CR Nation

First we lost the great William F. Buckley, then sportscaster Jim McKay. Now we have lost Tim Russert. He is the first journalist I can remember and his tough but fair nature will be noted  as well as his love for God,country, and family. It seems odd to cry over a man you didn’t know, but I have in the past few hours.

He inspired me to write and think about politics-perhaps not surprising considering he worked for one of the brightest, most independent men ever to serve in politics, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The election coverage will be inadequate without him.

To borrow from Thomas Jefferson, no one will replace Tim Russert. Someone will merely succeed him. Baseball Commissioner Ford Frick said on the dedication of Stan Musial’s statue, “Here stands baseball’s perfect warrior, here stands baseball’s perfect knight.”

In our hearts, journalism’s perfect warrior, journalism’s perfect knight will stand tall in our hearts forever. May God look out for Tim and the Russert family. As WFB would say, Requiem in pace.

Californians want universal health care…and therefore we must give it to them.

From the AP:

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Assembly Republican Leader Michael Villines made their vows to hundreds of people attending an eight-city, satellite-linked meeting focused on covering the state’s 6.5 million uninsured.

Schwarzenegger, a former action film star, has made health care for all Californians a priority and has been publicly battering fellow Republicans in the state Senate, whom he also blames for the six-week budget delay.

John Edwards is right, there are “two Americas.” In one America, the ideal America, the ordering of political questions would be, first - “is it good philosophy?”; second - “is it effective policy that doesn’t contradict the pre-determined correct philosophy?”; and third - “is the policy good strategy?”

In the ideal America, essentially, you would first ask is this good for our country’s politics, followed by is this good (and fair) for all citizens, and the last question should always be is this good for me and/or my party.

But in the other America the questions are asked in inverse order, if asked at all. Proving one can work out the political calculus requiste to politically capitalize on poll results should not automatically mean a policy should be adopted simply because a poll favors doing so. This is a Republic, we send people to places to represent us, not to go there then call us on the phone as ask us what we think.

The founders envisioned a system where elected officials would not be beholden too greatly to the public out of fear of what we see in politics today: policy by polls.

However, there is a fine line between being responsive to the people as opposed to standing on principle, but all questions should be asked when determing where that line falls. That is what should be universal, not health care.

And that’s what I don’t understand about some polticians, like Arnold Schwarzenegger. They know how the system was intended to work but they instead choose to read a poll and have it answer all three questions in one because there is electoral power in doing that – argument by mass and tyranny of the majority are powerful political concepts.

However, the simple fact remaings that polling does not equal correct philosophy; and polling does not equal efficient and effective policy. What polling, minus philosophy and efficiency, does equal is political expendiency.

So, when heading back to school remember that a correct political equation runs something like this:

Philosophy + Effectiveness + Strategy = Good policy.

You lose one, you lose ‘em all.

From Robert Samuelson’s article, When Silence Isn’t Golden:

Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.

The 2030 projections are daunting. To keep federal spending stable as a share of the economy would mean eliminating all defense spending and most other domestic programs.. To balance the budget with existing programs at their present economic shares would require, depending on assumptions, tax increases of 30 percent to 50 percent—or budget deficits could quadruple. A final possibility: cut retirement benefits by increasing eligibility ages, being less generous to wealthier retirees or trimming all payments.

Yesterday, when Rudy Giuliani called the Democrats promoters of a “nanny government” he was right. But we need more than just words to solve our budgetary promises which stem from politicians’ over-eagerness to please constituencies who want everything paid for by someone else and done for them by someone else.

What we need to dialogue, leadership, and values. Things that, as Samuelson points out, everyone seems to be sidestepping.

The short video was produced by, and featured, Max Blumenthal, a blogger for the Huffington Post. The video, titled Generation Chickenhawk: the Unauthorized College Republican Convention Tour says it all, namely that Blumenthal’s motive was to sneak into the CRNC convention to attempt to embarrass College Republicans by exposing their unwillingness to fight in a war they passionately support. Here is but a taste of Blumenthal’s story:

Yet when I asked these College Republicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. “Medical reasons.” “It’s not for me.” These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them “over there.” Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP’s next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.

…I captured a vivid portrait of the hypocritical mentality of the next generation of Republican leaders. See for yourself.

The argument Blumenthal uses functions on the premise that one can’t support a particular public policy without being a direct and active participant within that policy. The chicken hawk premise essentially argues that if you don’t directly and personally participate in the program or policy you are a hypocrite for supporting it politically.

Blumenthal (and other chicken hawk argument advocates) never include in their chicken hawk arguments a premise for why the chicken hawk premise should be restricted in use only to the Iraq War debate and therefore not applicable outside of the Iraq War policy. So, I will take advantage and apply the chicken hawk premise to social welfare policy.

In doing so, I conclude that those who advocate government housing but don’t live in government housing are hypocrites. I conclude that those who advocate for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, aka, food stamps) but don’t receive TANF aid are hypocrites. I conclude that those who advocate for socialized medicine but instead use their employer paid for HMO are hypocrites.

I would also have to come to the conclusion that the political will necessary for the continuation of social welfare programs has significantly dissipated. The chicken hawk premise becomes problematic to the life of a social welfare policy, or any policy for that matter, when one can only support a policy if he is direct a participant within that policy if you assume that a certain degree of political will is needed to maintain the policy or program (let’s say 41% so cloture can’t be met in the Senate). As 41% voters do not participate in any of the above mentioned social welfare programs, I officially and happily pronounce them dead if analyzed under the chicken hawk microscope.

But that is exactly my point – that no policy should be analyzed under the chicken hawk premise. I hope we all see how ridiculous this chicken hawk premise is, even when applied to social welfare policy. Quite simply, what is wrong with social welfare policy it not that people who don’t directly participate in social welfare programs still decide to politically support them. But rather, what is wrong with them, is the coercive power of the state bearing down on citizens in order to finance social welfare programs that studies show create a generational cycle of dependency on government.

So, let’s take a lesson from our illogical Democrat friends; and when we, CRs, debate let’s use logic and not empty rhetoric or false premises.