The Consequences of Our Failures
In July, 2007, we watched the debates in the United States Senate over
the progress in Iraq and was struck by the huge gulf between the views
of the elected representatives and that of those they represented. That
"disconnect" as it is called these days was a bit scary.
What struck the person who writes this drivel about what passed for a debate about he war on the floor of the United States Senate was that
But that was about war, somewhere far away and something that, without a draft to force people into it, can be dismissed by an American people with so much more to worry about....like staying employed. This economic crisis is getting deeper and deeper. Nobody has escaped its consequences and the prospects for the future appear more dire every day.
The fool with his head in the sand is gone and replaced by a thoughtful, vibrant and hugely popular new president. He has invoked the words of his best predecessors and offered a plan to try to avoid a downward spiral that could truly become disastrous.
Yet rather than spring to the call of the nation and of its new president, the Congress has reacted by going back to their usual playbook. Republicans, seeing only political calculations that show that support for the plan will get them no credit, have banded together to simply oppose what ever the new president supports. They supplement their clever arguments about why the tax cut solution their party has trotted out as a response to every economic issue which has come up since 1981, with such inspired rhetoric as "this is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill" as if there is even a hint of meaning in this kind of reasoning.
And the Democrats, with a solid majority in the House, and so many votes in the Senate that by sticking together they could all but prevent any filibuster on any issue, respond by leaping over one another to see how they can appease these screwballs instead of using reason to win them over, or, failing that, threatening them. The result is a bill that was likely too small for the task ahead of it, is now smaller and the danger to our country's economic well being even greater.
This is not a recipe for the future of our system of government. The empty headed fools who set the tone for this debate by foolishness on cable tv (including one outlet's attempt to pass off the dangerous extremism of Pat Buchanan, who has called World War II an "unnecessary war" yet found Joseph McCarthy to be unfairly maligned, as reflecting a mainstream sentiment), who consistently told us that debates which the American people found that our current President won overwhelmingly were a draw, and who rhapsodize about bipartisanship as if "getting along" was more important than doing what is right, are doing nobody any favors and are enabling Beltway thought in a way that is as dangerous to the future of this republic as anything Osama bin Laden could dream up.
The government that came into office in 1933 understood the crisis on just apolcalyptic terms. The portion of President Roosevelt's inaugural address that got the most attention the next day was not the line about what the only thing to fear was, but this:
That, it was understood correctly, was the threat that dictatorial powers might become necessary if Congress responded to the crisis as it had always done before; by dividing into partisan corners throwing philosophical talking points at one another. President Roosevelt said this knowing that he would have public support for taking these "powers" if need be. The Congress saw that and, rather than risk complete irrelevance, supported the new President in his plan to attack what faced the country.
We are at that same crossroads today, but as a far more bitterly divided nation. The spectacle of what has taken place in the Senate over the past few days should be sobering, and should wake up those who believe that as with so many storms we have weathered before, this one will eventually pass without dire consequences. That could still be so, but it is a very thin reed to count upon.
What struck the person who writes this drivel about what passed for a debate about he war on the floor of the United States Senate was that
everyone was simply going through the motions: very few Senators took positions other than the ones they were expected to take. There was very little courage shown, though many interesting views were expressed.
The upshot was ... only to stick the government's thumb in the public's eye even more. That public, for better or worse wants this [war] to end; the government, to one degree or another, apparently does not; at least not enough to do anything about it or even to rationally explain why not ... They enrage the public by this inaction and an enraged public is not the sort upon which a stable government can long survive.
But that was about war, somewhere far away and something that, without a draft to force people into it, can be dismissed by an American people with so much more to worry about....like staying employed. This economic crisis is getting deeper and deeper. Nobody has escaped its consequences and the prospects for the future appear more dire every day.
The fool with his head in the sand is gone and replaced by a thoughtful, vibrant and hugely popular new president. He has invoked the words of his best predecessors and offered a plan to try to avoid a downward spiral that could truly become disastrous.
Yet rather than spring to the call of the nation and of its new president, the Congress has reacted by going back to their usual playbook. Republicans, seeing only political calculations that show that support for the plan will get them no credit, have banded together to simply oppose what ever the new president supports. They supplement their clever arguments about why the tax cut solution their party has trotted out as a response to every economic issue which has come up since 1981, with such inspired rhetoric as "this is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill" as if there is even a hint of meaning in this kind of reasoning.
And the Democrats, with a solid majority in the House, and so many votes in the Senate that by sticking together they could all but prevent any filibuster on any issue, respond by leaping over one another to see how they can appease these screwballs instead of using reason to win them over, or, failing that, threatening them. The result is a bill that was likely too small for the task ahead of it, is now smaller and the danger to our country's economic well being even greater.
