Pages

February 3, 2010

Daddy! Are we there yet?


Harvey Mansfield at The Weekly Standard lifts the rock and reveals the true intentions of Barack Hussein Obama.

What Obama Isn't Saying
The apolitical politics of progressivism.
Obama has in his White House a Harvard law professor, Cass Sunstein, who recently coauthored a book that sets forth the idea and some techniques of rational administration. The book is entitled Nudge, and it shows how people can be nudged to make a rational choice when they cannot be openly persuaded to do so; for example, children in a school cafeteria might by careful placement of choices be gotten to select grapefruit rather than marshmallow. Similarly but on a grander scale, Obama wants to nudge the American people to approve the health care that is rational for them to choose.

But he has so far failed. The reason, fundamentally, can be found in our constitutional form of government. Rational administration is more suited to monarchy than to republics. The classical exposition of the idea of governing by reason through human passions is in the political theory of Thomas Hobbes, who favored monarchy over a republic. The classical demonstration of how rational administration operates is in Tocqueville’s book on the Ancien RĂ©gime, which shows how administrators of the French monarchy—particularly Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin—made it dominant by using reason without ever arguing principle.
"I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.”

The words are those of President Barack Obama speaking to Congress on health care reform on September 9, 2009. They contain the secret of his appeal—and the cause of his first-year failure.

His appeal from the first has been to be beyond ordinary politics. Ordinary politics is partisan politics, and to be beyond it is to be nonpartisan or, as sophisticates say, postpartisan. Obama has the cool of a nonpartisan, quite unlike the late Edward Kennedy, who was a paragon of partisan heat and sweat. But beyond politics is not just a mood, it’s a place and a situation. Obama’s aspiration, the goal of his politics, is to put the country in a situation that no longer requires parties, when at last partisan rhetoric has accomplished its task, advocacy is inapt, sympathy and zeal are no longer needed, and postpartisan cool is correct.

Postpartisan cool is not, however, the mere sign of an intellectual fad such as postmodern relativism. One can see Obama’s aspiration in the first Democratic president, Thomas Jefferson, who founded not only the Democratic party but also the idea of party government in America. After forming the first publicly avowed party against the Federalists, he proceeded to announce in his first Inaugural Address that “we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” “Republicans” meant Democratic-Republicans, later Democrats. Yet the best word to describe Obama is progressive, for -nonpartisanship in politics is inherent in the idea of progress.

What every progressive wants is to put the particular issue he espouses beyond political dispute. Obama wanted, and as his first State of the Union address showed still wants, to put health care beyond politics so that he can be the last president to be concerned with it. He did concede in that speech “philosophical differences” between the parties, “that will always cause us to part ways.” But he did not say what these differences are and seemed to assume that they would only infect “short-term politics” by serving the ambitions of party leaders. True leadership in Republicans would require them to cooperate in the reform despite their ambitions and their philosophy. Once the bill is enacted, health care need only be administered by experts whose main task will be to adjust (i.e., expand) its extent and to cover its costs. The principle will have been decided. It becomes an entitlement that is no longer open to political controversy; it is secure from second thoughts prompted by reactionaries.

But what is the principle? Obama acts and speaks as if there were no question of principle, but of course there is one, and it is perfectly obvious to the public: Should the government take over health care or should it be left to the private sphere? A government takeover does not require the single-payer system of Canada and Britain; it follows easily enough from the government’s guarantee of health care to all. This general guarantee is quite different from regulation or particular requirements on private parties because it gives the government responsibility for the result and permits, even demands, that it interfere to make health care available to all. “Available to all” is a phrase that at the least creates pressure to make the best health care equally available. This is government takeover in principle if not in administration—which is not to say that a decentralized administration would make no difference.

(More...)

8 comments:

Teresa said...

Obama and his ilk want to sucker people in with their quippy phrases and accept socialism and/or communism as a way of life for all. He wants to be perceived as non-partisan but in reality he's not. He is a partisan hack that is a radical who wants to take advantage of Americans naivety. Thank goodness for our viligance and partisanship for that has saved our country from being thrown to the wolves. At least for now.

LL said...

Obama and all despots and strongmen rely on Hobbes' philosophy, rule by MAN.

Unfortunately for Obama and despots, the Constitution follows Locke's concepts of rule by law.

It's difficult to amend the Constitution on a whim. So Obama and his ilk work hard to 'set it aside' when and where they choose to do so.

If the Supreme Court says what they're doing is unconstitutional, they behave like naughty children who don't get their way - they throw a tantrum.

Sort of like the State of the Union Address that Dear Leader just gave.

Anonymous said...

Teresa. We have to keep fighting these people. The Internet has become the people's primary source of information. Bloggers are a big part of that.

Anonymous said...

LL... Obama certainly displayed in how high a regard he holds the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Rhod said...

Nick, among other things, I like your Bible. As Cranky, over at Six Meat Buffet once quipped, the liberal bible is "NOW WITH 30% LESS LEVITICUS!"

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

There is something inherently wrong with a philosophy that has to be hidden by those trying to convince the people of its greatness. "it's the "how do we trick them today" mentality.

Rhod said...

Obama is amoral, like Clinton, probably a psychopath - which enables him to imitate the normal man and lie without compunction.

I think the irony in all this is that he's acting out a moribund liberal melodrama. History has moved past his archaic BS and events are slipping out of control.

prashant said...

Unfortunately for Obama and despots, the Constitution follows Locke's concepts of rule by law.

Work from home India