Toward the end of his State of the Union address, President Obama delivered a paragraph that was so blatantly absurd and self contradictory as to actually become clarifying—so incoherent that it shed a bright light on his thinking and his grave dilemma. It’s hard to believe he actually said this, but he did:
I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.
The examples he chose of course jump out as ludicrous: K-12 education in America is thoroughly dominated by the government, and the president has not proposed to make it less so. (And state governments, by the way, are also governments.) “Getting rid of regulations that don’t work” is certainly an unusual way to describe the regulatory agenda of this administration, which has involved a series of unprecedented delegations of authority to regulators (especially in health care and financial regulation) and which continues every day to spew forth an interminable array of costly, complex, and highly assertive rules that will give the federal government (and the executive agencies in particular) previously unimagined discretion over vast swaths of our economy. And “relies on a reformed private market, not a government program” is surely the most unabashedly dishonest and Orwellian way yet devised to describe Obamacare—a law that begins from the premise that the solution to our health care financing problems is to make the government an even greater provider and purchaser of health insurance, would spend well over a trillion dollars in the coming decade on yet another health care entitlement program and on the expansion of an unreformed Medicaid system, would micromanage the insurance industry in ways likely to make it even less efficient, would employ even heavier price controls in an otherwise unreformed Medicare system, and would raise half a trillion dollars in taxes on employment, investment, and medical research.
But even more galling than the examples was the very use of the Lincoln quote itself, which makes precisely the opposite point to the one made by the rest of the president’s speech. This speech offered a vision of a profoundly technocratic and activist government, with its hands in every nook and cranny of the nation’s economic life—a government guiding particular business decisions and nudging individual choices through just the right mix of incentives and rules to reach just the right balance between fairness and growth while designing the perfect website for job retraining programs and producing exactly the proper number of “high-tech batteries.” The president described the government’s bailout of the Detroit automakers as a roaring success and then said “What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh.” If he thinks that all the tasks he laid out for government are things that people “cannot do better by themselves” then he must have a very high opinion of how well government can do things, or a very low opinion of how well people can do things by themselves, or (most plausibly) both.
The intensely activist tone of the speech also meant, of course, that no real attention could be paid to what was the dominant theme of our political debates over the past year: Our out-of-control deficits and debt. Indeed, this was probably the foremost purpose of the speech. As he prepares for his reelection campaign, the president is clearly trying to move voters away from a focus on our coming fiscal disaster and toward a renewed focus on public spending and public programs—the outlook that defined the beginning of his administration, before his specific public spending and public programs soured the public on such spending and programs and (having resulted in unprecedented deficits) alarmed the Tea Party movement into being and yielded the 2010 election. But of course, those deficits and debt have only gotten worse, not better. And if we do not bring them under control—above all by reforming our health entitlement programs—we face fiscal prospects that would make an utter joke of the kind of approach to public policy and government embodied by this speech, with its explosion of spending, its barriers to economic growth, and its laughably misguided little millionaire’s surtax. Those prospects, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would involve debilitating levels of debt unlike anything we have experienced in America. This is the future from which the president needs to distract us:
These projections, especially compared to our fiscal circumstances in past years, also make a mockery of the now familiar nostalgia with which the president opened his speech—harkening back to the meteoric growth of the immediate postwar era in America. Even if his wistful reminiscences of that bright yesterday were better grounded in reality, the fact is that we simply cannot recreate the economic circumstances of those years, when America’s global competitors had just burned each other’s economies to the ground while ours stood ready to gallop ahead. It is true that the unique explosive growth of those years also allowed for major expansions of government spending, and persisted despite fairly heavy tax and regulatory burdens. But that does not mean that it was caused by that spending or those burdens. It obviously wasn’t. And under very different circumstances, in which we must effectively compete and innovate in order to grow, we cannot afford such spending or such burdens. We must find other paths to broadly shared prosperity.
But the president does not seem interested in finding those paths. Instead, he prefers to shadowbox the familiar bogeymen held up by progressives for a century and more. Indeed, his striking appeals to replace our raucous republican politics with the model of military discipline at the beginning and the end of the speech offered conspicuous echoes of the progressive longing to overcome politics.
It all adds up to an attempt to shift the political conversation away from reality, as Mitch Daniels’s response so ably showed. But I don’t think it adds up to a very effective political strategy for the president. If tonight’s speech was indeed a preview of his election-year pitch, he’s going to have some problems.
You're surprised that he tells lies? It's as surprising as any propaganda that comes from leftist regimes. I think you're giving him a little too much credit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWas it Hitler or Goebbels who was the proponent of the "Big Lie". The bigger the lie, the more you repeat it the more the masses will believe it. Statists of all strips have been using it ever since.
Obama's goal is nothing more than "the Administrative State" where the government controls all power, determines all outcomes, curbs all dissent and requires all behavior conform to what the Bureaucracy demands.
How bad and dangerous is such a State. Even Lenin warned against Trotsky's tendencies to this end. No discussion, no dissent, no deviation. Soul crushing obedience to our betters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSort of like repeating the words/phrases "9-11" and "Sadaam" and "Iraq" over and over again until people start to think that the Iraqi's had something to do with 9-11?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegarding bailouts- yes that's a problem for Obama when he says bails out of auto industry are fine but not for banks- no logic.
Regarding regulations- this is not a winning issue for republicans, when republican politicians talk about how bad regulations their arguments are completely derailed when they are asked why in that case they are so keen on regulation peoples bedrooms and bodies.
Yes, debt is the key issue and hopefully in his second term (i dont see republicans winning the white house realistically for better or for worse) obama will take it more seriously....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExpatAsia - the logic for bailing out the auto industry and not banks is clear. The auto industry (at least the part that got the bailouts) is unionized while banks are not. The auto industry bailouts were designed to send funds to the unions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse" Regarding bailouts- yes that's a problem for Obama when he says bails out of auto industry are fine but not for banks- no logic."
Hmm. Maybe the logic is that banks aren't as unionized as the auto industry is. :D
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOr maybe the logic is that tens of billions that went to saving America's auto industry actually created jobs for middle class people, while the hundreds of millions that went to banks didn't but instead continued to fund obscenely large bonuses for investment bankers while the banks withhheld credit from small businesses and failed to do anything to alleviate the mortgage meltdown (besides pursue more foreclosures, often with faulty documentation and illegal procedures). Could it be?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour understanding of what took place is not founded on a deep understanding of bankruptcy laws or lending. A normal bankruptcy would have restructured the car companies and the union contracts. The companies would have continued, but under the ownership of the bondholders. The workers would have continued, but under a new contract possibly. Obama broke the law by stuffing the bondholders. I can't believe there isn't a lawsuit over it.
As far as lending is concerned, the OCC is quashing banks ability to lend through excessive regulation. I'm in the industry and all the rule changes are preventing banks from doing what they do - lend.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Regarding regulations- this is not a winning issue for republicans, when republican politicians talk about how bad regulations their arguments are completely derailed when they are asked why in that case they are so keen on regulation peoples bedrooms and bodies. "
Well, you certainly took apart *that* straw man.
In what way are any of the present Republican candidates trying to regulate people's bedrooms? I don't believe even Santorum is advocating, say, laws against sodomy, though I could be mistaken. The candidates do mostly oppose gay marriage, but that's because it takes what's going on in the bedroom and puts in it the public square.
Contraception:? Again, I don't think even Santorum is advocating a ban on contraception. Most of the candidates advocate a conscientious exemption to regulations requiring employers to provide birth control as part of their health insurance, but it's an amazing transmogrification to characterize an attempt to reduce the scope of an existing regulation as an attempt to regulate.
Abortion? I believe the pro-life position is that the fetus isn't part of the mother's body; it belongs to someone else.
In any event, social issues aren't at the top of the agende this go round. It's the economy, stupid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum does, in fact, support sodomy laws.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou want really scary Yuval, check out this youtube clip showing Barack Obama's SOTU from 2010, 2011, and 2012. See a pattern? Einstein's definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"And state governments, by the way, are also governments."
You'd be surprised that liberals simply don't get this point:
Me: "So he works for the government."
She: "No, he works for the local transit authority."
Me: "That's government."
She: "No, it's not."
Repeat with reference to the state university system. Etc. To be fair, she lived in DC for a while, where all government is federal (I should ask her who people who drive the buses in Washington work for one day), but I was kind of shocked to encounter this thinking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you really that obtuse? In the average man's lexicon, the term government usually refers to the FEDERAL government. Yes, the state is a government, too, but people usually refer to it as THE STATE. If you cannot grasp the relatively standard phrases in a discussion, how will you ever understand the somewhat wonkish discussion of policy?
And, your implication that the state is also a government, therefore just as bad as the federal government is ludicrous. The two are very different animals. The decisions by my state's department of education are being made ... in my state. That means that our kids' educations are being controlled locally, not by some California Representative in D.C.
I am very much in favor of returning a lot of the power now wielded by the feds to the states, where, constitutionally, it belongs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are very wrong.
Federal and state governments, even local governments, are all predicated on the same principles: extract money from the people; and exert control over the people. Just because your state has a school superintendent, the money flowing from Washnington brings policy and curriculum control that inextricably entwined the two. Take a moment to find out who prints the textbooks used in your schools and you will see what I mean.
All government is a hindrance to the will of the people, whether it is Congress or your garbage commissioner.
Plus, you used the word obtuse incorrectly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely right Graham. Here in CT, the state government is every bit as corrupt, wasteful and out-of-control as on the federal level. The same with city government. Only the small towns of around 20,000 or less behave relatively benignly and relatively responsively to the citizens who are able to see firsthand the good and bad of local government. That is "relatively" because even a lot of those services could be better provided by private contractors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, Big Dave, you're right. I usually refer to the Feds as The Government while calling my state government "Those Morons in Sacramento".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBig Dave,how many of the decisions made by your state dept of education,in your state,are made in response to or to comply with decisions made in Washington,D.C. by the federal dept of education. They're chasing the federal dollars in your state,just like they are here in Massachusetts. We spent billions developing a testing system,MCAS,that has our students ranked among the highest in the nation. Our govenor recently decided to go with the federal core standards. Why? Money,and not very much at that. But, they're willing to flush what's working down the drain to fall in line with Washington.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"K-12 education in America is thoroughly dominated by the government"
Yes, it has been lately but not government coming from Obama but by statutes and regulations coming from "Tea Party" people who insist on discarding science and reality. Creationism, discarding all contributions but those by White American Males, excising any factual information about slavery and the true beliefs of the Founding Fathers - these aren't Obama's doing but the fanatical work of those who'd rather students be force-fed an inaccurate curriculum. It will be harder and harder for America to compete in an international work force when they're lacking knowledge and can only stare dumbly when reality is presented.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost of the trouble competing comes from kids making it through high school unable to do simple math problems easily or read and write at an appropriate level. This obviously hurts their ability to progress in the sciences immensely.
I'd really love to see how far you can actually get in an academic career in the sciences solely on the strength of having seen only an age appropriate elementary or high school school version of random mutation, isolation, natural selection, macroevolution, simple conceptual biochemistry, cell anatomy, and cladistics but never having been exposed to any sort of "pollution" like a skeptical disclaimer about macroevolutionary theory, or mentions of other alternate theories (perhaps discredited stuff like Lamarckism) or more cosmological explanations for the origins of life that fall more under the umbrellas of theology or philosophy.
I'm betting it doesn't make much of a difference at all. You really can't do much with a very watered down conceptual layman's grasp of evolution.
The kids who can do math easily, and process logic well, memorize easily, and who have lateral thinking skills will have an advantage in the sciences. T
hat includes the ones who went to (stupid) Christian schools and were told about creationism and maybe even had some form of intelligent design sold to them a little bit by a well meaning teacher.
Meanwhile the kids who got the " correct" science only version but have rotten math skills, or poor memories, or who lack imagination and make sloppy leaps of logic, or even just lack patience and the discipline to work at something challenging will have a much harder time with science.
And then they'll go on to work fort the EPA and have carbon dioxide declared a hazardous substance so they can regulate it, on mostly ideological grounds that industry is bad for the earth and nature and Gaia.
Go figure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I'm betting it doesn't make much of a difference at all. You really can't do much with a very watered down conceptual layman's grasp of evolution. "
Preach it! The notion that our kids aren't doing well academically because they aren't being told an elementary school teacher's outdated version of evolution on a third-grade level is just absurd (laying aside the fact that there probably isn't a public school anywhere in the US where they don't at least hear the evolution narrative, not to mention the overwhelming majority of non-public education.) Nothing you could, or could not, learn at the high school level about origins that is not equally consistent with evolution and design is either going to advantage or handicap you in the further study or understanding of science. You don't learn the "real stuff" where it matters at least until the second half of college, and most practical applications (e.g., resistance to pathogens, a layman's understanding of genetic engineering, etc.) work equally well with either a macroevolutionary or a design scheme.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse