Stimulus, Limbaugh, Inanity and Worse

There are some odd and unpleasant things going on around the politicking on the so called stimulus bill. The President of the United States, the Democratic Party, and various left wing pressure groups have attacked Rush Limbaugh for saying that he wants President Obama to fail in his efforts to implement what Mr. Limbaugh sees as a left wing agenda. Some have sought to conflate opposing the bill with being like Limbaugh and wanting the president and, by implication, the nation to fail. There is a great deal wrong with this, and it should be obvious to people irrespective of what they think about either the president’s or the commentator’s politics.

The Democratic Party and the pressure groups can say what they want with reckless gusto about Rush Limbaugh or anyone else if they feel like it. The president is different. It is completely inappropriate, and for that matter unpresidential, for a president to threaten or attack any private citizen for expressing criticism or dissent. People often use the term “chilling effect” to speak of the result of acts or statements by officials that, while not overt censorship, carry the hint that someone might be far better off shutting up. Personal attacks by the most powerful man in the world can be seen as intended to have such effects (particularly when considered in the light of attempts by Democrats to force Limbaugh off the air through federal regulatory action). They are also beneath the dignity of the office. President Obama has plenty of hopelessly devoted sycophants in the traditional media. He should leave this sort of work to them.

Beyond that, the whole flap about people wanting President Obama to fail or succeed is absurd. The debate is playing out at the intellectual level of a bunch of superannuated former student council twerps of the sort who, back in high school, really believed that pep rallies made the team play better. Not swooning over Obama is seen as equivalent to lacking school spirit. We need to state the obvious. Sensible people do not cheer for a politician to succeed or fail in office in the way they root for a football team to win or lose. Instead, they judge his policies one at a time. They want the politician to succeed in those instances when his actions are good, just, and beneficial and to fail when they are bad, unjust, and harmful. Experience shows that the latter is more often the case than the former. Time will tell with Obama, as with every president, but only fools want a politician to succeed without knowing at what.

Finally, the stimulus itself seems to be a more a monstrosity of pork and welfare than anything that will stimulate the economy. For all the talk of spending on infrastructure, such spending is only a small fraction of the bill’s tab. There are few real tax cuts, and the ones that are there are not optimal for stimulating growth. There is also an egregious multi-billion dollar handout to state and local governments to tide them over the recession. I suppose the idea is that, even at a time when taxpayers and productive elements of society are scaling back and losing jobs and business, it would still be unthinkable for the bureaucratic segment of society to tighten up, shed fat, and contract a bit. By calling the mess the House just passed a stimulus bill, the president hints that he has a finely warped sense of humor, a deep and heartfelt contempt for the intelligence of the American people, or both. People should hope that the bill as it stands is only some sort of stratagem, and that the president and the congress will either do nothing or come up with something better in the end.