The Diplomatic Dichotomy

Good news: The UN passed new, (arguably) tougher sanctions on Iran. Bad news: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded with his embarrassing wit and satire (i.e. he needled Western leaders for their continual reliance on ineffective diplomatic schemes).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10280356.stm

First thing to note, these new sanctions will not stop the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. The only reason why Ahmandinejad's satirical comments are so embarrassing is because they are true. There is no reason to believe that the fourth round of sanctions will have any more effect than the third round (or the second or first for that matter). Even before the sanctions had passed the UN Security Council, the Iranian government had already devised ways to evade any negative consequences of the sanctions. Further, the sanctions do not even target any vital assets of Iran. They are ineffective and irrelevant.

Because every round of sanctions has been completely ineffective, a major problem is arising: the disintegration of international opposition to Iran. Brazil and Turkey's decision to vote against the most recent round of sanctions was the strongest opposition that any of the four rounds of sanctions have experienced. The international crusade to isolate Iran is failing. As international support dissipates, the effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions will diminish. The West's diplomatic failures, in other words, are convincing other members of the international community to not take the West's opposition to Iran seriously. If these ineffective sanctions continue to be passed (and to fail), the international support for any future action against Iran will disintegrate.

What we are witnessing is a dichotomy: in the name of diplomacy, the leaders of the West are passing ineffective sanctions on Iran. The ineffectiveness of these sanctions is leading to the loss of the West's international support. In other words, ineffectual diplomatic policies are destroying the viability of a diplomatic solution.

When Reality Becomes Real

In his latest article "The President's Reality Problem," Rich Lowry offers an astute analysis of the Obama Administration. His basic argument is that the root cause of the President's failure is a lack of reality. Pres. Obama, since the beginning of his campaign, has propagated dozens of unrealistic promises and policies, and we are now witnessing the harsh effects of reality.

One of Lowry's better examples is his analysis of the "post-partisanship" that Obama espoused on the campaign. Pres. Obama, throughout his campaign, was able to inspire and excite millions of American's with his stated commitment to post-partisanship. However, when he entered the White House, he was quickly forced to make a choice: become post-partisan and allow the Republicans to take part in policy-making, or remain partisan and fight for his liberal objectives.

In other words, during the campaign Pres. Obama preached an imaginary reality: that he could be both post-partisan and completely liberal. The history of the Obama Administration in 2009 is simply the tale of an Administration trying to deny reality. He tried to pass liberal health care reform, and bemoaned the lack of bipartisan support. He proposed a deficit of 1 trillion dollars, and was seemingly surprised by the right-wing's opposition. It is only within the past several months that Obama has finally been forced to make his choice. When faced with the prospect of seeing all of his largest policies fail, he chose to become a Democratic partisan. Reality forced him to give up his campaign imaginations.

Pres. Obama is not the only American who is going to have to face reality over the next few months. In 2008, a large percentage of the 70 million Americans that voted for him refused to acknowledge his left-wing record and clung to his promises of "post-partisanship." Perhaps Pres. Obama's recent astronomical drop in the polls is due to these voters realizing the fact that Pres. Obama is not a moderate, but a liberal. Reality had the last laugh.

I would definitely recommend that everyone read the entirety of Lowry's article. Lowry gives several other interesting examples of Pres. Obama's denial of reality. It sheds light on the fundamental dichotomy of Obama's presidency.

Rebuttal: Robert Shrum, "Rotten Decade, Remarkable Year"

Sometimes, I don't have to create my own content. Sometimes, the work of other analysts is so ridiculous that it begs for a rebuttal. Boy do I love those days...


Well, today is one of those days. Robert Shrum published an article for The Week entitled: "Rotten decade, remarkable year." As you can imagine, Shrum's article reads like a temper-tantrum at the Democratic National Convention – Bush ruined everything, Obama has/will solve everything.

We suffered a stolen presidency, the horror of 9/11 compounded by a war rooted in deceit and a reckless economics of greed that brought the country and the world to the brink of a second Great Depression. Along the way, the presidency, which should be an exemplar of moral leadership, trafficked in disdain for the environment, violations of constitutional rights and the exploitation of intolerance and fear.

I suppose it is not even worth my time to directly challenge the several unsubstantiated arguments that litter this paragraph. Clearly, when Shrum says "we," he is referring to a very select group of wingnut liberals.

In the first month, we took a great step toward the fulfillment of our nation’s ideals—a step many thought impossible until it actually happened—with the inauguration of the first African-American president. It was redemption as well as fulfillment; Barack Obama could have been legally owned by his first 16 predecessors. His victory was a breakthrough most powerfully because his color was not a barrier to electing the president that a majority regarded as the best candidate. 

I have to issue with this paragraph. Shrum is right when he says that the election of a black President was a huge step forward for our nation. Certainly, it was an event which was inevitably going to happen, and I am sincerely glad that I got to witness it. (I would note, however, that I have heard many wingnut liberals label the United States as a racist nation. Hopefully, Shrum would not take part in that illogical argument.)

The next turning point was the stimulus package—or as the administration futilely sought to rebrand it, the economic recovery package—which in increasingly evident fact has triggered a recovery. Without decisive, deficit-expanding federal intervention, the battered economy almost certainly would have plunged off the brink. The stimulus was criticized, for different reasons, by liberals as well as conservatives. The bill was passed without a single vote from the cowering, culpable Republicans in the House. 

The 2009 stimulus package did not trigger a recovery. In fact, to say that our economy is in recovery at this moment would be completely disingenuous. Further, even if the government had anything to do with the stabilization of the economic crisis (which we won't know until we get more information), Shrum is giving far to much credit to Pres. Obama's plan. The "economics of greed" of Pres. Bush and the "cowering, culpable" Republicans passed billions of dollars of economic aid before Pres. Obama was even elected. In fact, the worst part of the economic crisis occurred in mid-to-late 2008 – before Pres. Obama had even won the election. It is laughable to argue that Pres. Obama is our economic saviour, when he wasn't even in office when the country needed saving. 

The Republicans, meantime, will again do all they can to play on popular misconceptions about balanced budgets because they regard a downturn as their easiest path up the electoral mountain. Pointing to the “exhaustion of Reaganomics,” the conservative columnist Ross Douthat urges a new and positive “right-of-center agenda.” He can argue on; the GOP will keep drinking tea. 

This is epitome of what I fear most: making comments and analysis when I don't fully understand the subject I am commenting on. Clearly, Shrum has not done his homework: Reaganomics is still a vibrant theory that has hundreds (if not thousands, millions) of apologists. I have no idea what to make of the "exhaustion of Reaganomics" because I was not aware that Reaganomics had been exhausted.


As far as Republican's using "misconceptions about balanced budgets," I would simply remind Shrum that in the last election dozens of "blue dog" Democrats were elected on idea that Republicans were fiscally irresponsible. In fact, much of the majority of Democrats in Congress is made up of Democratic politicians who promised the voters that they would rein in the excessive spending of Republicans. Both Democrats and Republicans have taken on the mantle of "balanced budgets" – a fact that Shrum conveniently avoids.

The Republicans have announced that they will run in 2010 with a promise to repeal it [congressional health care bill]. Go ahead—make my midterm.

Tell Americans that you’ll role back the patient’s bill of rights and end the ban on preexisting conditions—provisions that take effect this year. Progress won’t be reversed here—any more than it was when the GOP warned in 1936 that Social Security meant regimentation for our workers and dog tags for every American. They spoke of repeal then, too—and their nominee carried two states.

Shrum, once again, is ignoring reality. Reality tells us that a majority of voters, including unaffiliated voters, strongly oppose the bill. Reality tells us that there are many center-left Democrats who are losing in polls because their constituents oppose the health care bill. Reality tells us that the Republicans are looking at substantial gains in both the House and Senate in the 2010 elections.

Oh, and as far as the 1936 elections, every historian knows that Social Security was a side-issue in those elections. In the upcoming elections, the health care bill will take center stages as a major deal-breaker for many in the American electorate.

There were a few missteps as well, notably in the aftermath of the attempt to bring down flight 253 on Christmas Day. (Maybe we should have a rule: No one named Janet in the Cabinet.) But at least Obama righted the public response and, more importantly, set in motion a review of a faulty intelligence system. He also had the class, and wisdom, not to blame the Bush administration. 

 First off, good joke about Janet Napolitano. It elicited a quick chuckle when I first read it.

However, when I read the last sentence I laughed out loud. Sure, Pres. Obama himself does not actually blame Pres. Bush – he just lets his staff (and bloggers) do it.

After restoring America’s image in the world last year, he will advance concrete achievements like a new arms-control agreement with Russia and international action to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea.

Wow. In other words, Pres. Obama will be able to solve the two most pressing international problems that America faces – even though these two situations have both deteriorated since Pres. Obama took office. If Pres. Obama accomplishes these two objectives, there will be no one happier than myself. If Pres. Obama can get the international community to stem the rise of Russian military power and defuse the nuclear situations in Iran and North Korea, I would argue that 95% of Americans (conservative and liberal alike) would be overjoyed. Unfortunely, as you and I (but apparently not Robert Shrum) know, that is very unlikely.

I will leave you with some of my favorites comments made by the readers of the article.

Joe the engineer: This was supposed to be on the Onion website, right? Right?

Jack Davis: So, Bob, what planet are you from?

Rick: Why is anyone still listening to this guy? He has a worse record in Presidential elections than the Buffalo Bills do in Super Bowls, and now he's trying to say that the last year was a success?

Tim: Oh, Bob, please stop smoking the Hopium pipe. Not only does that junk make you silly and incoherent, it will rot your teeth.

Colin: The extent of your thoughtfulness on economic decisions and ability to take the partisan blinders off is best exemplified by saying 1933 was a turning point.

Michael: This sounds like something fit to read from a teleprompter...

Doug Gibson: Bob Shrum the man in the plastic bubble.

Kyphysician:In the dcitionary [sic], under Sycophant... it reads, See Shrum, Robert

RKG:Should I file this under Fiction, Fantasy or Deranged? 

The Unreality of the Liberal Reality

Drew Westen, a liberal professor at Emory University, published an article for CNN in which he argues that the Obama Administration is plagued by a lack of clear, strong messages. Westen contends that the unpopularity of Pres. Obama's policies is due to this ineffective communication. I find his analysis fascinating because it reveals the alternate reality that liberal academia have created in their minds.

In that sense, there's something deeply ironic about Republicans attacking the vacationing Obama for failing to prevent a Nigerian from blowing up his underpants in mid-air.

This is clearly a straw man. Republicans are not attacking Pres. Obama for his vacationing tendencies, but for the lackadaisical way in which his Administration has approached terrorism (Demint, Cheney, Gingrich). To dismiss criticism of the President based on this unfair characterization is brutally fallacious.

 Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano initially suggested, in a tone intended to reassure, that the failed terrorist attack proved the system works. A few days later, when that comment could no longer even pass through airport screening machines, the president reversed course, calling the event a systemic failure of catastrophic proportions.

Napolitano's gaffe (which, to be fair, she later sought to correct) was not an isolated incident. It is emblematic of a seat-of-the-pants approach to speaking with the American people about issues that really matter to them that is increasingly undermining the administration's credibility (and with it, its poll numbers).

First off, this Administration has clearly shown that it does not speak from the "seat-of-the-pants", but rather is very scripted and methodical in its rhetoric. Pres. Obama's use of a teleprompter has been well-documented. The President has controlled the exact wording used by many high-ranking officials in his Administration (apparently Napolitano wants us to call "terrorism" "man-caused nuances").


In addition, however, I would contend that it is belittling the American public to contend that they are more influenced by rhetoric than by policies. Americans were disturbed by Napolitano's gaffe because it confirmed a long-standing suspicion that they have about the Democratic Party – that Democrats don't take the threat of terrorism seriously. Napolitano's comment was not disastrous because it failed to "stay on message"; it was disastrous because it portrayed the Administration as weak on terrorism.


For example, polls have indicated that the American public, including a significant majority of unaffiliated voters, oppose the health care plan offered by congressional Democrats.  The media has spent hours upon hours broadcasting the details of the plan, the pros and cons of the plan, and the rhetoric of the Administration – and yet they still overwhelmingly oppose the plan. The lack of support for the President's health care plan is not a mythical miscommunication; rather, the cause of the fierce opposition is the very substance of the plan. Quite simply, American's oppose a government intrusion into health care, regardless of what the President and his Administration says. 

It is difficult to find an issue on which the White House has offered a coherent, compelling message. Consider the administration's stance on deficits, which will constrain every piece of legislation the president attempts to pass.

President Obama never made a concerted effort to explain to the American people, in plain language, the most basic lessons of modern economics as to why deficit spending is essential to breaking a downward spiral in which major banks fail, the stock market collapses, businesses lay off employees, people who've lost their jobs can't buy or pay their mortgages, more businesses collapse as consumer confidence and spending plummet, banks stop lending, and home foreclosures skyrocket, leading to further layoffs and decreased demand. 

When no one has the money to spend or invest, the only one left to do it is the federal government. Breaking that spiral (and beginning to reinvest in America) was the primary purpose of the "stimulus package"-- something the president should have repeated dozens of times. 

Instead, the administration has been mixing messages -- often in the same sentence -- about the need for government spending and the importance of deficit reduction and making any new spending "deficit neutral." To the average American, it's difficult to see how those messages fit together, and with good reason: They don't.

Westen is both correct and incorrect in his analysis. He is correct in his argument that the argument of "making any new spending 'deficit neutral'" is inherently contradictory. There has never been a period in American history where the government has dramatically increased spending and yet been able to contain the deficit. Westen is correct when he points out that the average American can see this contradiction in the rhetoric of the Obama Administration.


However, Westen is incorrect when he assumes that if Obama had made a classical Keynesian argument "dozens of times" then he would have gained the support of the American people for his policies. I have previously contended that the American electorate no longer supports Keynesian economics. Further, I would argue that public opinion is firmly against the rising government debt. In the end, Pres. Obama's continual use of anti-deficit rhetoric is evidence that even the members of his Administration agree that the public will not support increases in the deficit.

What would that story have offered? A description of the problem in terms everyone can relate to, an explanation of how it came about that people have seen with their own eyes, a clear plan for solving it that passes the "common sense" test, and an appeal to core American values like security, hard work, competition and fairness. I happen to know that message would have garnered 2 to 1 support for health care reform because I polled various versions of it during the election and have done so recently.

Again, Westen's argument is filled with glaring assumptions that contradict reality. The American public doesn't support the Administration's health care plan because of the substance of the plan. American's simply do not want a government-run health care system. Many polls have indicated that the American public, including a significant majority of unaffiliated voters, oppose the health care plan offered by congressional Democrats.  The media has spent hour upon hour broadcasting the details of the plan, the pros and cons of the plan, and the rhetoric of the Administration – and yet the people still overwhelmingly oppose the plan. Quite simply, American's oppose a government intrusion into health care, regardless of what the President and his Administration says. 


The polls that Westen took during the election are no longer valid. First, the public often changes its opinion on a policy issue. Further, big government plans have historically seen dramatic decreases in support once that have actually been proposed in Congress. Finally, there is no way that we can logically side with the results of polls taken over a year ago, when they contradict the conclusions of polls taken just weeks or months ago.

As the president moves into his second year, it is time for a course correction. As one of the most effective communicators in modern American history, he should heed the wise counsel of the president he most admires, Abraham Lincoln: "...public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible."

It is time this president makes statutes and decisions possible, not by compromising at the outset with the people who dug the holes in which we find ourselves or staying "above the fray" as legislators and lobbyists work out the details, but by articulating clearly what he believes in and putting the power and prestige of his office and his presence behind it.

In this final point, Westen exposes the fundamental flaw in his analysis: he believes in an alternate reality. To Westen, the American public is politically liberal, much like the Europeans, and supports liberal dogma of government solutions. Why else would Westen argue that the public sentiment in America would flock to the banner of big government? He truly believes that the American public will rally in support of Pres. Obama if he becomes a spokesperson for big government. 


This is fundamentally wrong. Any person who takes a fair-minded view of the political environment of the United States could see a clear picture of an electorate who does not support big government liberalism. The people of the United States (unlike many of the students/professors/staff in the universities where Westen works) are not confused about Pres. Obama's plan; in fact, they understand it clearly and oppose it.


This alternate reality that Westen calls the U.S. is not the reality that I, and my fellow 300 million citizens, know as the United States of America.

Elevating the Debate about Guantanamo Bay

Believe me when I say that I understand why many people oppose the very existence of the Guantanamo Bay prison. I understand that it violates that rights of the American citizens who are imprisoned there. I understand that it tarnishes the reputation of the United States in the international community. I understand that government needs to have restrictions on military power in order to avert all forms of tyranny. However, at the same time I believe in the most foundational purpose of government: to protect the lives of the innocent citizens.

In this post, I do not intend to engage in a debate about the validity of the Guantanamo Bay detention center (Although, I would be happy to do so at a later time if there is such a desire). Rather, my intention is to simply uncover the fundamental reason why Guantanamo exists.

The debate surround Guantanamo is a fierce debate that is far from being resolved. But many debate the issue with out fully understanding the purpose of Guantanamo Bay. Those of us who support Guantanamo, and those who oppose it, should first understand the reason why it was create before we begin to debate its merits and flaws.

A recent article in the British newspaper The Times gives a compelling narrative of the why the Guantanamo was created.

At least a dozen former Guantánamo Bay inmates have rejoined al-Qaeda to fight in Yemen, The Times has learnt, amid growing concern over the ability of the country’s Government to accept almost 100 more former inmates from the detention centre. 

...

The 91 Yemeni prisoners in Guantánamo make up the largest national contingent among the 198 being held.

Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month. After the Christmas Day bomb plot in Detroit, US officials are increasingly concerned that the country is becoming a hot-bed of terrorism. Eleven of the former inmates known to have rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen were born in Saudi Arabia. The organisation merged its Saudi and Yemeni offshoots last year.

...

The US Government issued figures in May showing that 74 of the 530 detainees in Guantánamo were suspected or known to have returned to terrorist activity since their release. They included the commander of the Taleban in Helmand province, Mullah Zakir, whom the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, called “a key and seemingly effective tactical leader”. Among others who returned to terrorism was Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who killed six Iraqis in Mosul in 2008.

The number believed to have “returned to the fight” in the May 2009 estimate was double that of a US estimate from June 2008. US officials acknowledged that more detainees were known to have reoffended since, but the number has been classified.

“There is a historic trend and it continues. I will only say that we have said there is a trend, we are aware of it, there is no denying the trend and we are doing our best to deal with this reality,” Mr Morrell said.

Officials said that a higher proportion of those still being held were likely to return to terrorism because they were considered more of a security threat than those selected in the early stages of the release programme.

These excerpts from the article (which I would recommend in full) display the risk that the Obama Administration is taking by closing Guantanamo Bay. The detention center is not a diabolical attempt to get revenge through torture; rather, it recognizes that many of the terrorists that the military is capturing in the War on Terrorism are very dangerous criminals.

While it is clear that American citizens should not be held in Guantanamo (for that would be fundamentally unconstitutional), and also that there has been a few instances of innocent people being held in Guantanamo Bay, this evidence shows that the military has valid reasons for indefinite detention of many of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.


The fundamental criticism of those who would close Guantanamo has always been that it would endanger the American people. In our present political environment, terrorist organizations have demonstrated that they are the biggest security threat to the America. Defeating terrorism, therefore, should be the highest priority for the Federal Government in defending the security of the United States. It is imperative that the USFG ensure that those detainees that they release from Guantanamo Bay will not go on to take the lives of American soldiers or the American public.


In the end, there ought to be a seriousness surrounding the debate over Guantanamo Bay. The decision that we make could mean the difference between dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of innocent lives protected or lost. Already, we have evidence that the USFG has failed by releasing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay who have gone one to murder innocent people. We cannot let that happen again.


Guantanamo Bay does not have to remain open. Rather, the Federal Government has to protect innocent people from harm. While there may be a better option aside from Guantanamo Bay, I believe that all of us must understand why Guantanamo Bay exists before we can debate its merits or flaws. 


Guantanamo Bay has a purpose – a noble purpose – and that purpose must continue to be the foremost goal of the Federal Government. The end must remain the same; the debate should be over what means will best achieve those ends.

The Resurgence of Terrorism

It is humbling to think that even after the horror of 9/11 and the almost decade-long "War on Terrorism,"  300 innocent people came breathlessly close to being massacred by an Islamic terrorist on American soil on Christmas Day. In other words, the American security institutions are unable to fully protect the American homeland from a terrorist attack.

Of course, we ought to note that American security forces have most likely foiled dozens (if not hundreds) of terrorist plots during the past eight years of the War on Terror. However, what is worrisome about the recent failure of the system is the similarities that the current attack had to the 9/11 attacks.

Before 9/11, all three major intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI and NSA) received many warnings about the men who would eventually hijack and fly the airplanes of the attack. On Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA sounded the alarm by publishing the President's Daily Brief which was entitled, "Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S." In hindsight, many experts have commented on clear warnings that the intelligence agencies failed to act upon in the months preceding the 9/11 attacks.

The timeline of events that preceded 9/11 is eerily similar to narrative that is emerging of the near-successful attack of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In March 2009, the British government rejected Abdulmatallab's student visa application and placed him on a terrorist watch list. In August, the NSA received reports of al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen discussing a terrorist attack involving a Nigerian man. On November 19-20, Abdulmutallab's father met with officials of the American embassy in Nigeria, warning them of his son's radical beliefs. A memo would be sent to both the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center with this information, causing both agencies to gather information on Abdulmatallab and identify him in their databases as the potential terrorist. On Dec. 16, and again on Christmas Day, the Department of Homeland Security received notification that a plane ticket had been purchased in cash for Abdulmutallab, and that he had boarded the flight without checking any bags. Despite these warnings, he was permitted to board an airplane to Detroit, and he would eventually come within minutes of murdering 300 innocent people on American soil.

What I find most alarming about the recent attack is that the narrative is so similar to the attack of 9/11. The  failure of the intelligence agencies to act upon the several clear warnings is profoundly similar to the failures of 9/11 – a combination of miscommunication and inefficiency.

You would have thought that in the wake of 9/11 the security institutions would have at least tightened the security in the airline industry. The fact that al Qaeda was able to use the same methods to bypass our security defenses is inexcusable. The security loopholes that were manipulated on 9/11 have yet to be closed – it is absurd.

While Pres. Obama, politicians and many commentators have called for a review into the "systematic failure" of our security system, I would argue that such a review ignores the major issue. While it is important to continually improve our security defense system, and to increase the efficiency of the agencies, the issue is more fundamental. I believe it comes down to the question: should we as a nation overprotect or under-protect?

In the months following 9/11, it was clear that the policy of the Administration was to overreact. The Patriot Act (which was passed almost unanimously by Congress), the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, the creation of the DHS and NCTC, and the billions of dollars spent on security were all instituted in the wake of 9/11. George Bush was a security-first President.

Throughout the Bush Administration, the culture remained that homeland security would be the foremost goal of the President. All this changed with the election of Pres. Obama – health care, closing Gitmo, economic stimulus packages, and other issues took center stage. The American electorate spoke in November 2008, and clearly stated that the ideal of security-first (which arguably personified McCain) was not the ideal that they wanted to uphold.

The following months will be interesting to observe. Terrorism has taken center-stage once again, and one must wonder how the electorate will act. Already, there are calls for Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security) to resign in the wake of her statements that the "system worked". Will the American electorate continue to choose the Democrats over Republicans, despite the fact our security could not stop Abdulmatallab?

I guess we will have to wait until Nov. 2010 to find out.

The Public's Changing Opinion on 'Change'

How much stock ought we to put in the grand campaign slogans concocted by the Obama Administration? Certainly, during the campaign words such as 'Change' or 'Audacity' were golden when it came to projecting a favorable image to the electorate. But can these slogans sustain Pres. Obama's popularity through the rough-and-tumble of his Presidency? Will slogans like, "Yes, We Can" maintain their credence in the face of a $787 billion stimulus package or a $2.5 trillion health care bill? 

The 2008 election seemed the indicate that the historically center-right American public had become more receptive to an expanding government bureaucracy. Had the housing bubble and the ensuing financial crisis pushed the American electorate to embrace big government?

While I don't usually read TIME Magazine (they have no credibility in my mind), Nina Easton published an article in the magazine which is well worth reading. In the article, she compellingly argues that the electorate, despite the election of Pres. Obama, is still opposed to big government.

When Obama took office, conventional wisdom held that the American people, jarred by a financial crisis they were routinely told was "the worst since the Great Depression," would race into the protective arms of Washington. After all, the Federal Government had given us the New Deal in the worst of times and a patchwork of economic safety nets since. The idea is that we instinctively turn to its beneficent hand to ease the pain of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes--and recessions.

Yet in today's hard economic times, something startling began showing up in public-opinion polls: fewer people than in the past wanted Washington to step in. In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 23% of respondents said they trust the government "always or most of the time"--the smallest proportion in 12 years. The percentage of voters who think government should "do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people" has dropped 5 points since Obama's first weeks in office, while that of those who think government should leave more things "to businesses" rose 8 points. The shift is especially noticeable among independent voters, a small plurality of whom wanted government to "do more" after Obama took office; now--by a margin of 17--they think government does "too much."

The American public has been considered by most political observers to be a center-right crowd. Generally, they like a small government to stay out of the free market. Even the New Deal, which certainly endorsed a bigger government, was to the right of the quasi-socialist systems set up in Western Europe following WWII. While there are a number of explanatory reasons for this phenomenon (foremost was the Cold War), American's have never been captivated by the socialist/big government agenda. Even the more liberal Presidents, such as Johnson and Carter, would be considered moderates in European politics.

With the economic crisis, fear and anxiety about the future of the U.S. economic future pervaded the Presidential elections of 2008. It would be irrational to separate Obama's victory from the sense of economic doom. The voters dissatisfied and fearing the worst, abandoned their decades-long preference for small government and voted for 'change' -- and big government.

The electorate, however, has realized what 'change' is. The 'change' that Obama offered is not a new strategy, it is not a ground-breaking new approach to problems. Obama's change has been around since the post-WWII rise of socialized democracies in Europe. 'Change' was the decades-old strategy: replace market economics with government bureaucracy.

It is clear now that the voters have changed their minds about 'change.' The initial popularity of big-government is over; the honeymoon with bureaucracy has ended. In November 2008, the people might have voted for big government, but in November of 2009, they realized that the 'change' was really more of the same.

It's not hard to find a national consensus that government should lead on matters like national defense, natural disasters, food safety and support for the elderly and poor. But any bold reach beyond the basics becomes problematic when swing voters start to confront costly realities and the soaring sweep of campaign promises gets lost in programmatic details. Since last spring, there has been a sizable drop in the portion of voters who think Washington should guarantee health insurance, with Gallup now recording--for the first time since it began asking the question--more people saying it is not the government's responsibility (50%) than saying it is (47%).

This is the reason for the dramatic change in opinion on Obama's policies. During the first year of the Obama Administration, the electorate realized the actual costs of his bureaucratic policies. During the campaign, it was easy to hide the realities of what expanding Federal power meant: more costs, less efficiency, more taxes. But now, when those policies are put to the test in the arena of national politics, the costly reality of big-government has been exposed. And unlike their European counterparts, the American electorate cannot stomach this reality.

What I am suggesting is that the voters did not know what they were voting for. Most voters did not have the time to understand what 'change' was; they knew it was different and that was good enough for their vote. When 'change' manifested itself as big-government, they realized what 'change' was and they rejected it. 

'Change' is a great campaign slogan -- especially when the country is in the midst of crises in both the domestic and international arenas. 'Change' is generic, positive, optimistic. It epitomizes the Obama campaign.

However, big-government is not a generic policy. It is costly, inefficient, and unappetizing to the American public. 

It was when 'change' turned from generic to specific that the electorate changed its opinion on change.