H. Johnson’s 1944 painting Folk Family.

The First Lady chose Alma Thomas’ 1963 Watusi (Hard Edge) for the East Wing.

Mrs. Obama chose several works by George Catlin for the private residence — among them Buffalo Chase, with Accidents (1861/1869).

Frank O. Salisbury’s 1946 portrait of Harry S Truman now hangs in the Cabinet Room in the West Wing.

Josef Albers’ 1961 Homage to the Square: Elected II was one of three Albers works borrowed from the Hirshhorn collection for the private residence:

So far no wags seem to have singled out one of the First Lady’s most interesting choices — Ed Ruscha’s 1983 painting  ”I Think I’ll….” — which indicates a refined taste or a sense of humor or both.   There’s no indication where this giant 5′5″ x 6′3″ canvas hangs in the private residence:

A Community Organizer Takes On The World

September 25, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Cuba, Domestic issues, Economic issues, History, Nixon Administration, Obama administration, Political Philosophy, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, UN | 2 Comments 

President Barack Obama’s visit to the United Nations this past week, complete with a major address and some quality time with a gavel, was yet another step in the process of seizing a much sought after role. For decades, U.S. presidents have routinely been referred to as leaders of the free world. For all practical and theoretical purposes now, though, the appellation “free” no longer applies.

We should now be saying that he’s the leader of the world, period.

Until now, the various elements of a particular president’s philosophy and methodology have usually been categorized dichotomously: domestic policy and foreign policy. And since they both involve issues that seldom fly that close to each other – except for matters of trade – the occupants of the Oval Office have generally been analyzed and graded on them separately by historians.

The prevailing wisdom is that a particular president may have been strong on one and weak on the other. Rare was the leader who got high marks for what he did here as well as his approach to things abroad. Sometimes it had to do with passion. Richard Nixon was fascinated with foreign policy, seeing it as the premier role for a president. And in spite of a solid domestic record (which was impressive in some areas), the 37th President is largely rated highly for his achievements on the international stage.

Even for those who seemed to be effective both domestically and diplomatically, there were few similarities in philosophy and methodology between the two vastly different arenas. That is, until now.

Mr. Obama has a philosophy that runs as a common thread between his approaches to everything he touches from the U.S. economy, to national security, and even, yes, foreign policy. What is this important piece of the puzzle? Simple. Though he pays lip service to one of the most basic issues of human nature and how people relate to and interact with each other on a micro or macro scale, his actions actually minimize – or at least, marginalize – a fundamental instinct common to every person, group, community, and nation on the earth.

Self-interest.

The call du jour from the mountaintop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is for all of us to rise above, or in new age parlance “transcend,” mere mortal self-interest. On the domestic level this means that capitalism – a mean, primal, greedy, and materialistic approach to economics that steals from the poor to give to the rich – must be replaced (slowly, but surely) with a more enlightened approach; one that emphasizes social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth.

This is all the rage these days. It may be called “progressive,” but it’s really a barely-if-at-all disguised form of socialism. If it walks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it digests food like a goose, it’s…well.

Never mind that this naïve experiment has never really worked well anywhere, and instead of practicing “to each according to need; from each according to ability,” it actually devolves into “to each according to need; from each according to lack thereof.” As Margaret Thatcher famously said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

You also start running out of freedom. Planned economies involve a construct where the individual trades (wittingly, or not) liberty for some perceived value – all supposedly accomplished on the wings of so-called better angels. The bigger the wings and more aggressive the planners, the greater is the loss of freedom. Capitalism, on the other hand, though often accused of being selfish and cynical, recognizes man’s inbred propensity for selfishness and taps into it.

The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, who wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776, referred to this as a “system of natural liberty.” And flaws, cycles, weaknesses aside, it has worked pretty well here in our country. This approach to economics is, in fact, woven into the national fabric.

Everyone gets free healthcare in Cuba. But it’s a good thing there, because the average wage earner in that nation makes less than $30.00 per month, including the doctors. And three out of four workers in that country – where a little more than 50 years ago economic development was the highest in Latin America and advanced even by European standards – now work for the public sector (read: the government tab).

