Truth on Both Sides

Benghazi-dahl

Walking off post is not serving with honor and distinction. As Ralph Peters noted, desertion is not the equivalent of skipping class. And it appears that is what Bergdahl did. We should all be very careful about judging too harshly the decisions of those caught in the fog of war. However, it seems that his decision was less foggy than it was sympathetic to the Islamists he signed up to defend against. If similar evidence existed for a mall or school shooter that revealed similar ideological ties to the tea party, there is no doubt that the media would escort the judge, jury and executioner to the public square to hasten the tedious timeline of justice. But we still should be careful, and as Jonah Goldberg cautions, "Indeed, there are so many unknowns here that it might be best to withhold judgment on a lot of aspects to this story."

The notion of not leaving anyone behind is honorable (although, apparently, a post-Benghazi sentiment). And yes, Bergdahl is somebody's son. But those Taliban henchmen that were released are going to kill innocents again - maybe Americans and maybe not. But no matter who they kill, the slain will be humans that we should care about and they too are somebody's child. So yes, we seek to not leave anybody behind. But that honorable notion is competing with many other honorable notions. (And some not so great consequences like the increased risk to American service men and women - who are also somebody's son or daughter - of being taken hostage.) And such is the case with most of life's decisions and almost always is the case with foreign policy decisions. It is rarely black and white.

One of the problems in this whole affair is the same problem that has existed for the last six years. Everything is treated by the administration as though it is simply black and white issue for which they have the unambiguous answer. Anyone who dares to disagree or question any decision is either a fool or a villain with bad motives (ala the dismissals as a racist, sexist, homophobic, wealthy, anti-science or any other of a list of horribles) who is only deserving of mockery and contempt. It is not possible that anyone of moderate or higher intelligence could possibly disagree with them. And God forbid one should call into question the legality of such a move. Those who do are sure to be dismissed as kooks and wackos who are immediately thrown in with birthers that can only be motivated by racism. All of this is compounded by a lickspittle press who rarely confronts this President.

Foreign policy is ridiculously difficult at best. There are competing principles, ideologies, desires, goods and ramifications to every option. You often have to hold your nose and partner with, or make deals with, horrible, evil people. But we don't get a sense that these decisions are contemplative and filled with heart-rending trade offs but rather there are just wrong answers and our answers. There is such confidence in their Manichaean ways that consultation with Congress isn't even required.

As Nordlinger commented, that the story we get from the President is merely "Sergeant Bergdahl is somebody’s child, we don’t leave anyone behind, and that’s that. If only he could acknowledge trade-offs, in a messy, wicked world: a world of difficult and excruciating choices — but he cannot, apparently. For eight years of Ronald Reagan and eight years of George W. Bush, I heard the same thing: 'The president is simplistic. Everything is black-and-white to him. There is no nuance.' That wasn’t true. Before the invasion of Iraq, for example, Bush said over and over, 'There are risks of action and risks of inaction.' He had to weigh those risks. In Obama’s mind, however, everything seems to be clear-cut, inarguable. There is no gray at all. It’s his way or the highway. Before he was elected, we were assured that, whatever his policy views, he had a first-class temperament." That just isn't so.

It is no small bit of hypocrisy that the groups that used to look down their noses at the supposed simpletons that used to occupy the White House now seek to operate in simplistic black and white ways and then feign shock and disdain whenever somebody has the temerity to question. To be told in the face of contradictory information that this man served with honor and distinction makes it all feel more like narrow political interest than humanitarian. (Not to mention that Susan Rice seems to have no capacity for shame given the whoppers she has told and continues to tell.)

There is also the 'wag the dog' feel of all of this. This certainly knocked the VA controversy and the EPA's lawmaking without the formality and tedium of running it through Congress from the front pages. The dribbling out of different reasons to not inform Congress does not instill great confidence but more feels like rationale de jour to just see what sticks. For people who tout the greatness of government they sure do government badly.

