The Reagan effect

The New Neo Posted on by

Noemie Emery has come to much the same conclusions as I have about the dangers of the drive for Republican Party purity:

The conservative movement is a collection of theorists that self-selects for conformity. The Republican party is the vehicle for the center-right of the American polity, a group that includes the conservative movement, but is not quite of it, and includes many people who touch the conservative movement with different degrees of intensity, or only lightly, or on only a limited number of points…

The problem for conservatives is that in the states that [RINOs] come from, on-and-off backing is all [conservatives] are likely to get…Olympia Snowe doesn’t owe her seat to conservative activists, but to the people of Maine, who elected her and presumably like what she’s doing. If conservatives can’t make their case to the people of Maine, it’s a problem for them, not for Snowe and her voters. The alternative to her is not some idealized conservative activist. It’s someone who never votes with them at all.

Emery ends the piece with the observation that, if this goes on, in the future Republicans will be lucky to retain thirty Senate seats.

So, what’s behind the conservatives’ targeting of RINOs, when they know that the states from which RINOs come are likely to elect Democrats instead? Snowe’s Maine, for example, is now a solidly blue state, and to deny this is to deny reality.

I don’t think that conservatives really have a death wish for the Republican Party. It’s that the extreme wings of either party are just that: extreme. As such, they tend to be inherently less practical, less willing to compromise, and more inclined towards ideological purity and purges.

But that’s not the whole story. I have become convinced that the purists believe that their ideas are so inherently logical and so obviously right (as in “correct”), that if the electorate were to just listen to candidates articulating those positions properly, even in blue states (with the possible exception of Minnesota and Massachusetts, so deeply blue as to be indigo) the scales would fall from voters’ eyes and they would elect the conservative candidates.

And so getting rid of RINOs like Specter (mission accomplished) and those such as Snowe of Maine (pending) in the Republican primaries are considered steps not only towards ideological purity, but towards getting rid of pretenders to the Republican thrones in those states in preparation for the magical Republican candidates who will inevitably win over the populace and the general election.

In other words, they are waiting for the heirs of Reagan to succeed in once again convincing Independents and centrist Democrats that the Republican Party is the best way to go.

Although Reagan is a Republican/conservative hero, in some ways he did the Republicans no favor. His appeal transcended ideology, although he never shied from ideology. But he had charisma to spare, and it gave him crossover pull with the electorate. The temporary defection of so-called “Reagan Democrats” from their usual voting patterns helped give Republicans the idea that it was a permanent change, and that conservative ideology had triumphed with these people—forever. Obviously, this was not the case. And in the ensuing years since Reagan, more young people have been educated by the school system in a very different type of thinking, a fact which makes the Republican challenge that much tougher.

But not impossible. Especially if the current administration cooperates by showing many young Americans the dangers of liberalism taken too far.

[ADDENDUM: Nicolle Wallace is holding out for a Republican hero. But Nicolle, please—that song wasn’t by Bonnie Raitt, it was Bonnie Tyler.

The tires they are a-changin’

The New Neo Posted on by

I live in an area of the country where you need snow tires. At least I do. I find that my little ten-year-old Toyota Corolla is so light that it can’t get up snowy hills without them.

That means that, every fall before winter begins and every spring after the white stuff is gone, the tires must be changed. Yesterday was that day.

I had a bad feeling about it for some reason and, sure enough, about fifteen minutes after I left the car at the place, I got a call from Mike (is it just my imagination, or are a disproportionate number of guys who work on cars named Mike?) saying that my tires had contracted some sort of rot. I needed new ones, and they just happened to have some that were just right for only $384, installation included.

That sort of information always presents me with a dilemma. As a woman who subtly and yet somehow unequivocally conveys her ignorance of all things car as soon as she walks into the shop, I never quite know whether people are taking advantage of that fact to sell me something I don’t really need.

For regular car repairs, I go to the tried and true mechanics I’ve known for years. But that requires a substantial trip, and the tire people are just around the corner. Too tempting, I guess. And this Mike seemed so trustworthy and sincere—and maybe he is.

So I chose to get the whole thing over with and not fuss about it; to fork over the $384.00 dollars (an amount that was not in this month’s budget, but probably should have been) for the four new tires and the alignment and all that jazz. And as a good faith measure, Mike even offered to show me the old tires and their wretched rims.

