Exit, voice and Alinksy
posted at 8:48 am on August 18, 2009 by King Banaian
Based in large part on a post written that morning by Joel Rosenberg called “Obama’s Getting Alinskied” and after talking about this with Joel in the green room, my Final Word episode (hour 1, hour 2) from August 8 carried the theme forward, that there’s nothing inherently left-wing in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s a schematic for running popular opposition. Anyone can play.
Last night, Andrew Breitbart joined in.
In fact, one could make the argument that the Republican Party, usually slow on the uptake, has finally figured it out. There are no major Republican targets out there opposing Mr. Obama and his aggressive agenda. The conservative movement appears leaderless, but perhaps for the best.
Maybe that is the strategy: Standing back and letting the Obama machine flail in its pursuit of its next victim.
A grass-roots movement of average Americans has stood up, making it extremely difficult to isolate and demonize an individual.
Mr. Alinsky noted in “Rule 12″ that it is difficult to go after “institutions.” And attacking “tea baggers” and “mobs” has only created more resistance and drawn attention to the left’s limited playbook. Even Americans expressing their constitutionally protected right to free speech are open game.
Now that many people are Googling the Alinsky rule book and catching up with the way Chicago thugs play their political games, Mr. Obama and the Fighting Illini are going to be forced to create new rules – or double down on the old ones.
And everyone is joining the Alinsky vanguard.
Margaret Martin, my colleague at the Minnesota Free Market Institute and the only person that can keep David Strom in line (barely), wrote a couple of posts about my show that I should have responded to before now. Rather than a long hashing of her points, I think we can argue from her second point that because we have voice, we should use that and stop it with the mob.
But I am reminded of the concept of logos (ideas conveyed in speech) that separates adults from children and humans from animals. A baby with a full diaper can scream and cry but can’t communicate it’s discomfort in any useful way. Likewise a wounded animal. We aren’t animals or pre-verbal children. We have logos. (Despite what you may think of the public education system.) And we don’t have to act like a mob, we are citizens.
Interestingly, logos has been at the heart of a series of increasingly interesting writings by the ever-interesting Arnold Kling (which is in fact what inspired me to write after Margaret’s first post “what is this democracy of which you speak?”) The fisrt post that caught my eye includes this:
The exercise of voice, including the right to vote, is not the ultimate expression of freedom. Rather, it is the last refuge of those who suffer under a monopoly. If we take it as given that the political jurisdiction where I reside is a monopoly, then perhaps I will have more influence over that monopoly if I have a right to vote and a right to organize opposition than if I do not. However, as my forthcoming Unchecked and Unbalanced argues, the reality is that the amount of influence I have is shrinking while the scope of the monopolist is growing.
We suffer from monopoly in many places. Because our government grows larger and stronger, and because we do have an option to exit (in a Hirschman sense), we are left with voice. Ways to make voice more effective will be preferred, and that is what Alinsky offered his followers. The right has simply adopted George C. Scott’s line from Patton: “Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!”
But in fact, Kling notes today, it is the conservative movement that is left to support democracy.
[N]ot many people like democracy. Progressives like to think that they use “the people” to fight special interests, but what progressives really want is government by elite technocrats, like the Fed or the IMAC (a proposed independent commission to set health care policy). Recently on this blog, I have argued that libertarians should favor exit rather than voice as a check on government.
If the P’s and the L’s don’t really want democracy, then who does? At this point, the C’s probably are more in favor of democracy than anyone else. We’ve had democracy for a long time, so keeping democracy is the conservative position.
Real freedom would be to break the employer-based link to health insurance — something the Obama plan does nothing to solve — and to permit you to choose and pay for health insurance like you pay for anything else. You need to solve the incentive problem, as even Democrats and organic food vendors seem to agree. But it appears nobody wants that solution either.
Real freedom, Kling says, is the absence of monopoly. Brad Taylor puts it more fittingly to this post: “exit can give you any other freedom, including voice.” But with exit comes personal responsibility, and it’s thus not surprising that people still want to have health care without paying for it. Getting something for nothing is better than getting something by paying for it for those who think individually rather than systemically. I am curious therefore how many of the people speaking out are willing to use exit, and accept the responsibility that comes from it?
Not that I expect exit to be available anytime soon…
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
These Washington jackasses don’t respond to citizens.
Try writing your Congressman. It does nothing. He’s drowning in a sea of correspondence. You’ll get a form letter.
Try voting against your Congressman. It’s a nice gesture, but really, it’s almost completely meaningless. Your individual vote means almost nothing.
But year after year, they pass this legislation that we as individuals, despise.
Then we get a chance to scream at these corrupt and incompetent buffoons?
You have to take it. It’s the only time they have a chance at hearing you as an individual.
NoDonkey on August 18, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Quite fdankly he is wrong, there is no Republican leadership, because there are no Republican leaders. Most Republicans are laying low to avoid indirect damage, many are looking for that worn out “bi-partisan” agreement, which in this day and age equals capitulation.
The blogs are the ones driving the resistance, and in one instance, Sarah Palin.
