On Morning Joe today there was more political incoherence following yesterday's show with its political incoherence. Mark Halperin was back, and he tried to provide a little rational political analysis, but it appears that the Tea Party, limited government conservatives and libertarians have muddled the thinking of many in the political class, especially the host of Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough. Scarborough said that Obama should have stared down the Tea Partiers and used the 14th Amendment route to break the back of the Tea Party -- remember that Scarborough said that Obama should have done this.
When Scarborough has been criticized in the past for saying things like this, he's condescendingly explained that he's a political analyst, and that the Cheeto-eating bloggers in their underwear should understand that it's not necessarily his personal political belief. So, let's ask, from a political analysis perspective, why Obama should have gone the 14th Amendment route and broken the back of the Tea Party. I suppose from a very limited political advantage perspective, if Scarborough is right, which Halperin said he isn't right, and I don't think he's right, taking the 14th Amendment route would please the independents and the Democrat base, therefore giving Obama more street cred with the public, except for the "Tea Party" faction which would be marginalized. But would this be good for the country? Should Obama have ignored the separation of powers and further expanded executive powers through this power grab? Would independents think more highly of Obama for using the 14th Amendment and bypassing all attempts to limit spending?
Later in the program, a chart was shown regarding increased spending way above current revenue with the trend going higher and higher in the next decade. Scarborough, and all the regulars and guests, were depressed by the projections, and it was stated that if we don't do anything, we're headed for disaster. The public knows this too -- independents know this. So, again, I ask, should Obama have used the 14th Amendment to bypass any attempts to deal with the debt crisis, expand executive power, thereby weakening the representatives who are the only ones right now who can do anything to limit government power and spending? Independents would think that this is a good thing?
Scarborough, and most liberals and moderates, are incoherent. On one hand, they say we need to ignore deficits in a recession and spend more on infrastructure and job creation, then on the other hand, they see that all Bush's spending and stimuli, and all Obama's spending and stimuli have done nothing but put us hopelessly further in debt and caused businesses in America to freeze in their tracks because they don't know what's coming next. The incredible consensus among the Morning Joe crew was that this decade of heated Keynesian activity has been necessary to prevent things from being worse -- and now we need more spending and stimuli! How freaking insane are these people?
The Tea Party, limited government movement threatens political class players like Joe Scarborough, because the Tea Partiers are signaling the failure of statism, and the political class is frightened of a truly free market -- it puts them at risk of losing their niche in the ever expanding and powerful State machine. This is the debate -- continued government intervention and stimulus efforts, or remove government from the economy and allow a free market to adjust and start growing through productive activity. We had better decide soon, before these idiots in the politcal class completely destroy the country just to protect the status quo in DC.