One suspects this will run its course as all other difficulties for this administration have: the President will find out about this by reading about it in the papers, he will be more outraged than anyone, an investigation will ensue, construct fantastical strawman and smugly decapitate them in front of the world, dismiss those who disagree with the profound decrees or decisions with reddit-style snarky name calling, nobody will be fired, drag feet until we are all finally lectured about how this has all been discussed already and is old news followed by a 'what difference at this point does it make' style declaration.

And all of this without the benefit of an adversarial press. But don't worry, they haven't gone extinct. They'll return as soon as another Republican is elected.

Sequester Scare

Thomas Sowell wrote,

Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency’s budget were cut, what would it do?

The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place.

This is a nice illustration of what is known as the Washington Monument Gambit. That is, when making decisions about budget cuts, do the most harm with the most painful cuts possible so that you can reinstate the spending that you want.

The Whitehouse is unleashing WMG on the populous for political gain. And if that wasn't enough, as Sowell continues,

President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.

He doesn't want to make his own plan (sequestration) work, but wants to inflict pain on the poor and vulnerable in order to get his way. Possibly because that plan was never intended to work budgetarily, but was a political maneuver to check mate the GOP.

Harming the most needy is usually the sort of thing rich Republicans are accused of – whether they have the power to do such things or not – and here the President is actually doing it right before our eyes precisely because he has the power to inflict pain on the electorate.

The GOP and the Fiscal Cliff

Here is a crazy and bold prediction: à la the 1994 government shutdown, no matter what happens with regard to the "fiscal cliff", the GOP will get the blame. Just as the right was fingered as the culprit for the housing bust even while they were sounding the alarm about the need for more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so too they will be blamed for any detrimental effects of the fiscal cliff. Republican options for dealing with this issue include:

• stay true to their values and pledges of smaller government and lower taxes;
• put forth reasonable solutions such as the Ryan Plan;
• agree to return to the full panoply of the Clinton era taxes;
• put forward the Simpson/Bowles plan as a compromise;
• just vote "present" and let the Dems march forward unresisted;
• leave DC and hole up at the Best Western Clock Tower Resort in Rockford, Illinois;

But, it doesn't matter what the GOP does short of registering as Democrats and feeding grapes to Nancy Pelosi, they will be castigated by the Dominant Liberal Establishment Mass Media (DLEMM) and those on the left as obstructionist and intransigent.

And this will happen even though the left boldly proclaims their intransigence on a daily basis:

• Before the election, Harry Reid said, "Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable."
• Harkin and Rockefeller asked Obama to "reject changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that would cut benefits"
• The Congressional Progressive Caucus said that entitlements are off the table
• Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip, said in a speech that under no circumstance would there be any entitlement reform.  
• Krugman says, "Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a 'grand bargain' on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. So stand your ground, Mr. President, and don't give in to threats. No deal is better than a bad deal."
• A pundit opines, "The president can win, without doing anything. He does not have to give an inch. Not an inch!"

Are these the voices of bipartisanship and compromise?  

The left sets up a situation where "negotiation" means something like 'You can choose any color you like as long as it is blue," and then accuses the right of stonewalling if they desire any color other than the shade of blue that the Dems are promoting. They are all for compromise so long as it is the GOP that does the compromising.

However, If the GOP compromises here - and by compromise I mean choosing the preselected, preauthorized positions of the left that are not open to compromise - they will just be yielding more ground to the all-encompassing entitlement state and will be part of the problem.  They will fix nothing and only slightly mitigate the slowing economy, higher taxes on everyone and increased debt. But worst of all, if there is even a trace of GOP DNA on the deal - GOP good intentions notwithstanding - the DLEMM and the left will pin all negative outcomes on the right and the GOP will bear the political consequences of failed policies no matter who authored them (e.g., housing bubble).

Since most agree that we are approaching the cliff at a high rate of speed, the GOP should let the left own the 'solution'. Many on the right argue against this because of the inevitable destruction resulting from leftist policies. But since our Thelma and Louise moment is nigh, will nudging the wheel so that we enter the atmosphere at an angle somewhat less than 90 degrees change the outcome? Will insisting that the windows remain rolled up before we sail off the cliff make the car any more drivable once we reacquaint ourselves with terra firma?