Rode Werk on August 18, 2009 at 9:02 AM
popular as in “all the cool kids are doing it?” or popular as in majority agreement? the problem is Alinsky wasn’t running popular opposition, he was running a minority opposition in the face of majority agreement. that’s why it had to be radical. current opposition to Obamacare is majority agreement, in which now the minority have to claim victim (while paradoxically being in the majority) to Alinsky-like tactics.
it really must be a sun-shiny day everyday when you’re a liberal, because you can never be wrong and you can always claim victimhood. self-reflection? who needs that bringing you down.
bloghooligan on August 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Well I’m doing my best to isolate and ridicule the unicorn king where ever I can type.
jhffmn on August 18, 2009 at 9:04 AM
sigh, fdankly = frankly.
Rode Werk on August 18, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Another media creation.
I can’t fathom very many conservatives embracing Alinsky to counter Obama.
Love of country, traditional values, and the truth make such a marraige impossible.
David2.0 on August 18, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Having read KBANAIAN I feel smarter. Thanks for this thread.
I like the idea of arguing against a monopoly. Even dumb-ass libs understand that monopolies are bad.
Mojave Mark on August 18, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Alinsky hated the middle class as he saw them as tools used by the upper class to suppress the lower class. The only way to be able to get at the upper class, the middle class has to be made a non-entity to sucessfully take from the upper class what the lower class is entitled. Really a very easy concept tp grasp. Even the methods are so elementary as to not be confusing to even the uneducated. Hillary actually wrote a paper on Alinsky while she was at Wellesley. Alinski have been a liberal mentor for decades. Obama is only one of many who aspire to his teachings.
volsense on August 18, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Ok first, we are not a democracy nor have we ever been a democracy. Progressives wishing for a ruling elite is fine and all, and not contradictory to our system of government.
Second of all, you don’t need to lose your voice to have the power of exit. What ever happened to states rights?
My gosh, the founders of our country had a perfect solution to make both the L’s and the P’s perfectly happy. And no the C’s don’t stand for ‘democracy’ any more than the rest of us do.
But good lord, what is the constitution to this man? Chopped liver? We are supposed to be a republic separated into semi autonomous states, limiting the federal government in power and responsibility.
The P’s still get their ruling elites, and I still get my power of exit, and the C’s still get to keep the system we have.
jhffmn on August 18, 2009 at 9:14 AM
I called this the day after the election.
Ogabe and his ilk have convinced themselves that other people tolerating his idiocy and antics means he had a superior tactic and C3 system. The reality was he was taking advantage of people’s hesitance to “be mean”. They were allowing the Swiss Family donk their histrionics because they had power and as such felt bothering with streetfighting the thugs on the avenue of ideas unneeded.
We learned a bitter lesson.
The main thust is that the donks have a horrid OODA loop and are very vulnerable because they are spoiled by our indulgences of their tantrums into overestimating their own skill and popularity and underestimating our agility.
We’ll smoke ‘em unless we go wobbly.
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 9:14 AM
“embracing Alinski’s methods” does not mean you embrace his goals or illusions. The Ogabe clan is stuck since a portion of their base enjoys street theatre, add in the lack of mental acuity on their part and the vulnerability shows itself.
Who do the donks lash out at to try to retake control of the narrative?
The ONLY “leading voice” who is engaging in anything like the “vitriol” they are accusing our senior leadership of engaging in is Palin and all they are doing is giving her PR.
No the donks dare not face reality and the reality is they are on the losing end of this in the voters’ eyes….they may well ram through what they want but they WILL pay a price for it.
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 9:19 AM
No embrace is necessary-merely an understanding of additional options. Once you know what to look for, it’s amazing how the Alinsky ideas have crept into the mainstream. You see this in the public health arena all the time. When you recognize what you are seeing, you can expose and neutralize if desired. It’s all about options and freedom!
indypat on August 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Mr. Breitbart is correct insofar as the conservative movement is leaderless and perhaps for the best. Sun Tzu indicates that once your opposition takes a shape, a form, then it can be easily targeted and opposed. Hence, the Alinskyite tactic of identifying, freezing and targeting an individual (palin, bush, limbaugh) or a group (mob, republicans, evil mongers) is attempted. The trouble for the Obama camp exists when the actual opposition to their plans remains a truly grass roots and amorphous body of American Citizens who cannot be individually targeted, there are simply too many of us. We are like the Chinese horde coming over the mountain and Obama is trying to snipe one-by-one with his Saul Alinsky sniper rifle. He is simply out of ammo and ill-equipped to face this onslaught of opposition and represents a significant defect in the Alinsky rule book. It is fortuitous that the opposition has at its leadership core–the individual–for this is the enemy that the Obama camp cannot defend itself from, for our numbers are too many, our faces too diverse, our voices too dissimilar, and our messages coming from all directions–however, they all have a singular strategic objective, the preservation of our republic. Obama can stand in the way, but his Red Rider defensive tactics are getting overwhelmed every day and his outer defenses (Dem congressmen) are being overrun by our infantry.
