Columnist.
Burger King plans to merge with Canuck coffee-and-doughnut chain Tim Hortons and base the company's headquarters in Canada, where it will enjoy the kind of reasonable corporate tax structure that Democrats continue to obstruct here in the United States. And the move has provoked a fresh round of moral panic, faux patriotism and confusion. It's doubtful, despite much wishful thinking, that there will be much of a real backlash. Nor should there be. Most obviously, the majority of fast-food customers are probably less inclined than the petitioners of MoveOn.org to mistake high tax rates for patriotism. This kind of distorted understanding of national loyalty may work in populist politics, but not so much in markets. Few reasonable humans will meditate on Burger King's corporate tax "inversion" -- or even its Brazilian owners -- as they wait for the frozen french fries to be dropped into the deep-fryer.
In a bit of dubious cherry-picking, a new Bloomberg article concludes that the Affordable Care Act is losing its effectiveness as a political issue for Republicans and is diminishing as a major issue. How do we know the end is near-ish? Well, so many Americans are "benefiting from the law," theorizes Heidi Przybyla, that political ads are simply not doing the job anymore. This news is somewhat unexpected -- and unpersuasive -- when you consider that a Kaiser Family Foundation poll recently found that only 15 percent of Americans believe Obamacare has directly helped them, whereas 28 percent say it has directly hurt them. (Fifty-six percent say it has had no effect on their lives.)
Jonathan Alter at The Daily Beast has an idea that will infuse the president's "economic patriotism" rhetoric with some bite: Compel companies to take "loyalty oaths" to prove their patriotism. You may find this suggestion a little creepy, maybe even a little fascistic; but Alter says that "it's time for red-blooded Americans to take matters into our own hands."
Let's concede for a moment that most of us don't believe the United States should be taking sides in conflicts abroad. Even so, most Americans would probably agree that at a minimum, our diplomatic efforts should not cause unnecessary harm. Which brings me to Secretary of State John Kerry's recent misadventure in the Middle East. It seems like a rather big deal that Egypt, Israel, Fatah, Jordan, Saudi Arabia -- ostensibly all allies of ours -- agree on something. This development, one imagines, might be something the United States would be interested in fostering rather than destroying. Certainly, the idea that Hamas' power should be neutralized and the influence of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority expanded sounds like a plan worth pursuing.
Teachers are underpaid. In politics and also in everyday life, this is almost universally accepted. Everyone admires teachers. Everyone wants good teachers for their children. And naturally, liberals believe that contrasting these salaries will emphasize the irrationality and unfairness of the marketplace. But it doesn't.
So Barack Obama is again using one of the most contemptible phrases in American politics -- "economic patriotism." There are many credible reasons to despise this rhetorical construct. Patriotism, after all, is the attachment to one's homeland, a nationalistic devotion to one's country and the values that make it great. If a person not only resists things that are "patriotic" but opposes them, then logic dictates that the person is being unpatriotic. So the president is really asking one question: Why do you hate America? Instead of protecting tax loopholes that let corporations keep their profits overseas, let's put some of that money to work right here in the United States rebuilding America. We can rebuild our airports, create the next generation of good manufacturing jobs, make sure those are made in America.
It's simply mystifying that so many Americans look to candidates who pretend to be just like them. We're the worst. In the rare instance I am moved to vote, the least I expect is for a candidate to be far more successful than I am. This last hurdle is not particularly challenging, mind you. Which brings me to Hillary Clinton, whose clumsy efforts to convince America that she's a commoner not only are transparently silly but intentionally discount her most impressive gift: the ability to persuade rational people to pony up $200,000 (The Wall Street Journal says she was paid $300,000 for a speech at UCLA) to hear her talk about a career in politics. One thing's for sure: Those students would benefit far more from a talk about the inner workings of Clinton Inc.'s multimillion-dollar business than they will sitting through an hour of platitudes about public service.
A new Gallup poll finds that fewer Americans are satisfied with the freedom in their lives compared with seven years ago -- dropping 12 percentage points, from 91 percent in 2006 to 79 percent in 2013. During that same time, the percentage of Americans dissatisfied with the freedoms available in their lives more than doubled, from 9 percent to 21 percent. The United States now sits in 36th place among the world in our admiration of the idea of freedom. It's fair to mention that the definition of "freedom" has become increasingly pliable. (It is, for example, regularly argued that one person's unwillingness to pay for another person's contraception is a restriction of the latter person's freedom.) What is bothersome, though, is that nearly a quarter of us would feel comfortable telling a complete stranger that our own "freedom," in the broadest sense, is an overrated concept.
On Tuesday night, former Rep. Bob Beauprez beat a slate of Republicans, including, most notably, former presidential candidate Tom Tancredo. Mitt Romney and other hated/beloved GOP establishment types had endorsed Beauprez, who was clearly the most electable candidate available to face John Hickenlooper. More importantly, the state GOP did not want Tancredo's tedious one-note campaign dragging down its entire ticket. Still, this wasn't -- though you may hear differently -- another Tea Party vs. Old Guard matchup. What was different in Colorado? Where it mattered, the establishment choice was as conservative on issues as any other candidate running. Actually, paleoconservative Tancredo's designation as a "tea party" favorite by the media was more a matter of perception -- or more probably lazy shorthand many journalists use to signify "crazy."
Even in the most catastrophic year for congressional incumbents, 90 percent of them will win re-election -- and most of them will do so rather easily. Many of them, in fact, won't even have to run a campaign. This fact might be somewhat obscured lately, what with all the talk of the impending populist insurrection. "Anti-incumbent wave building," says The Detroit News. "Eric Cantor's surprise defeat is a warning to all Republicans," says Slate. "Eric Cantor's Loss Was Like an Earthquake" says FiveThirtyEight. Ron Fournier of the National Journal writes, "Elites Beware: Eric Cantor's Defeat May Signal a Populist Revolution." And so it goes and goes.
Let's just say that the Iraq army isn't exactly anchoring a democratic awakening in the Middle East. Earlier this week, Iraq's armed forces in Mosul -- trained and supplied by the United States to secure the well-being of its people and institutions -- reportedly dropped their guns, shed their uniforms and surrendered to black-flag-waving Sunni insurgents in a mere four days. No Thermopylae here. And about a half-million civilians have left the second-largest city in Iraq to flee what is surely going to become a hotbed of beheadings and other assorted acts of jihad. And now, according to CNN, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria also has almost complete control of Tikrit. Al-Qaida (or something very much like it) is definitely on the run -- right toward our allies.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has ordered a suburban Denver baker named Jack Phillips to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, finding that his religious objections do not supersede the state's anti-discrimination statutes. Because if the Constitution should be subordinate to anything, it's the local thought police, hurt feelings and nuptial pastries. Raju Jaram, one of the reprehensible unelected commissioners -- whose contact information is nowhere to be found on Colorado's government site -- apparently had this to say about the case: "I can believe anything I want, but if I'm going to do business here, I'd ought to not discriminate against people." No, you can't. Because Phillips isn't discriminating against gay Coloradans. Gay customers, as far as all the news stories have suggested, are free to shop in the bakery and purchase (at the same price) any of the cakes, cookies and pastries they like, without ever being asked by anyone whom they love or what the gender equation is in their sex life.
Some of you may believe partisanship is a healthy organic reflection of genuine disagreement in the nation, but for the well-known political scientist Norm Ornstein, there is nothing more devastating than inaction. Nothing. So years after lamenting the existence of partisanship, he's come up with another way to deal with our dawdling government: term limiting Supreme Court justices. In the old days, you see, Supreme Court decisions were often unanimous. These days, there are too many close calls and too many overturned laws. This has nothing to do with the unconstitutionality of the legislation Congress happens to be passing these days but everything to do with the emergence of something called "ideology." How do we stop it? More politics.
For those of you who haven't heard, Chipotle Mexican Grill, which for years allowed local laws to dictate policy for the restaurant chain regarding open or concealed weapons, has decided to "ask" customers not to bring firearms into its restaurants after some zealous gun owners paraded around with "military-style assault rifles" at a Chipotle in Texas. What's more probable, though, is that well-funded anti-Second Amendment activists exploited a single unfortunate incident to badger a pliable corporation into a bad decision. This is neither new nor unexpected. Cue the calls for a boycott from Second Amendment fans.
On Sunday, Marco Rubio informed Jonathan Karl on ABC's "This Week" that he is ready to be president. "I think a president has to have a clear vision of where the country needs to go and clear ideas about how to get it there," he went on. "And I think we're very blessed in our party to have a number of people that fit that criteria." And Rubio seems a plausible option for Republicans in 2016. Falling somewhere between Jeb Bush-Chris Christie and the purportedly unelectable Rand Paul-Ted Cruz, Rubio is the sort of comfortable choice Republicans tend to decide on. As National Review's Eliana Johnson points out, experts see numerous advantageous aspects to a Rubio presidential candidacy: He's a proven conservative with a moderate demeanor. He's comparatively youthful with a strong presence. And he has the ability to engage in Hispanic outreach. Hailing from an important state doesn't hurt, either.
The bloodcurdling National Climate Assessment is here, and it portends catastrophe; floods, clouds and other assorted weather events are imminent! But, says the report, "there is still time to act to limit the amount of climate change and the extent of damaging impacts." Have you noticed that we're always at the cusp of a cataclysm yet the deadline to act always moves to a politically convenient not-too-distant future? I guess that when the time to act runs out -- it will at some point, right? -- we can begin thinking about defunding all these panels and reinvesting in something more productive, such as figuring out how we can adapt to the future.
After The Daily Beast released excerpts of his warning world leaders that Israel would devolve into an "apartheid" state if it failed to agree to a peace deal, Secretary of State John Kerry walked back his comments. "If I could rewind the tape," he explained, "I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two-state solution." This shouldn't make anyone feel better. It's not just the incendiary use of "apartheid" that's the problem but the well-worn canard about Israel that Kerry rests his position on. And his position shouldn't really surprise anyone who's been paying attention. President Barack Obama offered basically the same argument only a couple of months ago when he warned that time was running out for "Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy."
As I write this, Thomas Piketty's book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" is No. 1 on Amazon.com. It's been deemed an "important book" by a bunch of smart people. Why not? It validates many of the preconceived notions progressives have about capitalism: Inequality is growing. Mobility is shrinking. Meritocracy is dead. We all live in a sprawling zero-sum fallacy. The book has also sparked nonstop conversation in political and media circles. Though it's best to let economists debunk Piketty's methodology and data, it is worth pointing out that liberal pundits and writers have enthusiastically and unconditionally embraced not only a book on economics but a hard-left manifesto.
The notion that conservatives not only oppose liberal health care reforms but are vigorously working to deny Americans access is a popular one on the left. If you don't support Obamacare, you are basically endorsing murder. A recent contemptible piece in New Republic, which argues that Democrats should -- without any evidence, if necessary -- blame the unfortunate deaths of Americans on the rival political party, is perhaps the pinnacle of this brand of absurd demagoguery. Alan Grayson mainstreamed.
Here's another reason government should never own a business. In February 2010, the Obama administration's transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, told America, without a shred of evidence, that Toyota automobiles were dangerous to drive. LaHood offered the remarks in front of the House subcommittee that was investigating reports of unintended-acceleration crashes. "My advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it," he said, sending the company's stock into a nose dive. Even at the time, LaHood's comments were reckless at best. Assailing the competition reeks of political opportunism and cronyism. It also illustrates one of the unavoidable predicaments of the state's owning a corporation in a competitive marketplace. And when we put LaHood's comment into perspective today, it's actually a lot worse. The Obama administration not only had the power and ideological motive to damage the largely nonunionized competition but also was busy propping up a company that *was* causing preventable deaths.
