OBAMACARE: CAN THE REPUBLICANS OPEN THE GIFT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE JUST HANDED THEM?

11/8/13

As I pointed out a few days ago (THE OBAMACARE ROLLOUT 'S ECONOMIC IMPACT:  “YOU THINK THIS COUNTRY’S IN BAD SHAPE, JUST WAIT ‘TIL I GET THROUGH WITH IT!”, 11/6/13), the debacle at least the initial rollout of ObamaCare has done more damage to the economy than most people think, and certainly far more than the non-event government shutdown about which so many economists continue to wring their hands.   The political consequences of the ObamaCare defecation show, however, are at least as profound, transcend party politics, and will have their own impact on the economy.

The overwhelming reaction to the increased prices, the sieve like jalopy of a website, and the general overall confusion and uncertainty associated with the ObamaCare startup is a now pervasive feeling throughout the land that we have an incompetent in the White House, a guy who never had a real job, is not as smart as he and his most ardent supporters suppose (Nobody is, by the way.), and is in way over his head.  This is damaging to the Democratic Party, for sure, but also is bad for the country and for the economy.  The consequences of a rudderless ship of state for business and consumer confidence and in international political and economic affairs can be devastating.  Money likes to go to where it is treated well and, barring that, at least likes to go where it has a reasonable idea of how it will be treated.  So the follow-on effects of the problems ObamaCare is facing have the potential to be more long lasting and widespread than they appear at first glance.

In the less important, buy maybe more fun, realm of partisan politics, the ObamaCare travails have done incalculable damage to Mr. Obama and the party he heads.   Those middle ground voters are not only being socked with the stress inducing consequences of the ObamaCare rollout, but they are now coming to the conclusion that the whole idea of ObamaCare was a mistake, a costly experiment in social engineering by a group of people who have no idea of how Mr. and Mrs. America live their lives and how challenging those lives have become.  They are disgusted and ready for a change.

The first opportunity to act on these feelings of disgust will come in the Fall of next year.  The bigger opportunity will come in the Fall of 2016.  Both are a long way off in realistic political terms.  But even at this early juncture, one overwhelming conclusion is that if the Republicans cannot capitalize on this dropping of the ball by Mr. Obama and his cohorts, they ought to just fold up the tent and go home.  This is a huge opportunity that, thankfully for the Republicans, did not rely on any skill or intelligence by the GOP; it was a pure gift to a party that, given its political obtuseness, needs to subsist on gifts.

Can the GOP capitalize on this?   Recent history would indicate that it can’t.  But maybe the Republicans can capitalize if they realize that the reason they now have a chance is that the people are tired of incompetence.   So rather than emphasize arcane issues in which many, if not most, people think government should be at best only ancillarily involved, perhaps the GOP ought to emphasize competence…the ability to get things done, an ability long and sadly lacking in Washington.   People are not ideological; people want results.  They may or may not want much from government, but they want government to deliver what it promises.  Government’s part in the life of the populace may not be a major concern in people’s lives, but people certainly want government to do its part, whatever it may be.

Is this an argument for a certain recently re-elected governor from New Jersey who has shown a distaste for ideological arguments paired with an ability to achieve results?   At least at this point, certainly.   If the GOP wants to win, it better nominate the big guy from Jersey.  If it wants to live in an echo chamber, constantly rehashing arguments most people don’t listen to, it can nominate one of the ideological warriors from Congress and continue to get a charge from listening to its imagined unappreciated brilliance.

CHRIS CHRISTIE AND CHUCK HAGEL NEED NOT APPLY

2/28/13

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, long time champion of lean, efficient, and limited governance and stalwart opponent of pubic employee unions’ efforts to highjack state and local government, was, er, disinvited to something that calls itself, still with a straight face, the “Conservative Political Action Conference (“CPAC”).”  

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and genuine war hero who favors a defense policy that defends and a foreign policy that cultivates foreign friends and encourages reason over hysteria, was confirmed as Secretary of Defense…but with only four votes from senators from the Republican Party, which still laughingly calls itself the conservative party.   See my 2/1/13 post JOHN McCAIN, CHUCK HAGEL, AND DEFERRING TO HISTORY, only the latest in a series of posts here and at the now defunct Rant Political that argued enthusiastically for Mr. Hagel’s confirmation.

What is going on in the “conservative movement” and the Republican Party?   Why are such good men with solid values, deep seated beliefs in the primacy of the people over their government, and optimism about and confidence in the American people (misplaced in yours truly’s opinion, but that is another issue) no longer welcome among the self-styled keepers of the conservative flame?

One “conservative” beef with Mr. Christie is that he, never a poltroonish type given to the hemming, hawing, and equivocating that characterizes most of the invited guests at CPAC, very clearly let it be known that he was fed up with Congress’s delay, or worse, in passing a relief package for his state of New Jersey and other areas affected by Super Storm Sandy.   Another complaint about Governor Christies is that he appeared too chummy with President Obama when the President toured New Jersey in the wake of Sandy.

Admittedly, the “Sandy relief” bill that emerged from Congress was a crummy bill.  It was loaded with provisions and spending that had little, if anything, to do with Sandy.   But that only reinforces Mr. Christies’s point.   The reason the bill took so long to, and almost didn’t, become law is because the Congressional popinjays insisted on seizing on the hardship of those affected by Sandy to get taxpayer money for their districts.   If they just passed a clean bill, relief would have gotten to the affected areas sooner and at a lower price.   But they didn’t pass such a clean bill.   And Mr. Christie realized that his constituents needed help right away.   He didn’t put Party ahead of his state and his job serving that state.  

And, yes, Mr. Christie was courteous toward Mr. Obama when the President visited Sandy ravaged New Jersey.   Since when is civility and gentlemanliness not a conservative value?    Does calling one’s self a “conservative” require that one be so consumed with hated for the president of another party that one treats that president with coolness, or contempt, when he is there to help in a time of need?   Is it a mark of honor and “true blueness,” if you will, to dump on the president of the United States, especially when he holds the key to getting relief to people who badly need it?   Mr. Christie has a job that makes him responsible for the welfare of the people of his state; unlike that of, say, Paul Ryan, a hero of the “conservative” movement, Mr. Christie’s job does not consist of preening for the cameras and assuming that the American people are badly in need of the type of wisdom that can only be gleaned from a lifetime of bloviating from Washington.   See my 1/26/13 post, PAUL RYAN:   MORE PAP AND PABULUM FROM THE MASTER OF HYPOCRISY.

Mr. Hagel’s unpardonable sin was finally seeing the light and opposing George Bush’s excellent adventure in Iraq that has already cost us billions of treasure and the incalculable value of thousands of American lives and will cost of us for generations not only in dollars but in enmity throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds and the legions of aspiring terrorists that will result.   Mr. Hagel also has the temerity to suggest that perhaps we think before going off on ill-considered crusades designed primarily to enrich those who bankroll the lifelong ego trips those who attend CPAC call careers.   (My words, not Mr. Hagel’s.  He is too circumspect to say the things that I can say.)   The War Party is now firmly in control of the foreign policy apparatus at the likes of CPAC and those who, like Mr. Hagel, favor a foreign policy grounded in the principles of limited government and careful consideration of national interests are no longer welcome.  CPAC’s view of the world can be summarized by the admonition to shoot first, aim later, and keep the campaign (?) cash flowing from the “defense” contractors.   Who needs a skunk like Mr. Hagel at such a wonderful garden party?

I’ve spent most of my life as a conservative.   That started to change as Ronald Reagan, after a pretty good start, decided that we could give ourselves goodies without paying for them and started us on the fiscal train wreck from which we are currently suffering.   The change picked up as the despicable George W. Bush decided that big government was just fine at home and was especially advisable overseas and that score settling, or who knows what, rather than national interests, should be the guiding light in foreign and military policy.   Now the banishment of Mr. Christie and Mr. Hagel, two of the few people in public life whom I respect and admire, has completed my metamorphosis.   Into what, I don’t know.   But if the people who find Messrs. Christie and Hagel so dyspeptic are “conservatives,” I know what I am not.