But don’t hold your breath while waiting for Michael Moore to make a movie entitled, “Cuba: A Sad Story.” His current movie, a rant about the evils of capitalism, will be released next week in theaters. Of course, Moore wouldn’t make a movie, or do anything for that matter, out of self-interest. Would he?

It’s no secret if you want a high standard of living in countries with planned economies (the collective version of fixed incomes) you go to work for the government. As you climb the ladder you get better Dachas. This was only true here in the U.S. during the days of the Great Depression and New Deal.

Of course, in fairness, the anti-capitalists are just getting started.

On the international front, lip service may be paid here and there to the concept of national self-interest, as when Mr. Obama told the good old boys and girls at the United Nations the other day: “Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests.” However, one just knows that a big fat conjunction is coming signaling the real point: “But,” (see, I told you) “it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 – more than at any point in human history – the interests of nations and peoples are shared.”

Really?

The president’s hyperbolic assignation of this year notwithstanding, is it even remotely true that China or Russia share our interests? And even leaving the roguish states out of the discussion, is it at all realistic to ask any nation to act against, or in any way minimize, its own interest – no matter how compelling or romantic the call? And is it even just a little bit ironic that in a speech with the line, “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation,” our president calls everyone to follow the magnanimous lead of America, now that the Bush administration has been replaced with a collection of more responsible political gnostics?

President Obama does not have separate principles for his domestic and foreign policy approaches. There is one common thread. It’s out with the old and presumably outdated self-interest and in with a brand new era of quasi-utopian-top-down-we-know-best-because-we-are-enlightened peace and prosperity.

Let bells all over the world ring as empathy breaks out all over.

“The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments, are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people,” President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday. But as ambitious and idealistic – even resonant to some – as such a statement is, the fact is that our fundamental nature as human beings has not changed throughout the course of history. Technology has changed, knowledge has increased, landscapes have morphed, and kingdoms and nations have come and gone, but as the Shakespeare of the prophets recorded six centuries before Christ:

All flesh is grass, and the goodliness there of is as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth… – Isaiah 40:6-7

The simple, resilient, and undeniable fact is that self-interest is here to stay as long as the world turns. And any philosophy or vision, utopian or otherwise, that fails to take this fact into account, is doomed to failure.

In the waning days of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, he would sometimes lie awake at night worrying about things; the war, his Great Society dreams, and even his own health (his father died relatively young, and Johnson feared the same fate). Occasionally he’d wander the halls finding his way to a portrait of Woodrow Wilson, a man who had been at the pinnacle of power and influence, only to be eventually devastated emotionally and physically by events and the pressures of his office.

LBJ wondered if he’d wind up the same way. After all, didn’t he just want something better for everyone – a higher standard of living and a world safe and at peace? And, hadn’t he been described as a colossus and the most powerful president since FDR, just a few years earlier?

Mark Twain used to say that “history never repeats itself, but it rhymes.” He was right. The cycles of history are not exact, but one time can resemble another and often does.

And one of history’s most enduring lessons is that if anyone begins a visionary journey with dreams and even ideals that fail to take into account the simple fact that people, businesses, communities (organized or otherwise), nations, and groupings of nations all share a passion for themselves, it is like starting with the premise that 2+2=5. This may only seem to be a small error, but when carried out exponentially it becomes a monstrosity.

Health Care at Morton’s Fork

September 9, 2009 by David Emig | Filed Under American Politics, Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Healthcare, Obama administration, Presidents, Republican Party, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

As defined by Wikipedia, a Morton’s Fork is “a choice between two equally unpleasant alternatives.” In the health care debate, this is the choice between government run health care, or corporate run health care.  We progressives like to call this choice — reform or the status quo.

You know, I always laugh at those conservative politicians that decry socialized medicine — while enjoying the benefits of government run health care themselves.  Let them put their health where their mouth is.  Cancel their socialized medicine, and go into the “free” market like everyone else.

