Options
The Great Divide
· Friday, July 29, 2011
WASHINGTON -- We're in the midst of a great four-year national debate on the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two parties -- social-democratic versus limited-government -- have underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama's inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health care reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental divide.
The sausage-making may be unsightly, but the problem is not that Washington is broken, that ridiculous ubiquitous cliche. The problem is that these two visions are in competition, and the definitive popular verdict has not yet been rendered.
We're only at the midpoint. Obama won a great victory in 2008 that he took as a mandate to transform America toward European-style social democracy. The subsequent counterrevolution delivered to that project a staggering rebuke in November 2010. Under our incremental system, however, a rebuke delivered is not a mandate conferred. That awaits definitive resolution, the rubber match of November 2012.
I have every sympathy with the conservative counterrevolutionaries. Their containment of the Obama experiment has been remarkable. But reversal -- rollback, in Cold War parlance -- is simply not achievable until conservatives receive a mandate to govern from the White House.
Lincoln is reputed to have said: I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky. I don't know whether conservatives have God on their side (I keep getting sent to His voice mail), but I do know that they don't have Kentucky -- they don't have the Senate, they don't have the White House. And under our constitutional system, you cannot govern from one house alone. Today's resurgent conservatism, with its fidelity to constitutionalism, should be particularly attuned to this constraint, imposed as it is by a system of deliberately separated -- and mutually limiting -- powers.
Given this reality, trying to force the issue -- turn a blocking minority into a governing authority -- is not just counter-constitutional in spirit but self-destructive in practice.
Consider the Boehner Plan for debt reduction. The Heritage Foundation's advocacy arm calls it "regrettably insufficient." Of course it is. That's what happens when you control only half a branch. But the plan's achievements are significant. It is all cuts, no taxes. It establishes the precedent that debt-ceiling increases must be accompanied by equal spending cuts. And it provides half a year to both negotiate more fundamental reform (tax and entitlement) and keep the issue of debt reduction constantly in the public eye.
I am somewhat biased about the Boehner Plan because for weeks I've been arguing (in this column and elsewhere) for precisely such a solution: a two-stage debt-ceiling hike consisting of a half-year extension with dollar-for-dollar spending cuts, followed by intensive negotiations on entitlement and tax reform. It's clean. It's understandable. It's veto proof. (Obama won't dare.) The Republican House should have passed it weeks ago.
After all, what is the alternative? The Reid Plan with its purported $2 trillion of debt reduction? More than half of that comes from not continuing surge-level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 10 years. Ten years? We're out of Iraq in 150 days. It's all a preposterous "saving" from an entirely fictional expenditure.
The Congressional Budget Office has found that Harry Reid's other discretionary savings were overestimated by $400 billion. Not to worry, I am told. Reid has completely plugged that gap. There will be no invasion of Canada next year, no bicentennial this-time-we-really-mean-it 1812 do-over. Huge savings. Huge.
The Obama plan? There is no Obama plan. And the McConnell plan, a final resort that punts the debt issue to Election Day, would likely yield no cuts at all.
Obama faces two massive problems -- jobs and debt. They're both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble: massive spending that left us a stagnant economy with high and chronic unemployment -- and a staggering debt burden. Obama is desperate to share ownership of this failure. Economic dislocation from a debt-ceiling crisis precisely serves that purpose -- if the Republicans play along. The perfect out: Those crazy tea partyers ruined the recovery!
Why would any conservative collaborate with that ploy? November 2012 constitutes the new conservatism's one chance to restructure government and change the ideological course of the country. Why risk forfeiting that outcome by offering to share ownership of Obama's wreckage?
(c) 2011, The Washington Post Writers Group
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Constitutional Scholar Dr. Alan Keyes reads The Patriot Post: "The Patriot recalls the noble tradition of our Founders. 'Publius' would have admired and endorsed The Patriot Post, as do I." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Craig
Obama will do to the U.S. what 4 passenger jets were unable to accomplish.
Posted July 29, 2011 at 8:23:29 AM
Jeremy
Yes, Charles, we get it. How many columns are you going to have on this issue? Time to move on...
Posted July 29, 2011 at 10:10:38 AM
Robert A. Hall
I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog. 2012 will be the last chance to turn the Republic away from the abyss. I wish we had about five more RINOs like Mike Castle in the Senate, giving us a Republican Majority and putting conservatives in control of the committees, but we don’t. Conservatives are now sharply divided, ripping each other over should we take the best deal we can get on the debt and try to win in 2012, or do we hold out until for everything, take the risk the media will allow the left to blame a crash on the GOP, killing chances for conservative control in 2013. When conservatives are blasting each other, Obama has to be smiling. I think fiscal disaster, civil unrest and Greek-style entitlement riots are in our future.
