House of Eratosthenes

“In the presence of a man who insists humans breathe air, and another who says that humans breathe water, you do not stick your face in the toilet bowl fifty percent of the time.” — Morgan K. Freeberg

A powerful case is being made that President Obama needs to move toward the right in the months ahead; indeed, that His presidency may depend on this.

This is the failure of American politics. Moderation is very often a reinforcing agent and a nourishing agent. Observing this pattern, at times we are seduced into thinking moderation is emblematic of all that is good; we make the mistake of drawing on the metaphor from nature, thinking of the mighty oak that survives the storm not so much by being thick and strong, but rather by bending a little. There are many problems with this: Evil is constantly on the lookout for cheap and easy new ways to appear good, and this ends up being one of them. Also, the mindset tends to lead us toward the polar opposite of what we are seeking. After a time, as we desperately seek someone with something to say, the mindset directs us toward the vacillating leadership of those who have nothing to say.

It is particularly mismatched to situations in which the debate is about which of two cups has the poison. Which, I would argue, is a hypothetical that fits just about all the disagreements we confront today. When the answer that emerges is “drink from both but sip slowly,” the consequences are not helpful to what we’re trying to do.

But it’s refreshing seeing the give-some-of-it-up dictum stuck onto the democrats for once. In my memory, the only time I’ve ever seen them cautioned by their own or by outsiders to moderate the tone, the cautioning has more to do with this: Do every little thing you’ve always wanted to do, and do just as much of it, but proceed slowly so you can get the albatross sold. That’s not moderation, that’s shuffling us toward the brink of the cliff at a relaxed, leisurely pace.

I have a nice road/offroad hybrid bike, and I happen to live at the base of the tallest hill for miles and miles around. To me, slipping in to the granny-gear isn’t even a compromise, it’s simply a fact of life. It means reaching the top in fifteen minutes as opposed to…well…not reaching it at all. And it would be just plain stupid to say “Morgan had to give up some of what he was doing because he was forced to shift into first gear.” There’s a difference between speed and distance.

This article seems to suggest Obama needs to give up on some goals that involve distance.

Good.

Mr. Obama’s bet was that his personal popularity would be enough to push his agenda through. Perhaps that would have been possible before the $787 billion economic stimulus package, the $410 billion omnibus bill that funds the government, the House-approved cap-and-trade bill, and so forth. But these big-ticket spending bills have helped define what the president means by “hope” and “change,” and it is through this prism that the American public now views his health-care proposals.

Public skepticism increased when the Congressional Budget Office issued findings contradicting Mr. Obama’s claims that his health-care reform would lower costs. And the more Americans have learned about the specifics, the more they dislike the plans. The president understands that he loses when he talks about substantive issues, which is why he’s been fudging on the public option. He may not understand that he is closing the gap between his unpopular policies and his personal popularity in the worst way a president can: by reducing his own credibility.

Back in 1994, Mr. Clinton faced pretty much the same problem. Though he too had won the White House promising to be a new kind of Democrat, his first two years had a distinctly liberal tenor: battling over gays in the military, promoting a new energy tax, turning a promised middle-class tax cut into a huge tax hike, and trying to push through universal health care. Though he continues to deny GOP contributions to his success, after his 1994 health-care defeat, Mr. Clinton did what all smart pols do: He appropriated the most appealing parts of his opponents’ agenda.

The result was a new Bill Clinton, embracing everything from deregulation and welfare reform to the Defense of Marriage Act. In his 1996 State of the Union, he even struck a Reaganite chord by announcing that “the era of Big Government is over.” From this newly held center, Mr. Clinton advanced his presidency and pushed, both successfully and unfairly, to demonize Mr. Gingrich. Mostly he got away with it.

The cycle continues: America steps up to buy into more of this poison liberalism, when and only when 1) her head is filled with thoughts irrelevant to what it is she is buying, usually by means of some distracting debate about personalities; 2) when times are truly desperate and she sees absolutely no alternative to it, or 3) it is buried deep within an inseparable package that includes components, either in style or in substance, of liberalism’s opposite. If none of those three apply, in America it’s a no-go.

And yet, by leveraging those three, with a go-slow approach, liberalism’s salesmen just might get the job done. Simply by exchanging that least valuable of all commodities, speed. America herself may eventually be sold the pig-in-a-poke that is information-age socialism.

That’s the challenge. To send America down the sad trail of so many countries that came before her — starting with world superpower, and ending with becoming just another filthy little wealth-confiscating socialist mudpuddle.

The advice for President Obama is good…for Him. I hope He does not take it. It would be bad for the country. What’s good for the country is to recognize the debate for what it is: Should we drink the poison or should we not? Those who say we should not, have been pressured, constantly, for the last year or more, to moderate their tone. It is a prerequisite now, before one steps up to a debate to oppose carbon cap-and-trade bills, to offer the ritual disclaimer “I believe global warming is a serious problem and that it is caused by man.” The data no longer back this up, but the necessity of offering the disclaimer — somehow — remains.

When liberals step up to a debate to insist that taxes should stay high and be pushed higher…they do not labor under any social necessity to say “I believe the Laffer Curve is real,” the way their opponents have been similarly nagged to say “I believe global warming is real.” As we bully and bludgeon our politicians and other advocates to be more moderate, when it comes to recognizing what is & isn’t so, we have become very choosey in selecting which side is being nagged toward the “center” of sipping poison slowly. If this situation is changing now, that is what I call a welcome change. But I’m going to hold off on the celebrations until I see where the change is going.

Because the guy writing the article is a hundred percent right: Clinton was handed a heaping piled-high plate of defeat. Clinton managed to turn it all around, and pretty much get everything else done besides the health care, by selling the poison liberalism with the three distracting agents listed above combined with a go-slow approach. He shifted into granny gears and got the job done. He sold us his bag o’ crap, and in so doing defined a way for all his successors to accomplish more of the same thing.

Moving to the center for Liberals is; second, instead of third trimester abortions, no war protesting when a Democrat is president, taxing just the rich – anyone with a job, letting only people who agree with you speak, racial profiling if it’s a White, Conservative veteran, believing the Constitution is open to interpretation – their interpretation and last but not least – descent is Patriotic, unless you disagree with them.

Center of Left isn’t the center, it’s trying to bring the Right over to that side and then blaming the Right for not compromising or even better, the charge of “obstructing”. (See government controlled health care debate).
- tim | 08/25/2009 @ 10:32
[…] They Must Be Angry White Men Moving to the Center Take Your Daughter to Death Star Day Handrails Prevailing Viewpoint How Expensive is Liberalism? […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 08/25/2009 @ 21:14
The advice for President Obama is good…for Him. I hope He does not take it. It would be bad for the country.

Bingo. I don’t want Obama to “move to the center.” I want him fired at the next election. Simple. The last thing we need is another left-wing president who masquerades as a moderate. I got a belly full of that back during the Clinton years.
- cylarz | 08/25/2009 @ 22:47

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Moving to the CenterTuesday, August 25th, 2009

Moving to the Center
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009