The Rejection of Ideology

I have been enjoying the Remnant podcasts from Jonah Goldberg. He wrote one of my favorite books on politics, Liberal Fascism.

He has had several political wonks on the podcast and he ends with the question, “What have you learned in Washington that surprised you?”  His most recent guest, Steve Hayward in Episode 12, replied that voters really do not care about policy.

This is a question that I keep returning to, and those of us who like to dig into the details of policy would prefer that this is not the case, but I sense he is correct.

Ultimately ideology may matter because in the long term bad ideology will deliver bad results, but to most voters the connection is rarely made.  Perhaps the biggest difference between the left and right is the time frame.

Pragmatism is a short-term approach and it dominates our political thinking.  The left may dismiss ideologues, but one of the outcomes of this is Donald Trump.  Say what you want about Trump, he is no ideologue.

Pragmatism became a formal school of thought during the Progressive Era. Politicians brag on being pragmatic.  Making pragmatism (small ‘p’) into an ideology (Pragmatism with a capital ‘P’) means that pragmatism as the rejection of ideology must reject itself.  Likewise calling yourself ‘Progressive’ today often means reaching for ideology that is a century old.  Being semantically progressive today means rejecting the Progressivism of its first ERA.  Eugenics anyone? Part of making ideology functional is to acknowledge its imperfections. It is one thing to acknowledge an ideology even if unusual times may require modification. The ideologue as a pejorative is the one who does not acknowledge this.

It is one thing to work with the imperfections in an ideology, but quite another to reject its logic, strengths and purpose, Pragmatism may be a way of holding an ideology accountable, but without the ideology it is unmoored and unsustainable. Pure pragmatism is a compass with no true north.

Voters respond to tribal and cultural cues more than ideology. They respond to demons and saviors more than ideas. I find this unsettling, but a reality that must be accepted in the competition of ideas.  Ideas must be expressed in a way that connects culturally. FDR and Reagan accomplished this but it is very uncommon.

Is this why the framers of the constitution feared democracy?  They likely wanted the principles of the constitution to be beyond the reach of demagogues and populists. Democracy was suitable for the management of local government but ill-suited for broad national solutions to economic and social problems played out locally.  The treatment of blacks required a national standard and the growth of entitlements drove more economic decisions to the national level.

But the major flaw to progressive thinking is the rejection of the founding principles as contingent on the time of their development. The rejection of these principles to the seduction of pragmatism has made ideology into a pejorative. The parties have become a means for winning elections based on just about anything but ideas.

by Henry Oliner

 




Sexual Politics

by Henry Oliner

Republicans and Alabamans are being judged because they are looking past Roy Moore’s moral and ethical transgressions to maintain their party’s political power.  Where would they ever get such an idea?

If Moore wins or loses the seat, it comes up for election in only a year. This race is only to fill the vacancy of Sessions.  Seems a lot of effort and agonizing for a short term.

The litany of sexual abuse allegations may bring character back into mode. That would be a good thing. But I am concerned that the use of mere allegations to gather political scalps without due process will encourage abuse.

The second concern is that the definition of sexual misconduct now occupies a very gray area.  It is no longer limited to physical acts.  Inappropriate language, insinuations, tone and assumptions can signal abuse in the minds of the victims. A blue joke told in a public setting can be just an obnoxious display. In a private setting it can signal potential abuse.

The fear of accusation can have negative implications for women as male bosses avoid women employees because of sensitivity and liability.

I viewed the HBO show, Confirmation, on the Anita Hill testimony on the Clarence Thomas hearing.  It may have been a biased, but it showed the difficulty of the new gray areas. Are men to be held accountable for every comment or flirtatious act they have committed? Can any comment that makes a woman uncomfortable be considered a threat to her career?  When does boorish behavior become a threat? Should this determine who remains in office or on the court? It was interesting to note how the Anita Hill hearings triggered an increase in the number of women who ran for and got elected to Congress.

Yet these same women did not hold Bill Clinton to a similar standard.

What you tolerate, you teach.  Democrats have no moral authority to hold Moore and Trump accountable to behavior they have long tolerated, but I would much prefer that their opposition not join them in the gutter they dug.

It remains to be seen whether this is a moral and cultural reckoning and improvement or just another compromise made to retain political power.

 




Psychological Threat to Conservatism

from Clay Routledge at National Review, Roy Moore and the Decline of the Conservative Mind- He and Trump are right-wing manifestations of victimhood culture.

The biggest threats to conservatism are psychological, not demographic, trends. As an actual philosophy of life and not just a low-resolution tribal marker, conservatism thrives when people are mentally resilient, self-reliant, and strongly invested in the interpersonal bonds that make small government viable: family, friends, and community. At the national level, all of these psychological characteristics are in decline, and with them, so is principled conservatism.

Though it may be tempting, it would be a mistake for liberals to see these trends as politically favoring them or helping the nation. A decline of principled conservatism doesn’t mean we will see a rise of liberalism or the diminishing of tribal politics. This brings us back to the ascension of Trump and the potential election of Roy Moore. The issue is more qualitative than quantitative. Low-quality conservative candidates won’t stop Republicans from tactically signaling their conservatism and finding ways to win elections. Regardless of the state of the party, people will probably continue to vote for their Republican tribe for a number of reasons. But will they personally live up to and favor political candidates who live up to conservative values? Winning elections is not the same as using conservative principles to address pressing social and economic challenges.

In many ways, Trumpism reflects the right-wing version of emotional safety and victimhood culture many conservatives criticize. Trump’s self-aggrandizing and fragile ego are emblematic of the self-esteem movement. Considering his age, he was ahead of the curve. Trump also employs safe-space tactics that have become all too common on many college campuses. Instead of promoting freedom, he champions censorship of speech he finds offensive and verbally attacks those who disagree him. Trump isn’t the future of conservatism. He is a prophetic warning of its retreat.

 




The High Cost of Good Intentions – A Book Review

By Henry Oliner

The High Cost of Good Intentions- A History of U.S. Entitlement Programs by John Cogan may be the first comprehensive look at the growth and dynamics of this government function.  It is meticulously researched and documented, yet remains digestible for the nonacademic policy wonk.

There is a sense of balance from the endorsements on the back cover:  Alan Greenspan, George Schultz, Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley and Paul Ryan all lend their praises for this book.

There is recognition for the good the government has accomplished to help the poor and disadvantaged, but a sobering look at the failures to maintain fiscal prudence in their administration and funding.  Historical perspective illuminates problems that are repeated, the difficulties in controlling new programs, and the seduction of expanding benefits as a political strategy.

Beginning with the Revolutionary and Civil War Pensions there is a tendency to expand a program soon after its inception.  This expansion becomes a new base for further expansions.  The expansion comes from expanding the value of the benefits and the eligibility; the multiplier effect increasing the total dollar cost dramatically.

Once a target group is identified a sense of fairness drives an expansion of the eligibility requirements. First benefits are directed to those physically injured in battle, then expanded to those injured outside of the battlefield.  Soldiers suffering from other illnesses are included, and then soldiers falling on hard times after their service are deemed worthy. In the 19th century and after WW I all veterans were considered a special class worthy of government benefits. On the eve of WWI veterans benefits, mostly from the Civil War, consumed 20% of federal spending.

A budget surplus made veterans’ benefit expansion politically palatable. Surpluses in trust funds induced benefit expansion even if the general budget was not in a surplus.

In the 19th century fiscal conservatives warned of the rapidly rising costs of these pensions but demagoguing these issues for political gain is as old as the constitution.  FDR, with the backdrop of the budget crisis of the Great Depression, was able to reduce veterans pensions substantially for the first time in our history.

FDR did not think that veterans should be entitled as a special class.  He began the expansion of social programs with Social Security in 1935, and it was expanded substantially in 1939.  As with the veterans pensions in the previous century this only raised the base for many increases to come.

The 20th century saw three structural changes that unleashed benefit expansion. The first was the acceptance of Keynesian deficits as policy during economic downturns. Gone was the fiscal restraint of the previous periods. To be fair Keynes saw periods of deficits to be followed by periods of surplus; and never proposed long term growing deficits. But if there is one constant in Cogan’s book it is our inability to prudently protect and manage a surplus.

The second change was Supreme Court rulings that elevated benefits to the legal protections of property, making even small cuts difficult.

Benefit programs grew further from the New Deal to the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson.  Social Security was expanded to include disability.  Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, Food Stamps and a host of other programs were added. The prescription drug benefit was added to Medicare under George W. Bush, and of course the ACA was the pinnacle of progressive entitlements, despite its controversy and flaws.

Early programs made cash payments that required very little administration. But concern was raised how the poor would manage cash payments and benefits became more supervised by case workers.  This created a third structural change of government proxies and workers with an interest in the expansion of entitlement programs. This added to the cost of the programs and with the beneficiaries created a powerful lobby to maintain the benefits.

There were only a few times when benefits were scaled back. FDR’s cut in veteran’s benefits was the first and Clinton’s restrictions on welfare qualification was another.  Reagan passed a law to review those receiving disability benefits, but a public outcry led to a near unanimous reversal.  Contrary to political stereotypes two of the biggest cuts in entitlements came under Democrats and two major expansions came under Republicans Nixon and George W Bush with the Medicare prescription expansion.

The result of this history is that entitlements have expanded far beyond assisting the poor. Many of the benefits go to beneficiaries far above the poverty line. Congress has proven totally untrustworthy in managing surpluses or trust funds or maintaining a sound financial basis.   The explosion in entitlements is the primary driver of the post-World War II debts.

Entitlement growth will have to be restrained, but neither party is likely able to withstand the demagoguery that slams even the mildest cuts. The population will not tolerate a tax increase strong high enough to fund it, and such a tax increase would create a spiral of economic stagnation accompanied by demands for greater public assistance. Cogan believes a tax solution would require a 33% increase on all federal taxes. The middle class would face a combined federal and payroll tax of 40%.

It may be politically unpalatable to address entitlement restraint after a corporate tax cut, but the two are not related. We need a balance of spending cuts and a pro-growth economic policy.

To protect these benefits for those who need them we must recognize and clarify their limits. There are those who pretend this problem is inflated, and those who think we can just tax the rich to pay for them.  This is mathless fantasy.  We must resist the demagoguery that will inevitably follow. This book is a great tool to bring reason and facts to the ensuring battle.




Government and The Golden Rule

from David French at National Review, Public Servants, Your Responsibilities Trump Your Right to Partisan Participation

As for me, I’m done with giving government employees the benefit of the doubt. Want me to have confidence in your fairness, prudence, and good judgment? Refrain from violating your marriage vows (an act, by the way, that makes an FBI agent vulnerable to blackmail) and texting inflammatory political content to your mistress. Or, in the case of Barbara Bosserman, the Obama donor and DOJ attorney who helped oversee the IRS Tea Party–targeting investigation, make a choice: Give money to your favorite politician, or lead the then most-contentious investigation in American politics.

Indeed, here’s a good rule of thumb. The more politically contentious the investigation, the greater care should be taken to cleanse the investigators and prosecutors of obvious partisan leanings. Even though the DOJ may not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation when hiring for career positions, nothing stops a lawyer or investigator from saying no to an offer or declining to apply. Indeed, it’s worth building your career around a principle of restraint. The culture should be clear: If you want to protect the republic from public corruption, voluntarily relinquish your rights to certain kinds of public political participation. Your acts of voluntarily restraint are the acts that will lay the foundation of public trust.

But it is time for our bureaucrats — before they engage in partisan expression or partisan giving — to ask, “What would a reasonable partisan opponent think of my conduct?” It’s time for bureaucrats to apply a governmental version of the Golden Rule. Should I inflict on others the kinds of suspicions that I’d feel myself if the roles were reversed?