This is not a recipe for the future of our system of government. The empty headed fools who set the tone for this debate by foolishness on cable tv (including one outlet's attempt to pass off the dangerous extremism of Pat Buchanan, who has called World War II an "unnecessary war" yet found Joseph McCarthy to be unfairly maligned, as reflecting a mainstream sentiment), who consistently told us that debates which the American people found that our current President won overwhelmingly were a draw, and who rhapsodize about bipartisanship as if "getting along" was more important than doing what is right, are doing nobody any favors and are enabling Beltway thought in a way that is as dangerous to the future of this republic as anything Osama bin Laden could dream up.
The government that came into office in 1933 understood the crisis on just apolcalyptic terms. The portion of President Roosevelt's inaugural address that got the most attention the next day was not the line about what the only thing to fear was, but this:
Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.
It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.
I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
That, it was understood correctly, was the threat that dictatorial powers might become necessary if Congress responded to the crisis as it had always done before; by dividing into partisan corners throwing philosophical talking points at one another. President Roosevelt said this knowing that he would have public support for taking these "powers" if need be. The Congress saw that and, rather than risk complete irrelevance, supported the new President in his plan to attack what faced the country.
We are at that same crossroads today, but as a far more bitterly divided nation. The spectacle of what has taken place in the Senate over the past few days should be sobering, and should wake up those who believe that as with so many storms we have weathered before, this one will eventually pass without dire consequences. That could still be so, but it is a very thin reed to count upon.
Advertisement
You keep knocking these things out of the park, barth! I can see why you picked the avatar you did. :-)
February 7, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the fear, but there is not reason to advocate for an elected king as a response to fear. That is the same shit we just got rid of with baby Bush. The nation got scared and all but canonized the president. That is a dangerous precedent.
One that George Washington walked away from to prevent in future generations.
I am beginning to be skeptical of ANY politician who says we shouldn't take our time to analyze the situation intelligently and rationally and then develop plans ot combat the problem. I am not convinced that Congress is smart enough or capable enough to do that big of a job in such a short period of time.
Looked what happened with the TARP debate and legislation. Rammed though using fear of impending implosion that was sure to happen if it wasn't passed in a week. OK. If it doesn't pass next week, our economy is toast. OK. Any more than a month and we'll never survive.
Fear tactics on the left are no more reasonable than fear tactics on the right. They aren't likely to lead to better outcomes either.
February 7, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not advocating the dictatorship. I am just noting that the course we are on may make it hard to maintain the system we have.
This, more than anything else, was what motivated the New Dealers to some to grips with the situation and propose and enact such radical change. The blowhard politics we have endured since 1981 are just not going to cut it.
This is not a "fear tactic." It is a call for facts to be faced. On the day that the Labor Department reports employment on the verge of free fall, the Senate spends most of the day "trimming" the amount of money the government can inject into the economy to stimulate some growth.
This suggests a degree of being out of touch which neither Marie Antoinette or George W, Bush could approach. (OK, maybe Bush).
February 7, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is still a fear tactic if it imposes artificial deadlines or gives artificial expertise to a Congress that rarely does anything right.
You point to the 1933 moment of time as a reason that such single-minded pursuit of ideology makes the means worth the end. I disagree. They shoved the legislation through and the depression still lasted another eight years until World War II arrived.
Maybe a little time would have allowed FDR to go bigger. To have more profound affects that might have rippled outward to the world at large. Perhaps thinking for a few months and going Blue Sky on our plans would have delivered better results.
I am saying we should not allow ourselves to be railroaded into accepting this package of microwaved leftovers from Congresses past.
February 7, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you call a 52 percent vote a canonization? Just because most the news actors colluded with the DNC to collectively swoon doesn't constitute a mandate. You watch too much TV. Look at the trends in the polls.
February 8, 2009 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you talking about?
I wasn't talking about Obama's convincing victory in the general election nor his high 60s approval rating. Polls are notoriously flawed, but most of them agree that the country supports its new president, expect for a small handful of Limbots.
I was speaking of the canonization of George Bush after 9/11. In response to a crisis, Americans start begging to have their Constitutional rights taken away or demand that other people have their rights taken away or completely trust whoever is in charge independent of transparency in the process.
Americans overreact to everything.
February 8, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no. What happened in 1933 did not end the Depression. It might have, but the President "chickened out: in 1936 and tried to balance the budget, to make your party happy. Big Mistake.
But what happened in 1933 that has lasting effect is that it put in place the precise safeguards and tripwires that have prevented, at least so far, the breadlines and massive bank runs (and the Huey Longs and Father Coughlins hat come with such things) that were prevalent then.
Federal unemployment insurance support, social security, the Federal Deposit Insurance, the bleeping Securities and Exchange Commission, the Wagner Act---all of these were "shoved...through" in 1933 as you put in and are protecting us (for the most part) today.
Don't listen to the New Deal bashers of today. They are just repeating the foolish garbage of a long discredited past. The people knew better in 1936 and I hope, but definitely believe, they know better today.
February 7, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, more and more everyday. Those employment figures aren't statistics. They're people.
