Meet the Press 1/16/11

If Meet the Press isn't beating ABC's This Week in ratings, it ought to be beating them. I have to say, though, I've lost respect for David Gregory -- to open Meet the Press this morning, they had the obigatory picture of Sarah Palin as they announced the topic of civility and political discourse as related to the Arizona shootings, and Gregory grilled Tom Coburn about rightwing rhetoric and how it increases paranoia in mentally disturbed individuals, but at least Gregory doesn't insert his personality and ego in the roundtable discussions to the extent Amanpour has on This Week. This morning, although some guests were the usual political class pundits, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, and to a lesser extent of being "usual", Al Sharpton and one guy who has something to with the Special Olympics whom I didn't know and can't remember his name, the discussion was good and it touched on a lot of important issues. What was missing was a voice from totally outside politics, but someone who thoroughly understands politics -- this inclusion of diversity would have gone a long way toward broadening  understanding of the problems we face and possible solutions.

I'll just highlight the discussion and give my take on what was missing. It was roundly agreed that civility and tone in politics are necessary to get things done. Al Sharpton, with his raw intelligence and canny ability to cut through flowery talk and pretentiousness, kept the conversation grounded and was actually the one who made the most sense, even if he's stuck in political solutions.

David Brooks, of course, took his middle course and believes that Obama can bring the country together in compromise. Peggy Noonan talked about style and decorum. Sharpton made the point that symbolic gestures like both political parties sitting together at the State of the Union Address and being civil are all well and good, but action is necessary to make changes.

There was talk about improving mental health services and all agreed that this is necessary, and, connected to this was a converstation about information sharing between military, FBI and local law officials and all government type agencies, even schools, to assure that the system identifies mentally ill individuals who might be at risk of causing violence. Sharpton brought up the fact that even if they are identified, we must have proper facilities to treat them and access to the facilities.

On education, the consensus, of course, was that government should do more to reform education, although there were no concrete solutions suggested. Then there was a lot of talk about MLK and his dreams -- the Special Olympics guy brought up that MLK was an "extremist" and called himself an extremist for love and justice. Obama was compared to MLK as a black historical figure moving civil rights forward. Sharpton, brilliantly, said that King was about more than pretty words and big ideas, more than a dreamer, that he was also about action and change, and that King was a civil rights leader and that Obama is President, that blacks are not one dimensional, they are multi-dimensional and that this is the true message of Kingism. When Sharpton said this, it created an opening for someone who understands the world outside of the political realm to unite all the previous topics and move the conversatation to a new place, but, alas, throughout the entire discussion of all the topics, the underlying assumption was that government has to handle and solve all these problems.

From community offerings of mental health identification, access and treatment to improvement of educational offerings to opportunities for blacks to contribute their multi-dimensional offerings as individuals, the private sector is practically excluded in all discussion of solutions. 

Yet, our greatest resources lie within the hundreds of millions of individals across the nation. As I've written about lately, the assumption that "private" is selfish and myopic and the "public", as in the State, is compassionate with vision of the common good and welfare, has misled us and caused us to ignore the source of real change. One way to look at the current situation of corporations and private businesses sitting on a mountain of cash is to say government should confiscate more of this money and spend it on government solutions to our most pressing problems -- another way, though, to look at it is that all the individuals with influence in these corporations and private businesses could be a big part of the solutions to our most pressing problems. There's plenty of evidence that the black hole in government which is sucking down cash and pushing us further in debt is the most inefficient and incompetent route to solutions -- when companies know this, they don't want to see capital diverted wastefully from the private sector to the black hole -- however, private industry can be convinced that their help and resources will solve problems which make us all better off, them included. Society as a whole will be better improved if mental health is addressed with intelligence, compassion and common sense -- society will be better off if communities offer diverse and effective education opportunities which meet 21st century needs of complete, rounded education with a focus on specialized knowledge to address technological progress in a changing, global economy, then let parents and the kids make their choices. If industry leaders are brought in to invest in education solutions, we'll begin to see progress. If communities are given the responsibility to develope educational offerings, we'll see more progress. If the federal govenment gets out of controlling education, we'll see more progress.

Yes, Sharpton is right -- blacks are not one-dimensional. Like Herman Cain, there many, man wealthy and successful blacks in all areas of society, politics, business, universities, entertainment, sports and religion. I dare say the greatest success, since laws were changed to offer equal opportunity, have been outside politics and government, in spite of having the first black president -- and it must be remembered that the laws had to be changed. We don't need to argue which came first, the chicken or the egg, just look at the reality today. I will make a brave claim and say the greatest opportunity for change among the fortunes of black individuals, the greatest influence, is working and acting, multi-dimensionally, in the private sector. Yes, there is still much unemployment among blacks, but employment will come from the private sector, and wealthy black entrepreneurs, business leaders and executives can help influence education and job opportunities for black individuals who work for the oportunity and have the will to achieve and succeed. These black leaders in the private sector can inspire a better model to emulate for young kids. Depending on government social programs is a dead end. Attitudes about the private sector have to change.

Not to make this too long, but two issues bothered me, especially in light of what government ought to do to fix problems -- one is the issue of information sharing and being able to involuntarily committ people. This is a little scary, because "exteme", "different", "weird" can mean many different things to different people -- I would hate for government to develope more ways to gather information on citiziens and strengthen its ability to involutarily committ -- we've seen how this turns if we look at the history of Germany, Italy, Russia, and even our own history --it can easily be abused to silence oppositon, or incompetence can cause those "different" to be labeled as a threat. I understand the real need to identify real threats from disturbed, dangerous and violent people, but we have to be careful, and, unless an act has been committed, this goes back to the legitimate responsibilities of government -- is it a legitimate responsibility of government to identify mental illness and treat it? I don't think so. Each community can handle the problem of information, identification and treatment.

Another problem is with repetition of the idea that the midterm elections were about sending a message to politicans to get along and get things done. Chuck Schumer, who was interviewed by Gregory before the roundtable, repeated this conclusion from the midterms. It doesn't make sense. The left is pushing this idea of what the midterms meant, so they either believe the public wants government to get things done that the left wants to get down or the right to get to get done, that they want compromise to favor the left or the right. Since Republicans shellacked the Democrats, according to Schumer, the public wants government to compromise and get things done that favor the right -- that's the logical conclusion. But, surely Schumer is not eager to compromise to get things done that favor the right. And if the public had wanted government to get things done that favor the left, then they would have voted for more Democrats so the deck would be fully stacked and much could get done. What has happened is that we have a split government where nothing much at all will get done. Isn't it more likely that what the public wants it to undo a lot of what has already been done?

The never-ending battle

Many people in the political realm don't the word "statism" -- they react to the word as if you had called them a bigot, or many believe it's just too harsh and not specific enough to cover the nuanced beliefs many hold who support a strong State but also realize too much State power is not good either.

But, even after it's explained many times that "statism" covers all the different degrees but is mainly useful to distinguish a statist from a free market advocate, there's still a reaction to word, and it has to be explained all over again. It would be much easier if statists simply accepted their support of government's intervention in the economy, some level of central management and some level of social engineering and then made their case as a statist against the ideas of free market advocates. It's easy enough to know the difference between the two views, and theres' no reason for anyone to be sensitive about being called a statist if that is what they are, to whatever degree it might be.

This is all just throat-clearing to get to the main point, and that is the current narrative that the midterm elections were about the country sending a message that goverment should work together to get things done. This is the statist narrative from both right and left -- governmnt should now work in compromise to get the wheels of government moving and, by God, get things done. They even have polls, as usual, to prove it. This is not the message I heard before and during the midterm elections. What I heard was that government has become too powerful, has done too much and is spending too much borrowed money.

It's such an obvious political manipulation to spin the midterm elections into a call for more government intervention that it blows my mind people can be so arrogant after defeat. But, statists are arrogant when it comes to supporting an interventionist government -- just look at victory dancing going on right now to celebrate the lame duck congress accomplishments. I haven't heard the Tea Party reaction to this show of State aggrandizement, but I have to believe they are patiently waiting until the new congress comes in, then the work of fighting against statism can begin. At least, this is my hope. I will be sadly dissappointed if the public at large has accepted this narrative that government should work together to do more than they've already done.

To be frank, I'm appalled at how the adminsitration is suckig up the praise for passing repeal of DADT and aid for the 9/11 workers, and how this masks the previous bill which adds almost another trillion to debt. It was the hard work of anonymous people across the country that got the repeal and aid passed, and these accomplishments shouldn't be used to pump up the president and justify statism.

We can't take our eyes off the real problem -- the State is growing like a giant octupus as these presentatives of the Ruling Class slap one another's asses and ignore the real message sent during the midterms -- get out of the way and stop spending we don't have. It's good that congress fixed a few problems it should have fixed a long time ago -- now stop screwing things up which you'll have to be forced to "fix" later.

Liberals and moderates at it again -- a new narrative

There's a desperate narrative being drawn up by some moderates and practically all liberals who voted for Obama and have supported the progressive agenda up until now, and still seem committed to the agenda -- only, now, they have to regroup after the midterms and in light of the current economic and civil liberties problems.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying what they're selling. The narrative has many parts, which earns them points for creativity. First, let's point out that Obama and progressivism were soundly rejected in the midterm elections, the economy sucks, with no signs of real improvement, and Obama and company are awful when it comes to protecting civil liberties -- plus the wars are on the verge of implosion, especially in Afghanistan, yet Obama wants to stay until 2014. It also needs to be pointed out that Obama is on record wanting single payer governent-run healthcare, supporting cap and trade, and would have passed much more than has been passed to give the State much more power over industry if he had not had resistance. With all this, in spite of some criticism from the left, here and there, usually because Obama didn't perform magic and get the whole progressive agenda passed in the first year, the moderates and liberals, for the most part, still support Obama and blame Republicans for most problems. They are deflecting harsh, specific criticism from the right of Obama and the progressive agenda by saying that the situation is complicated.

Oh, yes, it's complicated -- it always is when people pretend to be something they're not. The problem is statism, but no one now wants to admit to being a statist. The right hasn't made statism a bad word as much as the left is hiding from the label because they know statism is failing -- but they don't care about the failing as long as they can get the agenda through and transform America into some form of a democratic socialist nation. They believe that once the transformation is complete and any chance of a free market is dead, the technocrats will figure out a way to make it work. Paul Krugman continues to advise forgetting about the deficit and just plow ahead. Pelosi is holding strong, and Reid shows no signs of insight or change. The statist/socialist/progressive dream that arose with Obama's election is not dead, it just took a shellacking, but the dream is alive.

Now that the progressive agenda is in trouble, the left has to make adjustments, to lay a little low, deny statism, frame Obama as a pragmatic moderate, beg for bipartisanship and hope the Republicans compromise like they always have, so that the continuation of the agenda is possible, even if at a slower pace. Liberals are crying that critics on the right are using a broad brush and labeling everyone on the left as "statist" or "socialist" and that no one is looking at the complicated situation which requires sophisticated solutions -- in other words, they are hiding again, waiting for another opening to advance the progressive agenda. I would give any liberal the benefit of the doubt and look at each as individuals who don't fit in the tight space of the statist label, if they showed any signs of looking for solutions outside the State, but they aren't, not any I've dealt with or know about -- they are acting like collectivists and should be treated as such. Once liberals and statist-leaning moderates become free-thinking individuals, that's how they'll be seen and accepted -- but, so far, for the most part, this isn't happening.

As for the statist Republicans, the Big Government Republicans, if they fall for the bipartisan line this time, it's over. The message of the midterms, even if the political class doesn't want to acknowledge it, is to limit State power and let the market be free. This might be our last shot -- if statism is allowed to follow through with its failure, it will be decades before we recover, if we ever do recover. 

Those Amazing Democrats

Nancy Pelosi must have a long list of buried bodies. It appears she will be the leader. Clyburn will obviously be bought off and Hoyer will just have to wait.

Not only have the Democrats not learned anything from the midterm elections, they are arrogantly disregarding it. How will this play out?

The base is still supportive, I'm sure, but how big is the base? It appears that progressives are few in number although they are active politically. Now that the public has been aroused, in 2012 voter turnout migt be historically high. If so, this will be bad news for Democrats seen as captive to progressives.

Democrats are expected to go down with the agenda, I suppose.

De-throning president-kings

The expansion of executive power over the last few decades might be coming to an end. The incredible potential on the left under Obama was even greater than the opportunity which Clinton flubbed through his lust. Bush expanded executive power through a crisis, but it was soon reigned in by the media.

Obama came on strong and it appeared for a period of time that he was going to pull an Augustus on America, whereby he played the role of humble servant, deferring to congress, yet behind the scenes and through his czars take on unprecedented power. For a moment it appeared that industry would be turned upside down through the EPA with their carbon trick, but about that time the American people put a stop to the power grab -- not, however, before the structure was built through healthcare and finance on which to eventually build enough regulation to accomplish the progressive mission.

Now that the midterm elections have sent a strong message and the president is presently looking weak, the trend to expand executive power is possibly thwarted for good, at least for a long time to come. It will not be any time soon that a charismatic president charges into office bent on changing the tides and healing the world. I imagine our next president will be a workhorse executive expected to downsize and curb government power, simply giving the nation reports of the progress made. America appears intent on taking power back and cranking up the private sector, and I don't think this public pressure is going to dissipate when unemployment falls to 5%. Good for the American people. It remains to be seen, though, whether the structure of healthcare and finance can be demolished.

State power players have come up against an opposing force they didn't expect, the American people roused from a long nap. All they can possibly do at this point to continue the progressive agenda is declare an emergency -- it had better be one hell of an emergency.