How could the GOP let the Dems own the solution? First, the GOP should set forth details about what they would do if they had control of all three branches. Second, they should propose Obama's own budget and tax plan with a nice acronym like AIRBORN, or FORWARD and vote "present". Lastly, the GOP should then let the Dems propose anything they like and vote "present".

The first move would establish a benchmark.

The second would, as much as possible, remove the ability of the DLEMM and the left (but I repeat myself) to blame and demagogue the right's attempts to inject sanity. And there is little likelihood of passage since Obama's plans have gone down in flames before. 

The last move would allow the Dems to wholly own the solution by letting them propose solutions without resistance. By removing the resistance, the Democrats would be forced to realistically deal with their own proposals. It is very likely that without a great Satan to battle against, the Dems would self-moderate rather than relying on the GOP to provide the moderation for them (as well as a scapegoat) and come to rest on something like Simpson/Bowles. A self moderated outcome may share many aspects with the Republican benchmark and the GOP could enjoy an 'I told you so' moment. But even if the Dems don't moderate their extreme positions, by voting "present" on anything the Dems propose the right gets absolution - not from the DLEMM or the left, but from their base and their conscience.

GOP moderation and compromise only serves to prolong the inevitable. Just as Democrats often stand in opposition to and protest against economic reality, we may be at the point where Republicans are standing in defiance of Schumpeter's reality, and they should, if reluctantly, step aside and allow creative destruction to do its work.

Here we go again

Harry Reid shares this free speech notion with John Kerry.

It's time for us all – whether we're leaders in Washington, members of the media, scientists, academics, environmentalists or utility industry executives – to stop acting like those who ignore the crisis or deny it exists entirely have a valid point of view. They don't.

Obama: Keep Taxes Low

The President spoke about extending the current tax rates yesterday.

So we should all agree to extend the tax cuts for the middle class. Let's agree to do what we agree on. Right? (Applause.) That’s what compromise is all about.

Wha? Isn't a compromise when two sides give up some demands to meet somewhere in the middle? If we do what we agree on, that is not compromise. So what is really going on here?

Let’s not hold the vast majority of Americans and our entire economy hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for the wealthy. We can have that debate. (Applause.) We can have that debate, but let's not hold up working on the thing that we already agree on.

Republicans aren't opposed to this. So what is he talking about? He could sign a bill that extends the current tax rates for everyone and then 'have the debate' about returning the tax rates for the upper 2% of the taxpayers to what they were under Clinton.

It isn't the Republicans that are going to let the rates expire and move upward. It is Obama. What he is really saying is that 'if you don't do it my way I will not sign it and I will be forced to hold the middle class hostage but it won't be my fault because you didn't do it my way. Do it my way - no hostages. Their way - hostages.'

I guess that's what compromise is all about. Is this just more imperialism? (Strassel, Krauthammer)

He went on:

Let’s not hold the vast majority of Americans and our entire economy hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for the wealthy. We can have that debate. (Applause.) We can have that debate, but let's not hold up working on the thing that we already agree on.

There is no need to Mr. President. Just extend them and then have the debate.

He repeats:

So my message to Congress is this: Pass a bill extending the tax cuts for the middle class; I will sign it tomorrow. Pass it next week; I’ll sign it next week. Pass it next -- well, you get the idea. (Laughter.)

As soon as that gets done, we can continue to have a debate about whether it’s a good idea to also extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Well, by golly, Sen. Hatch introduced just such an amendment:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced an amendment Tuesday that would extend all the Bush-era tax cuts for another year.

Hatch wants to attach the amendment to the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act (S. 2237).

So mission accomplished? Set the hostages free? Let the debate begin? Not likely.

Earlier he noted:

So the money we’re spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit, a major contributor to our deficit, costing us a trillion dollars over the next decade.

"The money we're spending"??? Letting people keep more of the money they earned is spending?  Doesn't this presume it is the government's money to begin with? Why, when the government takes less of somebody's earnings in taxation, is it called "spending" but when money is taken from some and spent on 'stimulus', food stamps, 90 weeks of unemployment, etc., it is "investment"? Shouldn't he have said that "the money we’re investing on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit"?