As usual, those who oppose reform are using the tried and true fear card.  They tell us that government run health care will lead to socialized medicine, rationing care, and the infamous “death panels”, among other things.

The truth of the matter is: the system that the critics fear is already in place.  It is called corporate health care.  Large insurance companies already ration care by denying claims and coverage.  In California, PacificCare has denied 40% of their claims, while HealthNet has denied 30% of theirs.  Lose necessary tests in a mountain of red tape.  Cancel your policy when you reach a monetary limit.  Never offer insurance at all to those with pre-existing conditions.  Allow the ‘free market’ to raise premiums until a business or individual cannot pay them anymore — and the policy lapses.

For those who have no health insurance, and have a catastrophic illness or injury…aren’t all of these inactions by the corporate insurance companies infamous “death panels?”  Is it easier for the critics to have these death panels consisting of corporate health clerks, rather than government bureaucrats?

Currently, the momentum seems to be away from true reform, and towards reinforcing the corporate health care system.  Proposals such as mandatory health insurance for individuals would only really benefit the corporate insurance market.  It gives them 40 million new customers that must buy their product.  It gives people that are already struggling, another bill.

Any proposed health care system without a public option, a type of Medicare for all, isn’t reform at all.  It is the codification of the status quo, and creation of a windfall comparable to the windfall enjoyed by the oil companies.  This kind of reform doesn’t benefit the majority of American people.  Consider that mother in the news who was trying to feed her family and keep a roof over her head.  She needs real reform, not a Republican congresswoman telling her to “grow up” and get health insurance.

True health care reform doesn’t mean a total government takeover.  Tonight the President needs to return to his original proposal for health care.  If you have health insurance you like, you can keep it.  A strong public option in place for people who cannot afford health care, and foster competition (one of the facets of capitalism I thought).  Outlining pre-existing conditions.  Making the best health care system a right for all American, and not just a privilege for those who can afford it.  While we in America have the greatest health care system in the world – really it’s of limited benefit for people that can’t afford it.

It should be noted that RN in 1971 proposed a similar system of employer mandated health insurance.  The recent book, “The Heart of Power” credits RN with forming the parameters of the future debates of 1994 and 2009 about health care.  The failure of RNs proposal didn’t affect his legacy as president.  There were bigger issues that did.  Watergate.  Vietnam.  China.

In sharp contrast, health care will affect this president’s legacy.  There is also a good chance that it will affect President Obama’s future success and failure as well.  Also the country’s as well…

“Angry White Males,” Health Care, And Richard Nixon

August 17, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Healthcare, Nixon Administration, Public Opinion, Richard Nixon | 4 Comments 

Commentators such as Thomas Edsall, Charles Cooper and Michael Crowley have blamed protests against Obamacare on a GOP effort to stir up “angry white males.”  It all goes back to Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” they say.  The main problem with such arguments is that they don’t make one bit of sense.

Start with “white males.”  Actually, females make up a lot of the people who are protesting.  Survey data show that a plurality of women oppose health-care schemes before Congress.  And the focus on race is strange.  Of course non-Hispanic whites account for much of the opposition:  they make up 76 percent of the electorate.   In any case, the key variable is age, not race.  Senior citizens are the strongest opponents, and for good reason:  Obamacare would cut hundreds of billions from Medicare.  The president claims that seniors don’t have to worry since all the savings will come from greater efficiency.  But in the entire history of American social policy, has a cut that big ever failed to affect services?  (If you can think of an example, please let me know.)

The references to Nixon are invalid.  A previous post dealt with “The Southern Strategy.”  And the notion that Nixon sought to cut health and welfare programs is jaw-droppingly preposterous.  Forty years ago this month, he proposed a guaranteed income, which he acknowledged would “cost more than welfare.”  As for health care, President Clinton said that his own plan “reflects the pragmatic approach that President Nixon took in 1972 when he asked all American employers to take responsibility for providing health care for their employees.”

Next Page »