Obama and Forced Labor

Barack Obama’s change.gov web site recently changed its language from requiring compulsory community service work from young people to having only a goal that they perform such “service”, perhaps in return for college tuition subsidies (listed on the site as tax refunds, but most college student don’t pay income taxes, so the meaning is unclear). This is a welcome change. It seems that we will not have the strangely ironic spectacle of America’s first black president working to nullify the 13th Amendment*.

The disturbing thing is that the original version was ever written and posted. We must judge politicians not only by what they do or try to do, but also by what they would like to do, because we never know when they might get the chance to fulfill their deeper desires. It is evident from this posting that some of the people in the Obama organization would like to bring forced labor to the United States. We cannot tell if the president elect shares this view or if the posting reflects only the hopes of some of his staff. Either way is bad enough.

It may be a good sign that Obama’s people rushed to modify the posting (and, it is said, others like it) when they were called on it. It suggests at least an awareness that they can’t get away with that sort of thing yet. Meanwhile, people need to vigilant. Many conservatives have accused Obama of being a socialist. This seems unlikely. Very few people other than professors are these days. However, there are disturbing whiffs of European-style fascism in both the substance (such as punitive “green” initiatives and a domestic security corps) and the style (such as salutes and mass rallies) of what we’ve seen from him. Of course during campaigns politicians say all sorts of things that they do not mean and engage in all sorts of odd activities to stir up their supporters. It is way too early to know what the man will try to do, but it won’t hurt for people to be careful and stay skeptical.

* 13th Amendment - Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Pollyanna

In the old Walt Disney movie, Pollyanna went around a small town reminding grumpy and distraught people that there is always something to be glad about. For believers in human liberty and limited government, there are good reasons to regret that Barack Obama has been elected president and very good reasons to regret that he will govern with the Senate and House that were elected Tuesday. However, in this case, Pollyanna is right. There are in fact several things to be glad about.

First, George Bush is leaving. His administration has not only been a failure. It has been a double disaster for friends of liberty. Not only did he abridge civil rights, endorse torture, lead us into an unnecessary war, balloon deficits and government spending, increase regulation and entitlements, create massive and intrusive new bureaucracies, and claim unconstitutional powers for the executive. He did it while presenting himself (and being presented by his enemies) as a so-called conservative and, in some vague sense, as an opponent of big government, thereby damaging actual opponents of big government by implied association.

Second, and most important, John McCain lost. Since World War II, with the one exception of the first two years after the Johnson landslide, the worst legislation and the grossest assaults on liberty have come not under Democratic administrations, but under those of big government Republicans, with the presidencies of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush being the leading examples. In this respect, John McCain would have given the nation a third Bush term. He is an activist, big government, command guy to his bones. His actual views on domestic issues are not that far from those of Barack Obama. The difference is that President Obama’s worst proposals probably will be blocked or filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. As good team players, the same Republican senators likely would have supported them coming from a President McCain, while Democrats would have opposed him only when he was not statist enough. In general, gridlock is good, and we have a better chance of it with Obama than McCain.

There is a also chance that an Obama administration may do some good things such as correcting excesses from homeland security and the war on drugs and abjuring torture. As president Obama might even have a more nearly constitutional view of the scope of the executive.

Finally, Republicans will be in opposition. That means they need something to oppose. The easiest things to oppose will be Obama’s plans to expand government and constrict freedom. So, perhaps only willy-nilly, we may hear Republicans talking about freedom and limited government again. They might even accidentally come up with candidates who believe in those things and elect them as the political pendulum swings back in the next few years.

All in all, this election has turned out about as well as it could have.

Whom Should the Republicans Blame?

Regardless of whether John McCain wins or loses tomorrow, it likely will be a tough election for the Republicans. They could take a terrible beating. The best they can hope for is to hold the presidency by a very narrow margin while falling further behind in the House and losing four or five seats in the Senate. This is not much of a best case scenario for a party that just four years ago was talking of a generation long Republican majority in the country, a long term lock on the House and sixty Republican seats in the Senate. So it seems natural to start the recriminations and try to see what caused the reversal of fortune and who is to blame.

First there is just plain bad luck. Bill Clinton was an effective president who had some good economic policies, but he also had unusually good luck. His policies did not cause the computing and telecommunications revolutions or the great increases in wealth and productivity they brought about, but he was president when many of the good things happened. He did note end the Cold War and make possible the benefits of a peacetime economy, but he was president when those benefits were being realized. He generally governed well, but he also governed at a good time. George W. Bush in 2008 governed at a very bad time ( made worse, to be sure, by some of his administration’s failures of policy). He did not invent sub-prime mortgages, dangerous over leveraging, credit default swaps, or mark to market accounting. He did not start or end the housing bubble, but he was in office when these things came together to create the worst monetary crisis in at least twenty eight and maybe seventy five years. Primitive people often irrationally credit or blame their kings for times of good or bad fortune that the monarchs have nothing to do with. Events such as those of the last six weeks can bring out the primitive in all sorts of people.

Then there is George W. Bush, the person most to blame for the decline of the Republican Party. He has been a very bad president. He took office with immense advantages. America’s military power was unchallenged. The nation was at peace. Its currency was strong, and its prestige in the world was immense. Federal budgets were in surplus. The economy was vigorous, and Americans were optimistic despite the unwinding of the internet bubble. His party controlled the House and would soon take over the Senate, giving him the longest period of Republican control of both houses under a Republican president since before 1932. He took all of this and made a hell of a mess for the nation and for his party. Like Jimmy Carter before him, he has become an embarrassing walking lesson in how not to function as President of the United States .

The Republicans who controlled the Congress through 2006 delivered lousy performance as well. While they were no more larcenous or corrupt than the other side, they should have known that members of the traditional media would exaggerate their “ethical lapses” and cover up or minimize those of the Democrats. They needed to be Caesar’s wife, and, by a long shot, they weren’t. They also should have known that they faced important expectations from their voters. A significant fraction of their constituents were not just hungry little piggies waiting at the trough. They were principled, self-supporting people who wanted limited, moderately competent, and fairly honest government. They expected the people they elected to try to give it to them. What they got was a bunch of spineless opportunists who acquiesced to the president’s follies and his war, spent like mad, increased the size of government, voted huge deficits, ignored principles and the Constitution, delivered the pork, and could not even find the courage to protect people’s property against seizure by private developers. Many voters still believe with reason that the Republicans in Congress have betrayed them and are angry and disillusioned.

John McCain has not helped that much either. While he has been handicapped by having George Bush hanging around his neck, that is far from his only problem. He has appeared to be inconsistent, unprincipled, and at times even a little goofy and erratic . On domestic issues his strongest pitch to conservatives, libertarians, and most moderates is that he will be the lesser of two evils, at least most of the time. He makes some good points on national defense, but has trouble making them stick. Senator Obama has done much better tactically as a campaigner. He has fired up the Democratic base with promises that there will be ample fresh slop in the trough without frightening away all the taxpayers who will have to provide it. He has presented himself as a reasonable, moderate, thoughtful, and articulate man. This makes a particularly good contrast to President Bush who seems to be thoughtless and certainly is inarticulate. If he loses , it will be because people feared his (stated and hidden) left wing opinions and ideology, not because Senator McCain ran an effective campaign and convinced people to want to elect him.