Aaaand, these rates are "a major driver of our deficit"? $5.170 trillion additional deficit over 3.5 years compared to the possibility* of $1 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years - or $350 billion over 3.5 yrs. Yup. Had it been in place for Obama's entire presidency, it would have reduced the deficit by about 7%. Major contributor all right.

Jay Carney tried to defend the statements:

* This assumes production, a static model, and that incentives don't matter.

Decision: Vision

Ultimately the election comes down to which vision for America are you going to support. The vision that is for liberty, individual rights, independence, a market economy and all of its attendant risks and downsides or the vision that favors collectivism, group rights, dependence, statism and all of its attendant risks and downsides. One side understands that everything can't be perfect but given the trade-offs, we do the best we can. The other side seeks to undo every aspect of the pain, struggle and inequities of life on their march toward Utopianism.

If you vote for Ron Paul, you may feel pure and be able to morally preen in front of your fellow man, but you will be wasting your vote. A vote for him, although cathartic, may reveal a lack of understanding of our political system or an I-don't-give-a-damn attitude. We are not Britain or some other parliamentary system where coalitions are built after the election. In America the coalitions are built prior to the election which coalesce as the two-party system. You must vote with the system we have not the one you wish we had. (A valid retort is: "If you don't vote for Ron Paul, it may reveal that you have given up on correcting the slide away from Americanism.")

Come to a decision about which movement better represents your notion of the correct way to run a government.

If you think that the primary function of the government is to act as the social welfare agent that reduces virtually all risk and mandates that the country should operate largely as a collective commune by running our schools, healthcare, retirement and virtually everything else, then you have a choice.

If you think government should provide national protection, preserve individual liberty and protect private property, you have a choice.

If you think that the government should create a hostile business climate that drives jobs and business overseas forcing more layoffs here at home, then you have a choice.

If you think a government should have limited powers, duties and responsibilities and think that government is best when it governs least, then you have a choice.

If you think government should make decisions based on a grievance culture that is always angry and must constantly agitate race, gender and class issues to maintain power, you have a choice.

If you ascribe to the idea that everyone should be free to pursue their happiness, you have a choice.

Utopians and fundamentalists flagellate and complain that none of the candidates suits their purpose. Well, the only candidate or party that you will fully agree with on every issue is candidate 'you' and the party you head. Otherwise, life is full of compromises and voting is just one such compromise. Believers in an afterlife can put off Utopia for another time. Athiests are just stuck with sucking it up and realizing that Marx was right that human nature would have to change radically in order for us to enter the land of milk and honey any time soon. And 3000+ years of documentation of human activity suggests there isn't a lot of evidence that human nature is making any sweeping changes.

But there are clear differences between the two parties in America. And neither is perfect. If you want perfect, go to church. But candidate Obama was very clear that he was none too happy with Americanism and wanted to make fundamental changes to the fabric of America.

So go ahead, cast your vote.

Headline Bias?

Isn't it odd that the NYTimes would focus on the religious divide rather than the shared values of Evangelicals and Romney in this article?

Somewhere deep in the penetralia of the NYTimes, somebody decided - whether consciously or not - to give this bit of news a unfavorable twist. A more convivial headline editor may have suggested "Evangelical supports Romney" to better reflect the overall message of the story.

Here is an metaphor for the intrinsic bias that may be at work.  Think of the story as a top. The top can either be spun clockwise or counterclockwise to initiate its pirouette. The top is the same collection of molecules that predictably spins about the center pivot whether spun one way or the other - that is, the facts of the story are the same no matter which way it is spun. But the top's path and disposition is affected by its direction of rotation.

The decision about which way to twist the spintop may not be a function of some directional intent. It may just be the result of whether one is left-handed or right-handed. Although not necessarily a conscious decision to impart a particular spin direction, this physical bias certainly imposes a spin direction whether intended or not.

If you read to the end of the article, you discover that in spite of his theological disagreements, the Pastor said “I’m going to instruct, I’m going to advise people that it is much better to vote for a non-Christian who embraces biblical values than to vote for a professing Christian like Barack Obama who embraces un-biblical values.” A 'right-handed' editor might have headlined the article "Republican Big Tent Has Room For All Faiths."

But the NYTimes editor chose to highlight the theological quarrels that an Evangelical Pastor has with a Mormon candidate. The editor might just as well have reminded us that Rabbis do not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and that Protestants think the Pope is a heretic. Not exactly press-stopping scoops.

But if "Imam Calls Obama's Pastor An Infidel" headlined an article that ultimately acknowledged that the Imam encouraged Muslims to vote for Obama based on shared values in spite of their theological differences, one would rightly wonder why such a divisive headline was necessary. Similarly, the selection of "Prominent Pastor Calls Romney’s Church a Cult" as the headline for this article is unnecessarily provocative.

In these times when many lament the "narrow visions" and "deep political divides," and some pine for the days when "we can all just get along," one might imagine the Times would be interested in giving the reader a literary warm hug by highlighting the 'let's-get-along' attitude demonstrated by this preacher who was willing to set aside some major doctrinal differences.

However, maybe this headline was not intended to mislead the casual reader by suggesting that Romney has been excommunicated from the Evangelical ballot. Maybe that is too negative a read of what was intended. The writer may have been providing context so that the reader could fully appreciate the magnitude of compromise that the Pastor was willing to make.

Or maybe the devil made him do it.

Getting Along

This is, I think, a 50/50 country and we don't quite know which side is going to come out on the 51/49 side when we run the numbers. And what's problematic, I think, is that we are a house divided – to resurrect Lincoln – we are a house divided.

But we are divided about the nature of the state itself, which is the most fundamental division of all. Its not really like a division between rich and poor, or between black and white. Americans are divided on the kind of republic the United States should be. Whether it is still a republic of limited government and a self-reliant citizenry that is free to live lives to their fullest potential. Or whether it is just a kind of larger version of Sweden.

...But the problem is there's not a lot of compromise between those two visions.

...Those are two incompatible visions of America.

Mark Steyn on the Mike Rosen Show, 12 Aug 2011, H2, 5:56

Censorship

John Kerry thinks that certain elected representatives should be censored. Is this the compromise that the President is talking about?

[2:13] And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?

Video Skip to 2:13 if you just want to see the quote above.

Tea Party Terrorists

In her column wherein she encouraged a presidential primary for the Democrats because she is unhappy with President Obama being too far right, Froma Harrop also said this about the Tea Party:

The tea party Republicans have engaged in economic terrorism against the United States -- threatening to blow up the economy if they don't get what they want. And like the al-Qaida bombers, what they want is delusional: the dream of restoring some fantasy caliphate in which no one pays taxes...

Americans are not supposed to negotiate with terrorists...

That the Republican leadership couldn't control a small group of ignoramuses in its ranks has brought disgrace on their party. But oddly, Obama's passivity made it hard for responsible Republicans to control their destructive children.

Forget that she doesn't sound like she is happy with compromise and would just prefer that Republicans shut up and do it her way. This barrage of name-calling came from the person who is the president of the National Conference of Editorial Writers which has as one of its missions the Civility Project, that endeavors to improve the quality of political discourse.

But since the Vice President is doing it too, she probably feels entitled.

Compromise

There is a lot of discussion about how the Tea Party Republicans are intransigent and are unwilling to compromise during the debt ceiling debate. Nanci Pelosi said that Democrats "were forced into something in order to raise the debt ceiling." Apparently they were reluctant to compromise too.

Of course people want as little compromise as possible. They have ideals, beliefs values and visions that differ. And to the extent that they compromise their beliefs they are sacrificing their values. (This isn't to say we shouldn't compromise. Just that compromise comes at a price.)

This is true for Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want to give up as little ground as possible just as Republicans do. Democrats are as unwilling to negotiate away their beliefs as Republicans. Would Rep. Pelosi feel uncomfortable negotiating away key elements that she thought were vital and important? We know the answer because of her past record and acknowledging that there are "bitter pills" in the bill. But is she asking the other side to set aside their beliefs without putting up resistance?

Also, agreeing that it is a "Satan sandwich" indicates her lack of desire to vote for this bill and her desire to not have to compromise her beliefs.

It probably is, with some Satan fries on the side.

That's called compromise.