Sarah Palin is our armored cavalry regiment commander. She can act with surprise and freedom of movement at any time, day or night.
ted c on August 18, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Real freedom would be to break the employer-based link to health insurance
Real freedom would be an economy that has enough jobs that movement from one to another overcomes any hold the employer has over their employees. Obama seems to have the economy on the “back burner” as even the “stimulus” spending slowed last month.
J_Crater on August 18, 2009 at 9:25 AM
well played Ted you and I are on the same wavelength…
the trick is to force Obama into a scorched Earth political mindset and allow him to do our recruiting for us. The “above the radar” conservatives in leadership positions need to be seen as a mild voice of caution for the most part but the voluntary “targets” need to be flamethrowers who highlight what is really in play.
The strategy, whether by design or an accidental serendipity blessing the GOP is brilliant at this stage….
the libs and M$M(I repeat myself) are going nuts trying to figure out who to hit.
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM
I appreciate conservatism’s new willingness to embrace grassroots protest after demonizing it as “criminal” or the work of people who don’t have to have “real jobs” because they are “community organizers.” But I never expected people to start to embrace tactics they embraced as “terrorist” only months ago.
But the larger point of this point is that if people are embracing Alinsky it means that they have finally begun to realize the truth that motivated his development of the Alinsky strategy. Specifically, that Americans don’t have a say in our political or economic processes anymore. You describe it as a monopoly of government and, as always, I’m struck by folks willingness to just ignore the intimate relationship between government-corporate monopolies around the country. Take the healthcare issue. Government intervention in the marketplace has blocked consumers from excercising their “voice” by shopping for insurance across state lines. But the private health insurance industry (which conservatives so fiercely protect) compels representatives to uphold those monopolies via campaign contributions.
Indeed, our system is such that to seperate the will of government from the will of corporate interests is impossible. The monopoly that’s dangerous is not a elite technocratic healthcare system, the monopoly that’s dangerous is the monopoly the private sector has over the functions of government. It’s merely a shame that the healthcare protestors don’t realize they have so much in common with Alinsky.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM
OK I need to start “previewing” posts more, that’s downright embarassing.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 9:31 AM
The Left did it first, the Right will do it better.
southsideironworks on August 18, 2009 at 9:32 AM
I call B.S.!!
katy on August 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Friends: Look at this from a military point of view. This tactic would work against a target that a) could be identified, b) that moves and thus could be stopped from doing so and c) is a simple enough entity (individual) to be discrete from larger entities like groups and businesses and d) can be scapegoated for some action.
The reason the American Citizens are having a great deal of success at our townhalls and protests is that a) they are an amorphous and wide ranging groups of individuals that b) move and cover lots of territory and c)diverse enough to be indistinguishable from society–they are society!
Team Obama is trying to use smart bombs and sniper rifles where single shot effects may wound a few (katy abram and select other questioners)–but cannot have any effect upon the greater group, we are simply too large and too spread out for their tactics to have any effect–hence they try to lump us, group us and those tactics are failing.
The American Citizens standing up against Obamacare are in the proper formation to oppose it, they are both informed and unformed–meaning that they are armed with facts and take no shape that can be adequately targeted by Rule 11. Team Obama has resorted to carpet bombing and that is not working either.
Keep up the pressure–Do not let up. Keep moving, keep firing and keep hammering at Obama–he is truly being Alinskied–he has a form–he’s president, he can be identified, he can be frozen, and he has little freedom of movement–unlike us.
ted c on August 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
But today’s Liberalism is not even a political ideology as argued here
http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3117/2/
Kermit on August 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Maybe at last we’re getting smart.
TIME said, “We’re all socialists now.” Wrong! We’re all community organizers now.
petefrt on August 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Well here is one of the tougher concepts to embrace: To oppose Obamacare is to potentially oppose something that offers you something for nothing. Libertarians understand that this ‘nothing’ will cost someone ‘something’ even if it isn’t them. Thus it becomes a matter of principle. Doing the right thing, even at personal cost, (when no one is watching) is a fundamental exhibition of following your principles. My principles are not for sale for a shiny geegaw—better free than enslaved is a philosophy that abounds in the Founders’ intentions.
GnuBreed on August 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Which is exactly why government should be as limited as possible and do as little as possible.
Becuase a large government that tries to do everything for everyone, will be corrupted. It’s human nature and it’s inevitable.
There is no possible way to keep powerful interests from meddling with a powerful government. The only way to keep the government off our backs is to shrink it in every way possible.
NoDonkey on August 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Fellow thinkers:
Do you see the results our actions are achieving?
The hammering and questioning from all sides is resulting in coordination of effort. Your efforts, in isolation, may be viewed by you to have little impact; however, they are assisting another covert operator downstream or in the next district or state have a force multiplication effect–ie, what I do helps to double the effort that you put out.