I think this whole wariness thing began after an experience in my very early twenties, when I was one of those suckers who fell for the old Kingman Arizona tire scam—you know, the one where you stop at a gas station before entering the desert and they tell you if you don’t get new tires yours are going to blow up and you’ll be stranded in the heat and you’ll probably die (no cell phones back then, folks, and hardly any gas stations for many miles). In those days I was a younger and more trusting soul—and tires were a bit cheaper, too, although getting ones that I didn’t need still took quite a bite out of the wallet.

You live and learn—something-or-other.

Will the media—and the people—get the message on Chrysler and Obama?

The New Neo Posted on by

Sometimes I think I’ve been writing too many posts on Obama’s handling of the Chrysler crisis. But the tale seems especially important because this is one of those times when Obama’s mask of affable reasonableness has slipped most dramatically, exposing the ruthless pol beneath—the former Con Law instructor with utter contempt for the rule of law.

I don’t know how many people who voted for Obama now see what’s going on, because you have to be paying attention to perceive it. But I have noticed one thing: suddenly, I’m reading criticism of Obama in some of the mainstream media, and/or from publications that supported him in the election.

Take the Economist. Pre-election, it was utterly in the tank for Obama. But this unsigned editorial appeared there yesterday. It certainly isn’t the most hard-hitting of all the pieces I’ve read on the subject, but it lands a few quiet punches:

The collapse of Detroit’s giants is a tragedy, affecting tens of thousands of current and former workers. But the best way to offer them support is directly, not by gerrymandering the rules. The investors in these firms are easily portrayed as vultures, but many are entrusted with the savings of ordinary people, and in any case all have a legal claim that entitles them to due process. In a crisis it is easy to put politics first, but if lenders fear their rights will be abused, other firms will find it more expensive to borrow, especially if they have unionised workforces that are seen to be friendly with the government.

“Easy” to put politics first? You betcha. Also wrong—and particularly galling from one who promised to be above such petty partisan posturings. Some of those who believed Obama when he said he wouldn’t do this sort of thing might actually be shocked right about now. Others don’t care; they applaud him sticking it to the evil creditors (never mind that they’re doing their jobs protecting the money of ordinary investors) and rewarding the noble autoworkers (never mind that their unions have grown into powerful political forces winning them huge benefits that have helped to cripple the auto industry as they simultaneously give tons of money to Obama and his party).

And then there’s CBS, which has posted a sharper piece by Declan McCullagh. He doesn’t shy away from calling Obama’s actions “dirty politics” (that’s in the headline), nor does he leave out the allegations by lawyer Thomas Lauria of government threats to his Chrysler creditor clients.

Could this be the faint stirrings of a sea change in press coverage—and public attitudes—about Obama? I don’t know, although one can hope. But if it is, it wouldn’t be the first time that a politician, drunk with his own success, has overplayed his hand. Let’s just hope people start noticing.

The Obama administration and the rule of law

The New Neo Posted on by

I agree with Mickey Kaus that what he refers to as “the screwing of the secure lenders” and “the strong-arming of the banks that received TARP funds” by the Obama administration are both dangerous precedents.

And I agree that it’s very troubling that these things were done in the name of a Chrysler-Fiat deal that, because Obama refused to demand equal “sacrifices” of his beloved UAW, will result in the company going to bankruptcy (and perhaps ruin) despite all the assistance and effort.

But I disagree that it’s the latter point that’s a bigger problem than the former. The precedents set in this case are just too dangerous, and too chilling to our economy and to contracts as a whole, to justify changing the rule of law that is designed to protect all sides and all parties.

Michael Medved has a piece on the subject based on, of all things, Leviticus. It’s a must-read.

In Forbes, economics prof and NYU business school dean Thomas F. Cooley expands on the same theme from a completely different perspective.

That’s why justice wears that blindfold. It’s not that she’s unaware, it’s that she’s supposed to be impartial.

justiceblind.JPG

George McGovern against Orwellian “Employee Free Choice Act”

The New Neo Posted on by

In the spring of 2008, liberal Democrat George McGovern was brave enough to speak out against card check.

Now McGovern proves he wasn’t fooling; he’s got an article on the subject up today at the Wall Street Journal, about card check and compulsory arbitration, which he’s against as well. Both are part of the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act.”

McGovern was one of the most liberal members of Congress, and one of the most liberal Presidential candidates we ever had (until Obama, that is—and McGovern, unlike Obama, didn’t try to hide his liberalism), back in the 60s and 70s. Now in his mid-80s, he demonstrates a certain integrity and willingness to stand against many in his party to say what he thinks is true.

Buried in the WSJ article is a clue about what may have caused him to break with the current liberal line on this. It’s another example of how political change happens; McGovern was mugged by reality when he had an experience many liberals (including Obama) have never had—he actually ran a business after leaving the legislature.

Here is how he describes what he learned:

My perspective on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is informed by life experience. After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with — the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.

Bingo.

TARP banks discover the cost of doing business with the government

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember way back when—it seems so long ago, but it’s only been about a month—the Obama administration showed GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner the door? Now it appears that certain CEOs of TARP-receiving banks are probably next on the chopping block.

As part of the soon-to-be-announced stress test results, they’ve been put on notice by the administration that, in the 30-day period that follows:

…firms will need to review their existing management and Board in order to assure that the leadership of the firm has sufficient expertise and ability to manage the risks presented by the current economic environment.

When I read that, the first thought that came to me was: would that it were possible for the electorate to apply the same standard to Obama.

That was also my second and third thought.

More details of this and other government requirements for the banks can be found here). After you read them, you might find yourself agreeing with this comment:

The government is saying:

1) You must recapitalize.
2) By an amount so high that you must get the capital from the Treasury.
3) Oh, and you can’t repay our capital until we say so – so, you might want to start donating to the Democrat Party.

This is out and out theft. The government knows full well that it is the only source of this large an amount of capital – who has hundreds of billions of dollars laying around? Nobody does. And the government bloody well knows it. The government doesn’t even have it. The Federal Reserve is merely going to print it out for the government.

A Savage banning

The New Neo Posted on by

This news doesn’t surprise me at all, having had a taste of what passes for “freedom of speech” in France—and in Britain as well.

The aptly named (although pseudonymous) Michael Savage has been banned in Britain. British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (no, not this Jacqui Smith) claims that Savage foments hatred, much like the other banned individuals, who include skinheads, radical Muslim preachers, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, and a Kansas minister who has picketed funerals by carrying anti-gay placards:

Coming to the U.K. is a privilege and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life,” Smith said in a statement. “Therefore, I will not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here.”

One can’t escape the notion that this nicely rounded potpourri of offenders to Ms. Smith’s tender sensibilities is designed to provide padding for the jihadi-preaching Islamicists among them, and cover for a Home Office fearful of being branded racist if it doesn’t demonstrate a properly equal-opportunity banning, naming, and shaming.

I’m with Padraig Reidy, news editor of a London periodical fostering freedom of speech, when he asks:

“How are these people selected? There’s no process here, people aren’t accused of a specific crime. It’s deeply worrying”….He added that the list is so “bizarrely eclectic” that “you have to wonder if there was a deliberate move to make it eclectic, as if to say it’s not Islamists being picked out.”

Yes, you do.

Don’t get me wrong—I detest Michael Savage. If I happen to flip to his show while in my car searching for something on the radio to listen to, the very sound of his voice makes my flesh crawl—and it’s not a pleasant sort of crawl. But banning him sets a very dangerous precedent, even though Savage himself sarcastically declared he wasn’t planning a trip there anyway—or rather, what he actually said was, “Darn! And I was just planning a trip to England for their superior dental work and cuisine.”

But if Savage ever were to change his mind and decide to have a bit of that bubble and squeak we all crave from time to time, all that’s necessary is to do something impossible: prove he no longer is guilty of thought crime. According to Ms. Smith, names will be dropped off the banning list if people “can prove they no longer hold extreme views.”

Piece of—steak and kidney pie.

Elizabeth Edwards, woman scorned…

The New Neo Posted on by

…writes a book.

And it doesn’t tell a pretty tale. Husband John appears to be not just a liar, but a serial liar.

Originally I was somewhat sympathetic to Ms. Edwards’s plight: political wife, fighting cancer, philandering husband. And I was more than willing (nay, eager) to comply with her request:

I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John’s conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time.

Then why, oh why, this book? I guess the times, they have a-changed.

It can’t be for the money; the pre-scandal pre-financial-crisis Edwards was worth over twenty-nine million dollars, and it’s difficult to believe that’s all been blown. The only conclusion I can come to is that, in addition to getting even, Elizabeth Edwards’s motive is to get attention.

Before I draw the curtain on this sorry mess, here’s a look back at the Edwardses in happier days:

edwardswedding.jpg

Roundup on Chrysler: where’s the outrage?

The New Neo Posted on by

I keep thinking I’m cynical enough already, and can’t be surprised by politics and/or the MSM’s coverage of it any more. But I guess I still retain too much idealism, because the general lack of concern about the administration’s throwing out the usual rules regarding senior lenders in the Chrysler negotiations still has the power to surprise me.

There is no way this course of action can end up benefiting our economy, or even Chrysler. The only beneficiaries are the unions (at least, temporarily; if the company ends up failing, they will go down too), Obama’s standing with his supporters on the Left who are angry at “greedy capitalists” and want to stick it to them, and perhaps Fiat.

Obama has served notice: play ball with me or I’ll play hardball with you. The rules? Made for suckers, not for Obama.

While maintaining a facade of affability, Obama reigns by naked power and threats. His is an unusual combination, even for politicians; I can’t recall another president in my lifetime with a facade so at variance with his actual methodology.

But Obama’s effectiveness depends on that dichotomy, and on the public focusing on his smooth surface while ignoring his acts—or at least not understanding what they signify, which amounts pretty much to the same thing. Here’s a comment at National Review that puts it quite succinctly:

[Obama] has the knack of appearing moderate while acting radical, which is a lethal skill.

Lethal, that is, to what has made America so unique, so successful, and so protective of human liberty.

Not everyone is ignoring Obama and Chrysler, or singing his praises as the deity’s annointed (I kid you not; the linked article is only slightly tongue-in-cheek in its fulsome fawning). Some are as agitated as I am about the unprecendented Chrysler arrangement, and Obama’s dissing of the creditors.

First there’s Irwin M. Stelzer on the chilling effect Obama’s actions will have in the practical sense:

…[T]he president is counting on some of these “speculators” to partner with the Treasury and take a big stake in the toxic assets that are preventing the big banks from resuming normal lending. Unprotected by a rule of law, these investors will sit on their assets, rather than partner with a government that might some day decide, after the fact, that they made too much money, or should bear a larger portion of any losses than they had signed on to do.

Next we have Kevin Hasset:

All the government stops were being pulled out to present the United Auto Workers with a sweetheart deal that, incredibly, gives its retiree health-care fund majority ownership of Chrysler.

Yes, those are the same workers who pushed the firm toward bankruptcy in the first place with their extraordinarily generous compensation packages. DaimlerChrysler AG’s average cost to employ a UAW worker in 2006, including benefits, was 1.7 times that of Japanese automakers, according to company estimates.

Next comes Bill Frezza with some excellent questions:

Why would anyone lend money to heavily unionized companies knowing that if things went wrong, the president and his men could trash their security interests by executive decree, hold them up to public vilification, and subject them to future retribution by regulators?…

How is the Federal Government supposed to unwind its ownership in the growing number of companies it has nationalized if prospective buyers know that should things ever take a turn for the worse, Uncle Sam will be back demanding extralegal “sacrifice” in the name of “saving” jobs?

How is private credit supposed to “start flowing again” if the United States of America morphs into a caudillo-run kleptocracy whose explicit policy is to “empower the workers,” chasing ever higher poll numbers by demonizing the very people whose job it is to provide credit?

Why, and how, indeed. It seems to me that the importance of such questions should be obvious to anyone on either side, excepting of course the most rabid Leftists who are against private enterprise and favor a government takeover of the auto industry. But instead, we see very few in the MSM asking them.

Frezza makes a prediction:

The fate of Chrysler and its workers pale in comparison to the wrecking ball that would be taken to economic order if bankruptcy judge Arthur Gonzalez approves the administration’s plan to give Chrysler’s secured creditors the shaft. And what prize will we-the-people get in return? A doomed third-rate car company majority owned by its militant union run by Italian management building congressionally designed “green” cars no one wants to buy financed by taxpayers into perpetuity because no private investor in their right mind will touch the company with a ten foot pole. Is this supposed to be economic policy or comic opera?

I actually think that whatever Gonzalez may decide, Frezza’s description of the characteristics of a new Chrysler-Fiat is likely to be correct.

Meanwhile, it doesn’t look like Chrysler will ever be repaying its billions in government loans. But that’s okay, because:

…Robert Manzo, an executive director with the restructuring group Capstone Advisory Group LLC, said he doesn’t view the government financing as “free money.” “They’re offering financing with a low likelihood of being repaid,” he said.

And if you can explain what Manzo is saying—other than offering us all a huge load of doubletalk—I’d be much obliged.