Paul Revere Rides Again
It wasn't on horseback at midnight, but it had every bit the sense of urgency and alarm as that famous ride in April of 1775. Barack Obama rolled into Boston on Sunday to alert the masses: THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMING; THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMING.
Of course, the warning was not without reason. The GOP has already marched through Virginia and New Jersey, and is moving rapidly up the coast straight toward Massachusetts. Unlike 1775, however, the interlopers may actually be welcomed, rather than repelled.
In many respects, the Democrats have already lost this war. Should they squeak by in Tuesday's battle, the victory would be Pyhrric at best. The lantern's been lit at the Old North Church and every politician on the left can interpret the signal. Barring a material shift in sentiment between now and November, each race will be contested. Safe seats appear but a distant memory. This, no doubt, is disastrous for the DNC. Valuable resources will be required to defend what were previously impregnable strongholds. That means limited dollars to go on the offensive. Not a good spot for the Dems.
Obama trotted out an old and comfortable theme on Sunday, populism. He roared to the crowd about how Martha Coakley, like his administration, will fight for the people—against those mean banks, oil companies, and insurance behemoths, and I imagine virtually every other company and industry without a significant union population.
Isn't it ironic, though, that "being for the people" seems to have nothing to do with empowering them, and everything to do with making them more dependent? If we could just press our thumb down a little harder on the job creators, or make the rules even more uncertain, and install another government program...or twelve...all would be better. Obama and friends can't seem to comprehend that all this "fighting for people" and against corporations nonsense has caused enormous collateral damage to the regular folks who work for, or potentially might be hired by, those evil corporations.
Coakley said, "People are angry at the policies of the past that frankly rewarded the wealthy and left main street behind. I think that’s wrong and we have to fix that." They're fixing it alright. It was really dreadful back when everyone who wanted a job could find one. Things are a lot better now. Right? Imagine the horror of rewarding the wealthy. Oddly, when the wealthy (i.e. those with investment capital) don't get rewarded, they're not so keen on deploying their money in economy-expanding, jobs-producing endeavors. Who knew?
Many pols on the left just refuse to acknowledge the simple elegance of our capitalist, quasi-free market system. Big risks sometimes beget big rewards (and often big losses). The residue of those risks are GDP expansion and job creation. Outlandish returns (as long as they are scrupulously earned) are an important element of what fuels the system. The potential for those returns is what attracts a disproportionate amount of investment capital to the U.S. When we go beyond necessary and intelligent regulation and instead inflict a thousand cuts, the capital drys up and the system ultimately bleeds to death.
For those of you not into all of the policy minutia, merely compare and contrast the tone this administration has established as it goes about attempting to lift us out of difficult economic circumstances, to the last time we faced such challenges (in the early 1980's). Which feels more right—a never-ending stream of finger pointing, threats, and shakedowns, or a climate of optimism, empowerment, and incentives?
Yes, the Republicans are indeed coming. Perhaps it will be a blessing in disguise for Obama and the Dems if they recognize the onslaught for what it is—an indicator of major dissatisfaction and an opportunity to alter strategy in time for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Giddyup.
Of course, the warning was not without reason. The GOP has already marched through Virginia and New Jersey, and is moving rapidly up the coast straight toward Massachusetts. Unlike 1775, however, the interlopers may actually be welcomed, rather than repelled.
In many respects, the Democrats have already lost this war. Should they squeak by in Tuesday's battle, the victory would be Pyhrric at best. The lantern's been lit at the Old North Church and every politician on the left can interpret the signal. Barring a material shift in sentiment between now and November, each race will be contested. Safe seats appear but a distant memory. This, no doubt, is disastrous for the DNC. Valuable resources will be required to defend what were previously impregnable strongholds. That means limited dollars to go on the offensive. Not a good spot for the Dems.
Obama trotted out an old and comfortable theme on Sunday, populism. He roared to the crowd about how Martha Coakley, like his administration, will fight for the people—against those mean banks, oil companies, and insurance behemoths, and I imagine virtually every other company and industry without a significant union population.
Isn't it ironic, though, that "being for the people" seems to have nothing to do with empowering them, and everything to do with making them more dependent? If we could just press our thumb down a little harder on the job creators, or make the rules even more uncertain, and install another government program...or twelve...all would be better. Obama and friends can't seem to comprehend that all this "fighting for people" and against corporations nonsense has caused enormous collateral damage to the regular folks who work for, or potentially might be hired by, those evil corporations.
Coakley said, "People are angry at the policies of the past that frankly rewarded the wealthy and left main street behind. I think that’s wrong and we have to fix that." They're fixing it alright. It was really dreadful back when everyone who wanted a job could find one. Things are a lot better now. Right? Imagine the horror of rewarding the wealthy. Oddly, when the wealthy (i.e. those with investment capital) don't get rewarded, they're not so keen on deploying their money in economy-expanding, jobs-producing endeavors. Who knew?
Many pols on the left just refuse to acknowledge the simple elegance of our capitalist, quasi-free market system. Big risks sometimes beget big rewards (and often big losses). The residue of those risks are GDP expansion and job creation. Outlandish returns (as long as they are scrupulously earned) are an important element of what fuels the system. The potential for those returns is what attracts a disproportionate amount of investment capital to the U.S. When we go beyond necessary and intelligent regulation and instead inflict a thousand cuts, the capital drys up and the system ultimately bleeds to death.
For those of you not into all of the policy minutia, merely compare and contrast the tone this administration has established as it goes about attempting to lift us out of difficult economic circumstances, to the last time we faced such challenges (in the early 1980's). Which feels more right—a never-ending stream of finger pointing, threats, and shakedowns, or a climate of optimism, empowerment, and incentives?
Yes, the Republicans are indeed coming. Perhaps it will be a blessing in disguise for Obama and the Dems if they recognize the onslaught for what it is—an indicator of major dissatisfaction and an opportunity to alter strategy in time for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Giddyup.
I think we both agree that the Democrats have not executed to successfully make changes to the big issues that have plagued our country for quite some time. However, I am convinced that when the Republicans pick up seats in the House and Senate we will see the worst gridlock that we have ever seen in our lifetime. Again, I ask the question - What incentive do the Republicans have to see the Administration succeed? None. Compare the tone of the government when Clinton was in office and Republicans had the majority to (if) Democrats lose the majority in 2010. What you are seeing now is a weak/ unorganized Democratic Party and the weakest Republican Party that I have seen in my lifetime. If a true Independent could raise enough money to make a run at Congress or further down the line the Presidency, I think they may have a shot. Be careful what you wish for, because you may get it and be greatly disappointed.
Reply to this
Maurice, absolute gridlock is exactly what this country requires right now. Our quasi-free-market system needs time to take a deep breath and operate in a relatively unfettered fashion after 12 months of unadulterated big government suffocation. The economy is itching to recover, but the massive and repeated government intrusions, coupled with the unprecedented pall of uncertainty that this administration and congress has cast over the market/economy, has prevented the robust recovery that would have happened months and months ago with a more rational government.
You're right, at this point it will be difficult for Republicans to cooperate. Obama's intractable partisanship and bait and switch approach to campaigning then governing has eroded virtually all trust. It's a shame, too, because Obama was holding all the cards in January of 2009. The Republicans were petrified deer in the headlights ready to meet well left of center on a host of issues to avoid getting run over by the Obama train. But in one of the most stunning examples of hubris and political ineptitude, he frittered away that remarkable opportunity in an effort to foist a radically left agenda on the country. He and his team completely misread the message from the election. The change people wanted was in tone and cooperation, not an enormous lurch to the left. Polls continue to show that this is still a center-right country.
These remarkably large missteps demonstrate that Obama and his team were not the juggernaut and political geniuses that the media portrayed them to be. They did not run a magnificent, flawless campaign. They were the beneficiaries of a fawning media that chose to coronate, rather than investigate. In the short run, it won Obama the presidency, but in the long run it has contributed to a ham-fisted, tone deaf, flailing presidency. He believed his press clippings and mistakenly thought he had carte blanche to do as he wanted. He is learning otherwise.
Reply to this