Robert A. Hall
Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)
Posted July 29, 2011 at 11:57:09 AM
Kevin E. Stroud
Yes, Charles, we get it - but evidently many others don't (translation: those in congress) - so don't stop saying it!
I'm not a fan of compromise, but your clear and insightful analysis points out that this battle is won by not arming Obama and the Democrats for the battle of 2012.
Posted July 29, 2011 at 12:42:05 PM
BJ
The GOP is schooled well in the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, The liberal socialists are willing to do and say anything and are much more adept at the game of politics. Too bad the game affects our lives while the 500 plus "leaders" in DC continue on a daily basis to break their oath to us.
I heard today that the fed govt sends out 80 million checks each month. Sounds like America is far gone and lost.
RECALL-REFERENDUM-IMPEACH-PROSECUTE
Posted July 29, 2011 at 2:00:33 PM
Abu Nudnik
You've convinced me, Charles. And I've been pretty much sticking with don't raise the ceiling. Excellent points. Who called politics the art of the possible?
But no Canada invasion? My heart is broken. I was hoping the White House would be the Pink House one day, better to make the blue sky glow. :(
Posted July 29, 2011 at 2:06:36 PM
Abu Nudnik
@Jeremy: The man writes what's on his mind. You don't have to read it.
Posted July 29, 2011 at 2:07:45 PM
Bruce
Whether we recognize it or not, America is engaged in a civil war equally as profound as the one fought between North and South.
The outcome of this war will determine whether the current government fully and completely transforms us into an imperialistic monarchy under absolute despotism under obama's total despotism.
As this author noted, we are losing our Republic, our liberty, and our future as surely as if the terrorists of 9/11 had won our unconditional surrender.
Posted July 29, 2011 at 3:09:18 PM
d.w.hudson
What's the alternative. Nothing. DO NOTHING! ! Don't pass any more unconstitutional laws. Don't pass any budgets allowing more taxes, more spending, more debt ceiling increases.
Deal with that.
Posted July 29, 2011 at 4:58:54 PM
deming
Then we surrendered unconditionally to the socialist
and not a shot fired!
Ben Franklin said it all when asked what he had given
us: a Republic - now let's see if you can keep it!
Thanks Mr Krauthammer for delivering the message that
all us need to embrace
Posted July 29, 2011 at 7:23:57 PM
Ol'Joe
There used to be an oft-quoted elementry school saying, "Washington never told a lie", Obviously, in today's political climate, it can only refer to the man and not his namesake.
Posted July 30, 2011 at 11:17:16 AM
MichaelSSEC
Let's see.
Unemployment higher than at any time in the last 30+ years.
Energy prices out of control, due entirely to the deliberate policies of this radical administration.
Debt at a level unprecedented not just in the history of America, but in the history of our SPECIES. For those who attended public schools, this means Americans today owe more money than any peoples have ever owed before in the history of Man.
A flat economy that would have recovered from the recession on its own more than 2 years ago, if not for the magnificently counterproductive policies of this administration.
A President who scolds us to "quit whining about the high price of gas and just buy [$40,000] hybrid."
A First Lady who has more highly paid servants than Marie Antoinette and who delights in jetting around the country -- and the world -- on our dime, while lecturing everyone about self-sacrifice.
A First Lady who condescends to control what we eat, while continually stuffing her face with high-calorie dishes, as evidenced by her ever-expanding backside.
An administration that more than two years into its term is STILL blaming its predecessor for all the things that are going wrong today.
An administration that looks at polls consistently showing up to 80% of Americans supporting drastic spending cuts and lower taxes, yet calls such support obstructionist and irrational. Hey, Mister President, you're talking to the VOTERS.
And despite all that, here is the inestimable Charles Krauthammer actually urging us to make a deal with these radicals because he fears Obama is too strong to defeat in 2012. Apparently, Mr Krauthammer is unaware of the rumblings in the Democratic Party that perhaps it would be wise to nominate someone else in 2012. When you're the incumbent and members of your own party are ready to chuck you out, that's blood in the water, folks.
The only way Obama wins in 2012 would be cheating. Period. End of story. Now stop this spineless whimpering, stop this reflexive urge to compromise with these radicals, and FIGHT.
Posted July 31, 2011 at 12:13:35 PM
RyDaddy
"The only way Obama wins in 2012 would be cheating."
And don't assume he won't, or that those who want to see him still in office won't.
Posted August 4, 2011 at 3:51:35 PM