Boy, when things go South, they do so in a hurry. I mean look at the difference between now and November. It is mind boggling.
The stimulus will be too late for many, and the longer our "leaders" bicker, the worse it will get.
February 7, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent blog and definitely rec'd!
FDR's threat was intimidating indeed! But you didn't see the opposition party threatening to filibuster any of the proposals, did you?
Sometimes, a brickbat upside the head is required to just get the jackass' attention. Putting the plow to the ground as required then becomes just that much easier.
February 7, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong,
Won't be plows in the ground, the Marxists plan to have us all bent over in the rice patties being 'reeducated'.
And it won't be at the threat of a brickbat. Marxists use AK47s and real bullets.
February 8, 2009 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think reeducation is in the works for you. I think a disappearance more likely in your case.
February 8, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, disappearances are the norm for Marxist coups. But watch out!!! They eat their own!!!
February 8, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barth, good essay as always. I am so sick of republicans and then I remember that there are not that many left and only a few have to stroked.
February 7, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so.
To suggest that the Dems are just as bad as the Reps is ridiculous.
The Dems rolled over for the Repubs on issues of National importance. I see none of that here.
February 7, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
History will decide if the Iraq regime change was prudent. One doesn't need years of deliberation and hindsight to see where the socialists are taking this economy. At its destination, you'll find the demise of the American republic.
In only a few days after being sworn into power, the socialists have borrowed more money against our children's future for pure pork than the cost of the entire Iraq enterprise. Only the hopelessly dense see the spending's purpose as more than to line the pockets of the democrats and buy votes for their re-election. Ala Roosevelt.
In the best of times this looting of America's future would be bad enough. But at present, the outcome is scary.
Democrat collusion with labor unions has priced our industries overseas. We no longer have the industrial base necessary to fight a prolonged, global conventional war. Wars are expensive. Democrats have maxed out our credit cards down through the years blowing the money on welfare, food stamps, condoms, needles for dope addicts, free houses, windmills, just all manner of frivolous spending.
Marxists hate freedom. Marxists lust after enslavement. The Marxists who control our government now intend to borrow us into poverty and blame it on the free enterprise system and ‘greed’. When we’re impoverished, we will be for all intents and purposes, enslaved. Just like the paupers in sub-Saharan Africa. That is the Marxists aim and ‘dream’.
If in the very unlikely event Obama gets re-elected, maybe things will be far enough along with the Marxist agenda he can have his own ‘I have a dream’ speech and be honest with us.
February 8, 2009 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point you make about FDR and his warning. What he said required a willingness to use his power as President in a way Democrats have openly run away from in fear. They can't even offer a believable bluff on this sort of posture at this point... particularly after the last two weeks.
I am more and more convinced that the number one thing that is necessary right away in this whole stimulus saga is for the Democrats to say to the Republican swine and their Blue Dog/centrists collaborators and BFF's :
"Okay, you had your chance and you blew it. Everything we allowed you to include is off the table and now it's going to be our way or the highway. You either support the President's package of spending, that's right assholes SPENDING to stimulate the economy or we destroy you politically and we won't wait until the midterms. The great gettin up morning has come for you.
We will call on the millions who support the President and the Democrats to knock down your district office doors with constituent demands for supporting the stimulus. Your servers will get fried with the e-mails, you won't be able to process all the letters and we will not let up until you concede. We will point out your malevolent obstructionism every day to every media outlet relentlessly. We will make sure there is no mistake at all in the minds of anyone just what the problem is and who is causing it.
So by all means go ahead and keep doing what you're doing, filibuster all you friggin want and we will televise it, have it on every cable channel, webcam and radio station in America. You will become so unpopular you will have to retire in a foreign land to escape the hounding of the public. Your names will forever be synonymous with Benedict Arnold in the minds of the public after we're through with you.
So please do go ahead and make our day. We will meet you anytime, anywhere and whip your cracker asses over and over until you have learned your lesson once and for all. We don't fear you. We, like the American people, loathe you and will have no more of your foolishness. Now what's it gonna be? Change? Or more of the same? Cause if it's more of the same we got a whole truckload of whoopass with your names on it."
Some may recall that is precisely what the Democratic leadership did to the southern racist obstructionists on civil rights. When the cracker brigade in Congress (then a part of the Democratic Party) took the challenge they were exposed for what they were, defeated and are scorned to this day. Upon their defeat they began to switch parties and are now almost exclusively confederate Republicans instead of Democrats. In fact, almost their entire party is nothing but an increasingly smaller regional party held up by racism, reaction, fear and warmongering. It is time to crush them. Obama is the only one who can lead such a charge and I pray he does not hesitate at this crucial moment.
February 8, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you posted this, Barth.
I have little confidence in Obama's economic team or our lawmakers. Krugman makes more sense than anyone. I hope Obama takes heed eventually, with or without congressional support. Doing nothing appears not to be an option.
February 8, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink