|
 here
they go again.
On Tuesday,
December 11, Sen. Charles Schumer made the formal announcement on
the Washington Post op-ed page that the "new New Deal"
has begun. "The president can either lead the charge or be
run over by it." No doubt the president is grateful for the
heads-up from the liberal first-term senator from New York.
Actually, Schumer
is just the latest in a parade of liberals to announce that "Big
Government Looks Better Now" (that's the headline of Schumer's
essay).
In October,
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman (brilliant on the Middle
East; increasingly dimmer as he moves away from it) declared: "President
Bush denigrated Washington during his campaign and repeated the
selfish mantra about the surplus that 'it's your money — not
the government's money.' How thankful we are today that we have
a Washington, D.C., with its strong institutions — FEMA, the
F.A.A., the F.B.I. and armed forces…" More recently, a
New York Times "newsitorial" on the front page
announced that "Big Government is Back in Style."
But my favorite
such argument came in the November 19 edition of the proudly Lefty
magazine The Nation. Former LBJ aide Bill Moyers writes,
"This catastrophe has reminded us of a basic truth at the heart
of our democracy: No matter our wealth or status or faith, we are
all equal before the law, in the voting booth and when death rains
down from the sky."
Putting aside
the fact that we would all be just as equal when death rains down
from the sky if we lived in a dictatorship or a socialist utopia,
Moyers takes this truism and seems to translate it into a justification
for single-payer health care, the repeal of NAFTA, and a television
network dedicated solely to exposing the evils of corporations and
conservatives (which is funny if for no other reason than that that's
what Moyers has been doing at PBS for 30 years).
So, in a sense,
Schumer is a Johnny-come-lately on the whole topic. The significance
of Schumer's manifesto-lite is that it telegraphs Democratic arguments
going into the next election cycle. Already, in a memo written by
James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, and Bob Shrum, the Democrats'
top strategists have made it clear that they will not challenge
the president on the war overseas. In return, they plan to be in
charge of security at home. And, not just the sort of security we
associate with airports, borders, and bomb-sniffing dogs. They want
to be in charge of economic security, health security, and environmental
security. As my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru writes, "their project
is to channel Americans' instinctive nationalist reaction to the
attacks into a statist communitarianism rather than, say, tighter
border control."
But, just because
Schumer's not alone in making this argument has nothing to do with
the fact that the argument itself is absurd. "The era of a
shrinking federal government has come to a close," writes Schumer.
"From 1912 to 1980, the federal government grew with little
interruption…. For the next two decades, the federal government
stopped growing, and by some measures even shrank, with Bill Clinton
doing more of the shrinking than any other president."
Alas, this is all pretty dishonest. He picks 1980 as a date, solely
because that was the year Ronald Reagan was elected, not because
there was any sizable decrease in the size and scope of the federal
government in 1980 (recall that he wasn't even inaugurated until
1981). Indeed, it's hard for both conservatives and liberals to
admit, but gross welfare spending went up on Reagan's watch. Meanwhile
the government grew under Reagan because the Gipper spent lavishly
on defense. In turn, the "shrinking" Schumer lays at Bill
Clinton's feet--and upon which Bill Clinton himself rested his claim
to "reinvent" government --was almost entirely the result
of a massive downsizing in defense-related jobs
Regardless,
Schumer argues that big government is needed to ensure national
security here at home. "For the first time, we are engaged
in a war in which more Americans are likely to die on the home front
than on the battlefield." Hence: "For the foreseeable
future, the federal government will have to grow." Because,
"Only one entity has the breadth, strength and resources to
lead…." You guessed it. The Feds! This, according to Schumer,
is the "'new' New Deal."
Well, somebody
needs to show Chuck a copy of a high-school civics textbook. The
proposition that the federal government should provide for the safety
and security of its citizens is the "original deal," not
a new one or even a "new, new" one. It's in the Constitution
of all places. That much-storied, though sadly overlooked document
which happened to establish the federal government — and Schumer's
job — in the first place. In fact, it's in the very first paragraph:
We the people
of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.
In fact, later
on in the Constitution, it actually states that Congress is authorized
to tax only for the purposes of defense and the general welfare.
It takes an arrogance peculiar to liberal Democrats to repackage
the fundamental purpose of the U.S. Constitution as a "new"
excuse for government funding.
Which is my
main peeve with all of the post-September 11 opportunism of liberals
looking to force-feed an already bloated government. The suggestion
that the attacks of September 11 were the consequence of a "too-small"
federal government is criminally stupid (See "
Government Makes a Comeback?").
The more obvious,
honest, and accurate conclusion is that the federal government was
way too distracted. The federal government spends an awful lot of
time — and money — policing the size of classrooms, the
ingredients of potato chips, and the generosity of milk subsidies
but not nearly enough policing the borders and the airports. If
you hired a security guard to watch for shoplifters, wouldn't you
be annoyed if he spent all day wearing a walkman, playing video
games, and stuffing his face with pork rinds?
Which is why
the complaint that George Bush's tax cut is "selfish"
or "irresponsible" or "dangerous" in the wake
of 9/11 is so disingenuous. The federal government, even after Bush's
allegedly crippling tax cuts, still spends trillions of dollars
every year; the vast majority of that money goes to things that
would make the Founding Fathers plotz.
Schumer says
that the president will have to "face down the hard right"
in order to provide for domestic security. But this misses the point
that the vast majority of conservatives have always championed a
strong national defense and vigorous law-and-order policies. What
they've opposed is the sort of costly and anti-constitutional social
engineering championed by the likes of Chuck Schumer. Indeed, if
Chuck Schumer were less interested in, say, providing pork to the
teachers' unions and more interested in "providing for the
common defense," he wouldn't see the need to repackage the
Constitution as a "new" New Deal.
EDITOR'S
NOTE: A similar version of this essay will appear as
my syndicated column, distributed by Tribune Media Services.
|