Hence, keep calling, keep signing, keep writing and keep showing up. I help you, you help me, we are helpful as can be and with a great big hug and kiss from me to you, won’t you say you love me too.
ted c on August 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
True and to her credit, along with the blogs, much of what was predicted about Obama and said about Obama has come true. A president with no experience in the private sector, no executive experience at any level, and brief tenure in the Senate without accomplishment fails as a president only six months in. And Sarah Palin is heavily criticized for predicting this about Obama? Any wonder why? She, along with the blogs you mention, were right all along! The one who will take stewardship of the GOP is not the one who will stay below the radar biding time but instead will be the one most vocal about Obama; no surprise whatsoever that this is currently a former governor now citizen in Alaska… Letting Obama fail is what was predicted and what has come to pass; the next step is standing up and telling America there is another alternative to ‘hope&change’(TM) and only one person in the GOP is doing that now and she’s doing it quite well…
IntheNet on August 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Love Andrew’s piece.
The media are finding it impossible to keep up with the… “profile”… of the protesters.
it can’t be done.
They can’t pigeon hole them.
The best thing to happen to the Conservative movement was having a gutless leadership.
At some point someone will emerge from the masses which is the way it should be. Unlike the left who seek a mouthpiece and surrender their will to them.
katy on August 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
we are Vietnaming the donks…
they have the power and firepower right now but that power and firepower can harm them as much as us….
their pride precludes their going itno a cantonment strategy that would likely work if dilligently followed…
the problem is they refuse to ever alter their own core beliefs or even pretend any other set of values is valid…
we should all be thanking God every day they hate guns, God, and gals with babies….
otherwise we’d be doomed.
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Our efforts strengthen the hand of Sarah Palin. Defend her flanks, feed her water and ammo–conduct maintenance on her vehicles, and by all means give her the freedom to rain fire upon the statist liberal.
There shall come a day when we will all do a dance around Obama’s playbook that is being used to hem him in.
“Chip away… chip away at the stone….”
–Aerosmith
ted c on August 18, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Barack Obama was a community organizer who sat within the inner circle of his troops and looked outward as they did their work. He simply followed the instruction book.
Barack Obama is now in the position of watching other groups, that have self-organized, push his groups back onto him. He is not used to seeing the hordes at the gate. This is the first time he has ever experienced pushback from organized groups. He doesn’t understand. He is confused. The confusion is more evident every day. This wasn’t in the game plan. This wasn’t in the instruction book. They are not supposed to do this.
Right now the GOP minions need to stay the hell out of the way.
Yoop on August 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM
unlike a liberal, a conservative can leave the cave, kill something, drag it home and feed his family with it.
the liberal merely tries to steal from the cave next door.
ted c on August 18, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Alinsky’s 12 rules can be summed up in one word – blackmail.
Our dear leader et al. is having a difficult time because you can’t collectively blackmail the American public.
I once had a boss like Obama. People would come out of his office after a meeting and stand there with a blank look on their faces. I would then ask them if they were confused by what he just said to them. They would answer yes. I would then let them in on the secret, he talks in circles and he liked hearing himself talk.
moonsbreath on August 18, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Yoop
roger that.
GOP needs to be reading “Leadership for Dummies” and shutting the hell up. Obama is imploding, and the rhetoric is catching up with the reality now, and reality is winning. We’ve learned quickly that silence and shutting up is not an option. We will see to it that this country and our republic is preserved. Our founding fathers saw to it to create a great nation, it is our fundamental responsibility to preserve it for our own posterity.
If you outnumber your enemy 10 to 1-surround them
5 to 1–attack
2 to 1–divide
fix bayonets.
ted c on August 18, 2009 at 9:46 AM
He’ll go into “burn the village to save it” mode…
look at his overdeveloped pride, his inderdeveloped tact, and his lack of menttal agility….
all his instincts say to flail wildly you can see it every day….
a story as old as time itself….
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 9:47 AM
You speak in absolutes and the world doesn’t work that way. We know there are ways to severely limit the influence the private sector has over government, we just rarely choose to excercise them. In fact, as you no doubt know, every attempt to curtail that interest (McCain-Feingold) is attacked as “big government” or “socialism” or “taking liberty.” Etc.
And so, which is it? Do conservatives decry the exclusive control private interests have over the government? Or are they willing to do the things necessary to make our government as non-corrupt as possible Ban donations to political candidates over ten dollars. Any candidate that succeeds will have to do so due to an excellent community organizing strategy. In order to get on a local or nationally televised debate you need signatures, not a certain amount fundraised (key to breaking free from the two party system in the House at least). The status quo isn’t going to change by “dismantling government.” Like I say the only people who want small government are Paul supporters, everyone else just disagrees on what kind of big government they want. But I DO think many Americans would support serious attempts to decrease private interests control over all three branches. Are you on board?
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Not democracy – republic. Cuba calls itsekf a democracy. Soviet Russia called itself a democracy. It might sound like semantics but it’s important.
As for Alinsky rules, it’s beautiful. Obama & co are the like the dog who chases cars but one day finally catches it. Now what?
Alinsky is the only playbook they know (and it is the KGB playbook, on how to infiltrate an open society, so that devious immoral people climb through to positions of power and weaken the system.) While it succeeded in getting them into power, it also makes them TOTALLY predictable! Everyone knows their play book and can call out their next moves a week early.
The Left requires an enemy. And they have no opposition. I would not be surprised if the 8 Repubs who voted for Cap & Tax did so not because they wanted it, but to deny the Dems an enemy which they desperately need right now. (Notice 45 Dems opposed? I think this was a masterstroke by the repubs.)
Too bad Bush is ancient history, eh? He was a useful enemy.
It also speaks volumes that with Russia parking subs off the east coast, Iran chasing nukes, Norks playing up and more, Obama & co are really worried about old, patriotic citizens waving flags and signs.
Right now, the USA is being inoculated against the virus of communism / socialism (no difference between the two.) There is a chance that the inoculation will itself infect the patient, but the alternative was certain infection. Keep fighting, it’s nowhere near over yet.
Lex on August 18, 2009 at 9:47 AM
great points Lex.
ted c on August 18, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Non-corrupt as possible = SMALL as possible. End of story.
The job of a government is to protect from violence the citizens who pay for it. That is all. It should not be a money teat for the parasite class.
Lex on August 18, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Someday they will understand, but it will be way too late for them to exit the battlefield they have chosen.
Someone who fully understood, Chaplain Forgy on the USS New Orleans in 1942, said “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition”.
Yoop on August 18, 2009 at 9:52 AM
So then you’d eliminate social security, medicaire, privatize the highway system? (can’t wait to pay higher tolls) eliminate all public bus and train systems? End the public school system? Private all public colleges and universities? End the FHA? Sorry first time homebuyers you were born a generation too late? Child and Protective Services = done with? Privatize national parks and museums? Where do you think VISA will paint their logo on Mount Rushmore, George Washington’s forehead? I mean honestly, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Alinski devised his model by studying the habits of un-free people.
His error (and ultimately Obama’s) was not understanding the full effect of implimeting them on a free, armed and empowered society.
katy on August 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM
The mommy state will kill the collective goose as assuredly as the UAW murdered GM and Chrysler’s….the rest is just wishful thinking.
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 9:56 AM
So then you’d support ending all of those programs and privatizing all of those public institutions? It’s a yes or no.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Can no one articulate that the town hall protesters couldn’t care less about Mass. health care, or CA’s, or Hawaii’s for that matter.
Why can’t we shift the conversation in that direction. If liberals want to destroy their own states, they should have at it. I fully support them.
jhffmn on August 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM
I need you to show me where it is the province of government to provide houses, health, food, etc etc etc
Children’s services has been infiltrated and used as a political bludgeon, volunteer fire departments are fine for a majority of the US….
but do go on…
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM
If a person is determined before even contemplating a certain idea not to take it seriously, then I do not expect him to take it seriously.
So are we discussing logistics already, or the goal? I was discussing the goal, the principle. I didn’t say it could all happen immediately (the same way Barry can’t make America a communist country overnight, which so disappointed you in another thread.) The short answer is yes, private enterprises subject to the discipline of the market, can run almost anything better than the government can.
Lex on August 18, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Let me be more precise – you actually believe that there is a way to keep an overarching federal government, from being corrupted?
This is a government that has trillions of dollars at its disposal.
You are the one who is writing in absolutes, if you believe that a multi-trillion dollar entity, can remain untainted by corruption.
And our federal government, currently led by the Democrat Party, who are busy turning this country into a banana republic, is so far from being a clean government, that it is pretty much an absolute departure from the principals this country was founded upon.
I despise all “troothers”. Paul is a “troother” and a lunatic.
I’m a realist. Are we going to go back to when the federal government only provided pure public goods (e.g. national defense). No.
But for this federal government to take on health care, when it is doing such a poor job managing everything else they have taken on, is pure lunacy.
Run the Post Office competently. Get Medicare out of its impending bankruptcy. Reform the VA. Win in Afghanistan.
I don’t see private corporations standing in the way of any of these things. So why don’t the Democrats, who are in charge now, manage anything at all competently?
NoDonkey on August 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Which one of these could not be handled by the state?
California already provides mediCal.
jhffmn on August 18, 2009 at 10:11 AM
that picture is a rarity, it actually shows him getting his hands dirty.
ted c on August 18, 2009 at 10:12 AM
I thought the goal was a non-corrupt government. You’ve proposed the complete dismantling of all government functions in our society outside of the police and the military. I’ve proposed a series of pretty radical reforms to the current system that would limit the control private interests have over the legislative and executive branch. My proposals are rooted in notions that I think can actually catch fire with Americans, notably that “voice” of Americans rather than “influence” controls our system of government. My point is if you just advocate “end all government” the chances of us getting to the goal significantly declines.
Constitutional originalism? Really? Should the house of representatives elect Senators. Should John McCain be the Vice President? Should there be no national military and only state militas? Or, is the scope of the Constitution something that has changed over time and can continue to change.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Republicans in state legislators vigorously support those kinds of programs? And corporations don’t have the same unilateral control over state houses as they do federal?
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:14 AM
What kind of academic crap argument is this to make? Play nice so we don’t look like the angry, pissed off people we are? It seems we’ve been losing that game since FDR with another surge with LBJ.
It’s called personal responsibility. Is it that you are too crazy or too independent to understand that?
genso on August 18, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Flame on! Said the Human Torch.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
CrankyIndependent, you have not justified yet your fear of private enterprise. Why do you so fear that which provides prosperity and innovation (and which has made America the envy of the world, as opposed to the hell holes who don’t have it?)
Please explain why you are more afraid of a corporation than a government?
A government has the power to legally shoot you, detain you, and/or seize your property. The private sector can do none of those things.
Lex on August 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
not all “change” is equal….
you are stuck in the position of advocating that we let 536 a$$holes determine a one size fits all solution to everything in the nation….
the nation is far better served by having 50 laboratories that attempt to address issues in ways that are more focused on local needs, desires, and capability…..
my vote as an Ohioan makes me heard a lot louder on the state level than it does on the Federal thus allowing me to engage in far better oversight of the Politico class….
“accountability” pass it on.
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I’m sorry…was this supposed to be a response? Didn’t quite catch what you were attempting to say. Do you find the concept to personal responsibility not worth commenting on?
genso on August 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Not a dismantling of the functions – please cut out that mis-characterization of the arguments, I feel like I’m talking directly to Barry here. I propose subjecting those functions to the discipline of the market.
It works, when the government stays out of the way as much as possible. What it does now is interferes enough to mess something up, then blame the small part of the system which is still capitalist (as a justification to take it over.) Such as… oh, I don’t know… HEALTH CARE. Ring a bell?
Lex on August 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM
I agree, but we can at least agree that change, in and of itself, is neutral and inevitable. Once we’re there we can discuss things on their merits rather than deligitimize something merely because it’s something the founders intended.
Why must you work in absolutes? Creating strawmen like this don’t really help the discussion, the only people advocating 100% solutions to things are those who claim we can and should entirely dismantle the federal government. All I’m proposing are reforms to the electoral system that would limit the influence of the private sector.
Think about the “milk carton” campaign. Why is it that so many representatives are MIA on town halls. Because they don’t answer to their constituents except for the 6 months before election day. They answer to their donors who are, overwhelmingly, big corporations through PACS. Barack Obama, the chosen and pure one himself, who ran on the nickels and dimes of girl scouts, raised more money from private interests than anyone and he’s accountable to them, not us. Conservatives seem to have figured out that their representatives don’t care about them, but they seem to have missed the reason why.
Capitalism can continue without the private sector owning the government. And if you think it can’t then what does that say about capitalism as the most rational economic system in the world. The argument used to be that socialism was a false economic system because it was propped up by a totalitarian state. What does it say that capitalists don’t believe their economic system isn’t deligitimized by their constant appeals to the state to prop them up.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM
I disagree with your premise of corporate control of government. All a corporation can possibly do is throw money at individuals( in government)via donations and hope they do what they would like them to do. It it is up to the individual politician to be swayed, persuaded or goaded into doing something against his constituents interests or for a particular corporation…if any foul play is had, then they should be thrown in jail, we are still a country of laws…I hope.
This is why it is important for us a society to vote people into these positions that are not easily influenced by bad proposals. Not all influence from companies is necessarily bad simply because they are a corporation.
javamartini on August 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Congressman Wiener asked a great question on Morning Joe this morning that stumped the buffoon behind the desk. Mika was making her “I’m not that bright, but want you to think so” smirk. The question is:
What is the value health insurance companies add to American healthcare? They are, essentially, a financing system for healthcare. The head of Medicaire makes 150,000 a year the head of leading health insurance companies make 8 figures…and for what? What do they actually do that’s worth them taking a cut out of every slice of the health delivery process?
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Hmmm, how best to say this without coming off like a jerk.
WAKE UP!
Corporations “hope” that the people they support will do what they want? They form political PACS, organize employees to contribute a fundraising dinners, get politicians to attend said dinners have constant meeting with lawmakers (including the President) because they “hope” that lawmakers will follow their wishes? Come, the f*ck on. If the reason people oppose election reform is because they believe that fairy tale then we really are screwed.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM
If you’re referring to bailouts as “propping up” you missed my point entirely.
What caused the problems requiring bailouts? Government interference (in dictating banks lend to people they shouldn’t have.)
So the government gives bailout money. In exchange for… control of the institutions it bails out.
Gee… do you see a pattern here? Suppose it’s a coincidence that everything the state does results in the state getting fatter and controlling more and more?
Hence the saying: “You can’t be a little bit socialist any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.” I fail to see how seemingly intelligent people like you still believe the slogans about helping the poor and ignore what socialists actually do.
100 million+ murdered last century by socialism. Guess those 100 million were all equal, in the end.
Lex on August 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM
That’s the thing. Buying a politician isn’t illegal, it’s “free speech.” http://www.opensecres.org. Please, please, learn who controls your government and tell other people.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:32 AM
they are in effect financial planners for a voluntary collective of subscribers to their service….
when a private insurer goes into 35,000,000,000,000 of unsecured debt they go “bankrupt” and “hungry”…..
when that 150,000 a year head of Medicare does it he gets a pat on the head and the love of the Congress he then goes and whines to….
I assure you the Medicare program would have been FAR better served having the 8 figure gent in charge cutting deals and coordinating care with an eye on the bottom line than having the low six baller who has fellas with a counterfeit wealth machine behind him….
“carry on”
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 10:32 AM
You fail to acknowledge that the state writes the regulations that hamper the capitalist marketplace. Laws are on the books to protect the population from the excesses of capitalism without all of the regulation. Once the government puts itself in a position outside of the law to hinder the free conduct of businesses to be successful, then the shrewd businessmen, having to look out for the welfare of investors, customers, and employees, are forced to “play ball” on the government’s terms in order to survive and thrive. Simply put, the government makes the rules businesses have to play by.
genso on August 18, 2009 at 10:32 AM
volsense on August 18, 2009 at 9:13 AM
—–
Strategy vs. Tactics, volsense.
Strategy is the overarching plan, part the philosophy, part the end goals.
Tactics are how the strategy is to be achieved.
Alinsky’s strategy is garbage, but some of his tactics may be adapted to conservative goals. Especially going after specific individuals since, for whatever reason, Dems seem to do cult-of-personality much better…
If you really have an objection to Alinsky, consider adopting some from this tome. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671721577
I would argue that all Hot Air readers should be familiar with it…
Mew
acat on August 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Oh thats just the most egregious example. I mean corporate welfare, it’s a much bigger portion of our budget than food stamps. I mean the writing of laws that benefit specific industries, even giving some corporations advantages over others. I mean the fact that any attacks on private health insurance are tantamount to wanting to “destroy America.” Really?
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:34 AM
What are laws that protect the population from the excesses of capitalism if not regulation? That’s the same thing.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:34 AM
This is a real mantra around here. I don’t want to have the debate over again but government deregulation caused the crisis. Specifically the move to allow lenders to sell off 90% of their held debt to others and bundling them together. The deregulations that allowed that practice are what led to the toxic assets crisis. If you have been following the numbers the foreclosure crisis is NOT in the areas targetted by the CRA act, i.e. working class-lower middle class areas. They are in suburban areas where unscrupulous banks and real estate agents worked hard to make the most profit out of a deregulated lending market which eventually blew up in their faces. Regulation of lending practices would have prevented the crisis, even IF the CRA had been expanded.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM
No one is talking about “dismantling government”; this is not an anarchist site. Reducing the size of government and removing federal interference in matters that are constitutionally, and logically, left to the states, the people, or the private sector is not only desirable, but much needed. This does not mean dismantling government; rather it means restoring government to its assigned and constitutionally defined role in the affairs of its citizens.
This is patently false. I believe that everything that can be done to reduce the size and scope of the federal government that can be reasonably done should be done–the sooner, the better. Please note that I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter.
hillbillyjim on August 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Oh crap I need to pay attention to my copying and pasting. Last post was for
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:39 AM
So lay out what that looks like.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Oh and why did deregulation have to be a part of the Clinton-era expansions in the CRA? Yeah, that would be the influence of wall street donors to the Republicans who wrote the bill and the Democratic President who signed it.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM
See: Thomas Sowell’s “Economic Facts & Fallacies.” He explains it much better than I can right now.
That’s a false choice. What about federalism and the 10th ammendment? Conservatives don’t want the complete dismantling of the federal government. They want more power shifted to the states and local communities.
visions on August 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Somewhere in the Clinton years, we were told that a politician’s personal life and his/her character were not important — it was his charisma, his views and his ability to get things done that mattered. We are now suffering from that lie.
Christian Conservative on August 18, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Again, since when are Republicans on the state level advocates of those kinds of programs on the state level?
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM
to be fair John “save me from myself pass McCain/Feingold” McCain factors in somehwere as well….
Juan gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and is his response, “gee I screwed up and won’t do it again?”
no it is more like *I* am needed and *I* have trouble resisting such blandishments so no more 1st amendment for you!
The incumbent protection act was the worst assault on the 1st amendment in my lifetime.
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM
who are you to dictate what people do in their own state?
If say Ohio decides….”wow we tried it the UAW’s way forever and now we are left with dead factories” and cuts state “services” to the bone the counties therein can fund their own versions, the cities as well…
States should compete with one another to have the most efficient economies they can bear and the services their OWN citizens are willing to pay for….
the con game is the deep blue parts of the nation want one size fits all so there is nowhere to escape to to have minimal intrusions and minimal “services”….
I also notice you couldn’t be bothered to rebutt the 35 trillion dollar question…
sven10077 on August 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Hey now here we agree.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM
It has nothing to do with “willingness”. Regular Americans have had their hands forced by a socialist President who misread his election, and a bat-shit crazy liberal wing of congressional Democrats. ACORN is criminal, as evidenced by the number of indictments it finds itself under. As far as “not having real jobs”, it is quite odd when the President holds a town hall in the middle of the day, during the week, and is able to bring in busloads of sychophants. I guess they all work the midnight shift, eh?
I still reject the notion that our side is adopting Alinsky methods. It’s a media creation that attempts to destroy the purity and integrity of average citizens standing up to reject statist, nanny-state big government.
Amd drop the “Independent” from your screen name, dude. It’s embarrassing………to you, that is.
David2.0 on August 18, 2009 at 10:54 AM
In fact, regulations are not laws but dictates from agencies created by legislation. One can argue the merits of such a system, but it seems to me that tort laws and contract laws would be sufficient in a capitalist society. Look at some of the actions of the EPA and NLRB to name two agencies who create politically responsive regulations. The IRS is another.
genso on August 18, 2009 at 10:55 AM
I’m confused by King’s meaning in this sentence close to the end of the article.
Can someone help me out here? Who are those being referred to that “think individually”, and who are those that think “systemically”. And why is it that “getting something for nothing” is a better option for one group and not the other?
Sorry to be obtuse. I really want to understand his point.
connertown on August 18, 2009 at 10:57 AM
You aren’t obtuse just because you can’t understand an inane statement based on a false premise.
genso on August 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I don’t agree with the premise that libs are being “Alinskied”. Town halls are anathema to Democrats because Democrat politicians exist behind a media shield that ensures they will never have to address the meaningful questions.
The best a Democrat can hope for is a disruption. They probably hired most of the worst cases themselves. That doesn’t mean that the crowd won’t voice their anger at these meetings, but that has been a feature of town hall gatherings for as long as there’s been town hall gatherings. It wasn’t an invention of Alinsky.
And why hasn’t the media told us the name of the person who was arrested after holding up that sign threatening Obama and his family? Does every single journalist on earth desire that he remain unidentified? Do I have to start a FOIA petition to learn the name of this person?
Buddahpundit on August 18, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Why is it so hard to grasp the notion that there are people out there who don’t believe in the two party system, but also have ideas about politics. Christ.
CrankyIndependent on August 18, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Democracy survives until the people realize they can vote themselves money from the treasury.
Kafir on August 18, 2009 at 11:15 AM
genso on August 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I actually expect to agree with King, once I understand what he meant. I think he got sloppy here.
connertown on August 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM
That’s irrelevant and you know it. There is no reason to push these programs onto the national level other than to push your form of government onto me and my state.
I just can’t figure out why the GOP leadership hasn’t pushed that message.
jhffmn on August 18, 2009 at 11:17 AM
The concept of “something for nothing” is without any real meaning. It is just a lie that criminals and low-lifes tell themselves to justify the theft of other’s property.
genso on August 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Because you don’t oppose the two party system. You have consistently supported the Democrats, all your feeble protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
JohnJ on August 18, 2009 at 11:22 AM
At the risk of repeating other posts, and intentionally repeating MM…
Sunshine IS the best disinfectant!
redwhiteblue on August 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM
In point of fact, corporations don’t have the same control over state houses as they do federal. It’s much easier to get control over one federal government than it is fifty separate state governments. That should be elementary common sense.
JohnJ on August 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM
James Madison in Federalist 10: “The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.”
JohnJ on August 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM
It would be a more nimble, efficient, and responsible structure without federal tinkering in housing markets, federal bullying of lending institutions in the name of social engineering; without unfunded mandates that are bankrupting the several states’ coffers; without an onerous, complex, and punitive tax scheme; without intrusion into matters that are constitutionally the jurisdiction of the states. It would be without a Department of Education. It would not get in the way of domestic development of energy resources. It would leave financial and personal decisions such as retirement planning and health care expenditures to the individual, and regulation of such to the states where interstate commerce does not come into play. It would not put an inordinate amount of power into the hands of “czars” who are not subject to the natural checks and balances that are so important to insure that the government is not abusing the power that the people have assigned it to exercise.
I could go on but this should suffice.
hillbillyjim on August 18, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Kafir on August 18, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Thanks.
So he is saying that those who think “systemically” see the big picture, and realize that “getting something for nothing” is unsustainable.
That’s actually more cynical that I expected from King. I would welcome discussion of killing the entire employer-based health insurance system and going instead to pure personal responsibility. And I, having three kids and a stay-at-home wife, would suffer from the change, but I think it’s a relevant discussion.
In the current system, dependents of employees are “subsidized”, in that they pay less than their fair share of expenses in proportion to benefits. This is understood by the employer, and the cost is accepted as part of employing a stable and “diverse” workforce. If all employees and dependents paid their exact fair share per capita, the cost would be prohibitive for large families, and rather small for singles.
So it is a scary thought to go down that path. But I would be interested to see the issue freely discussed, and to see what solutions the free market could come up with.
connertown on August 18, 2009 at 11:32 AM
So basically what you’re saying is that it would adhere to the Constitution? Limited, enumerated powers and all that?
JohnJ on August 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I don’t believe I have ever seen this many long, mostly well thought out responses to a post at HA before. All I have is…
Count me in.
kahall on August 18, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »