Monthly Archives: June 2012

Civility in Public Discourse

This weekend, Aaron Sorkin and HBO’s new television show Newsroom premiered with much anticipation from the viewing public, thirsty for relief after their recent loss of Game of Thrones.  Sorkin, the Emmy and Academy award winning writer who has brought us stand out work such as A Few Good Men, The Social Network and The West Wing, made his cable debut in the network drama.  In each review I’ve read, the subject of civil discourse was mentioned as a dominant theme.  

After watching it Sunday, it is evident that “civil discourse” and Mr. Sorkin’s contempt for its current state today in both politics and political reporting is a strong theme in the new show.  This is not a novel idea in which Sorkin will reshape the world of politics.  The President also laments over the current lack of civility in our political arena, as well as other Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Neo-Nazis, Mets fans, and Heat fans to name a few.  Whenever I hear this from either side of the aisle I find it hard not to laugh.  Besides the fact that this false indignation is nothing more than a political ploy, one usually utilized by the side sitting in power who takes the daily brunt of ridicule from the opposition, those who use it also pine for the politics of yesteryear as if there is some magic example from America’s past to save us.  Even the original description for this space when it was created read: to advance the political discourse of the United States.  Really Mr. Burns, how about we solve the debt crisis first?

An uncivil discourse is the price one pays for the good fortune of living in a Democratic-Republic, where the peaceful transition of power is one of the, if not the highest priority in the United States.  Our civilized society functions absent the use of violence as a means to political ends.  That being the case, the road to political power in the United States is through oratory and the written word, and these words are often vitriolic.  Short of going after one’s family members (unless of course it is a member of the Palin family), anything and everything is deemed fair game. 

The last day Americans were actually unified politically was the surrender of the British at Yorktown.  Since then, whether it be Federalists and Anti-Federalists, Democratic-Republicans and Whigs, or Republicans and Democrats, the divide in this nation has been far and wide between ideological nemeses of both parties, and also at times within the parties themselves.  In 1789 General George Washington was the most revered man in America, and the only President ever elected unanimously by the Electoral College.  Yet half way through his first term, a significant number of men with whom he built the federal government turned their backs on his policies as President.  The influence of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton became too prevalent in the President’s decisions, his opponents said, and for the first time in twenty years the great hero of the revolution felt the backlash of negative public opinion. 

The National Gazette was published by an opposition party on October 31, 1791 (Madison and Jefferson, Burstein and Isenberg, Random House 2010) by a Frenchman named Phillip Freneau, but at the secret behest of more powerful figures.  At this point political parties had not been officially established, but arguments and attacks of President Washington’s policies and that of his advisors were presented with the coordination and passion we see today by current politicians, partisan pundits, and news organizations.

The puppet master behind the curtain of this new editorial paper was none other than a member of the Washington’s cabinet, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, as well as Virginia Congressman James Madison.  Both men at one time revered Washington as much as any man in America, probably more so given the struggles they understood he endured in the execution of the Revolutionary War, and the new weight he carried as President of the young nation.  All three were “men of Virginia”; farmers who helped deliver the birth of a new nation that now stood alone in the world, and together they were tasked with its keeping.  Madison was Washington’s chief advisor throughout the Constitutional convention, and later became Washington’s principle speech writer in the early days of his presidency.  Jefferson served as a member of the Second Continental Congress that named Washington General of the Continental Army, and after returning from France in 1789, was named by Washington to serve as his Secretary of State- the country’s first official diplomat to the world at large.  

Yet within two years into his first term as President, both men became vehemently opposed to Washington’s policies to help centralize the federal government, which both men suspected was a direction taken by the president influenced heavily by Washington’s now most trusted advisor, Alexander Hamilton.  Jefferson soon resigned the position of Secretary of State, sparking a decade long struggle for power between the Federalists (Washington, Hamilton and Adams) and the Jeffersonian-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe).  The battle was furnished with published pamphlets oozing of libel, backdoor dealings and maneuvers to undermine the opposition, and a general distrust between old friends.  This culminated in an all-out battle for the soul of the nation that ended when Jefferson assumed the Presidency, and all but politically wiped out the remaining “Federalists” of the time period. 

As such, our Constitution’s rule requires the candidate win 50% plus one of the vote in the Electoral College to attain the Presidency, the highest office in the land.  This resulted in the production of two parties, gearing our elected officials in opposition or support of the sitting President, molding their party principles based on the current circumstances of the country based on economics, foreign policy et al.  The institution of the United States government is no stranger to opposition within the government, usually vied between different branches.  This stark example of Jefferson walking out on Washington, or serving in fierce opposition as Vice President to his former ally and friend President John Adams, are just a few of countless examples in which civility has been entirely absent in our American political system.  

The good feeling of the victory against the British could not save these men from the dinge of politics, an arena that became so coarse that the President’s senior cabinet advisor resigned before he could barely begin his second term as president.  In that term, Jefferson used the veil of retirement to allow him to secretly plot against President Washington, his emerging party and its agenda.  There could not be a better illustration depicting the struggles of civility between parties in American politics in the country’s history save for a tragic and monumental example in 1861.  This tale which is one of hatred, jealousy, lust for power, and ultimately betrayal, occurred between a collection of men who took on so monumental a task together as founding a new nation in a New World.  Just because of their iconic status as Founders- Washington a great leader, Jefferson a great writer, or Adams a great orator- doesn’t lift the taint of their parties’ mutual dissatisfaction for the other, and the means they employed to discredit the opposition.  What binding achievement such as the founding will keep our civility intact in our own times? 

The current trumped up charge that civility in politics is a relic that existed during better times in our country is one advanced by both sides of the aisle.  This tact allows each party to claim ownership to the positions that will only help our country and right the failing policies of our federal government, simultaneously making the charge that the opposition only stands in the way with their uninformed rhetoric.  This ignorant and libelous rhetoric, somehow always employed by the “other side”, only demonizes their opponents without offering real solutions to advance progress in this country.  This hackneyed allegation has become, like so many other things, just another political parlor trick in the war of words that dates back more than two centuries in the United States. 

Americans are inherently suspicious of power in the hands of our elected officials that we actually chose to vote for.  We are even more suspicious of those we did not choose support and we make a point of saying so, often vociferously and sometimes viciously.  It may not be neat, nor is it civil.  But it never has been.  And never will be. 

– John P. Burns

“No one in government takes responsibility for anything anymore. We foster, we obfuscate, we rationalize. ‘Everybody does it,’ that’s what we say. So we’ve come to occupy a moral safe house, where everyone’s to blame, so no one’s guilty”- Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing

Like many presidential candidates before him, Senator Barack Obama ran in 2008 as the reform candidate.  He ran as the Washingtonoutsider – a fresh and bold voice in an antiquated city of corruption and graft.  He ran as the man that would vanquish the partisanship of the Bush years from our nation’s capital.  He ran as the man who would simplify government, and turn it into a well- oiled machine.  He claimed he would go line by line to fix our budget, halve the debt in his first four years, and cleanse the disarrayed leviathan of bureaucracy and inefficiency.  He claimed lobbyists would not be allowed in his White House.  And above all, he would restore our citizen’s trust in our government, and put their lives on a path back to prosperity. 

All of this was enticing, refreshing and above all, a great sell.  But now, three and a half years later, none of what has been mentioned above has been accomplished, and Republicans have made that argument at every turn of the campaign.  And though they do not expect Mr. Obama to roll over, he and his supporters’ new plan of attack has taken political hypocrisy to new levels- a phenomenon that, before 2009, no one thought could possibly happen.

At a fundraiser this past Tuesday (he’s quickly approaching 200 for his first term), the president argued the allegations made against him about his fiscal mismanagement are not only hypocritical, but of complete falsehood:

“I love listening these guys give us lectures about debt and deficits…it’s like somebody goes to the restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, martini, all that stuff and then just as you’re sitting down, they leave and accuse you of running up the tab.  That’s what they do.”

The problem with the quote above is not that President Bush ran up the debt and deficit spending (he did), but somehow the American people shouldn’t expect the President to put forth measures to fix it.  Nor should they expect him to actually stop the practice, which has helped cripple our economic growth.  Essentially, like a seven year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar after his friend had already plundered his own, Mr. Obama feels he can do just as Mr. Bush did, and then blame it on him. 

Mr. Obama inherited four trillion dollars in new debt from Mr. Bush over eight years, including President Bush’s’ final fiscal year (counting bank bailouts and TARP) which included one trillion dollars of debt on its own.  But just because President Obama was handed a tough situation (he was) means he automatically gets eight years to fix it?  Instead of making the tough decisions of actually attacking our government’s inefficiencies (out of control spending, overloaded welfare and entitlement programs) the president decided to follow in Mr. Bush’s footsteps and then hop right over him. 

Mr. Obama has accrued annual deficits of one trillion in not one year as Mr. Bush did, but in every year of his first term, running up more debt in that one term than any other President has in two.  The people of the United States understand Mr. Bush made mistakes- namely handing over the keys to the Treasury vault to the Republican congress presiding in the years 2000-2006.  President  Bush paid for those mistakes when said Republicans were thrown out in that 2006 election, paving the way for the Pelosi Democrats to take control of the legislature.  But those Democrats spent just as much, and when Mr. Obama was sworn in he soon followed suit.  At this point it can be argued, and should be argued as advocated by Peggy Noonan and Jonah Goldberg, that President Obama’s first term is an extension of President Bush’s.  Not only has he continued President Bush’s policies of containing terrorism (a good thing) but continued his fiscal actions of irresponsibility (a very bad thing).

To bring this full circle, as it comes back to campaigning for every politician, the message put forth in this speech by the president is essentially that because Mr. Romney is a Republican he will continue the “failed polices” of the Bush years.  And, all things being equal, because the country voted for Mr. Obama as a repudiation of Mr. Bush, he should be returned to office to prevent a third term for our beleaguered former President.   If that were the case though, and President Obama’s policies were such a stark contrast to Mr. Bush’s and above reproach, Democrats wouldn’t have been wiped out of the House in 2010 in historic fashion.  And, as the incumbent president, Mr. Obama would not be polling only 0.8% higher than Mr. Romney in the RCP average for national polls. 

Republicans lost their way in the previous decade.  Mr. Obama made a point to inform the nation of that in 2008, but two years later the likes of Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney have agreed with him.  There are new leaders of the Republican Party who are promoting new policies (albeit founded in the old American principles of personal responsibility) that directly combat the fiscal problems of the Bush years, whose results have now been prolonged by Mr. Obama.

President Obama has had a tough start to his re-election campaign.  Most recently he made the claim (or gaffe) that the private sector “is doing fine,” as dismal job numbers were reported that created a stomach punch reaction in the stock market.  So now he has reverted to the old adage of blaming President Bush for our woes, and the republicans who, if returned to the White House, will bring us back to those evils.  But those problems haven’t ended under the President; they have been exacerbated by his own initiatives and that of his party at a frightening pace.  President Obama should perhaps think twice about making the constant references to President Bush, as he only continues to draw comparisons to his own actions in his first term, and their failures.  

– John P. Burns

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”- James Madison, The Federalist No.10

There is still hope for theUnited States, and for that matter the entire European Union, in the results ofWisconsin’s recall election this Tuesday.  The voters of Wisconsin returned Governor Scott Walker to office after a nasty recall vote, which was an appeal for his head as much as his office by the well-organized and aggressive public sector unions.

After Mr. Walker was elected in 2010, he began to make good on his promises to bring down the state debt and alleviate its burden on Wisconsin citizens.   Mr. Walker chose to challenge the state’s public sector unions, and enacted plans which he campaigned for in order to force them to pay more into their health care and pension plans, as well as diminish the power of their collective bargaining agreement.  These measures were created to lighten the load on the tax payers (property taxes have dropped in the last year) and enableWisconsinto avoid the fiscal catastrophe that awaits many other states in our Republic as a result of bloated benefit plans for state employees.  These unions rallied and gathered all their political strength through the Democratic Party to recall the governor‘s election, running Mayor of Minneapolis Tom Barrett against him.  In turning back the democrats’ efforts for the governor’s office, the voters ofWisconsinTuesday proved a government of the people, by the people and for the people, can still make tough choices when faced with challenges to which there are no easy remedies.

And to be clear, these choices should not be as tough as they are reported to be, especially in the mainstream liberal media.  All the respect in the world should be given to people who choose a life of public service, working in state and federal government positions to keep our water running and help manage the important role government does play in our lives.  At the same time, this does not give such groups carte blanche in their benefit demands.

As recently as the Carter administration, Democrats had avoided supporting government unions and collective bargaining agreements, as the pitfalls of such organizations were easy to predict.  Their unionization has helped paint state and local governments into corners, allowing for lavish benefit plans that cripple their state budgets.

When the Democratic Party lost its way giving strong support to these unions, the labor bosses were given unprecedented powers of demand in their respective states.  All state employees were forced to blindly pay dues into their respective unions, dues which have dropped since such unionization has been repealed in places like Wisconsinand Indiana.  Money was then funneled through these unions’ dowries where the fat cats at the top of the power structure chose to use this money to strongly support politicians that would continue to extend their benefits, essentially buying their elections.  This has continued to spiral out of control in the last thirsty years, leaving state governments in the impossible position of paying for these benefits less the levying of higher taxes on the citizens of their state.  This goes against the grain of logic, as such measures leaves less money for the very public these public servants are meant to serve.

With Mr. Walker, as well as Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, strong reform was pushed to revamp these plans.  Mr. Walker and Mr. Daniels stilled aimed to prove worthy benefits for state employees, but forced  them to pay more.  As reported by George Will, under Mr. Walker’s plan state employees were asked to contribute 5.8% (most were paying less than 1%) to their pensions and pay 12.6% of their healthcare premiums.  This is far less than the private sector average on both, as most work today without pension plans and pay on average 21% of their healthcare premiums.  While it is understood strong benefits are created to entice people to work in public service, essentially making up for their low salaries, these benefits cannot become so extravagant they become a financial anchor on the state economy and the people.

What do the results of this recall election say?  A lot.  The historic danger of a Democratic-Republic as argued since the days of Romehas been the interests of factions dominating the government, constantly voting themselves more money and more benefits at the expense of others.  It was the fear of Madison in The Federalist, as well as Lincoln seventy years later, that our republic would not survive under the weight of this burden, and would be torn asunder from within.

We see now in the United States, as well asEurope, that entitlement benefits have spiraled out of control, and have placed a heavy toll on the fiscal solvency of state and federal governments.  The result of this recall election. which as gave Mr. Walker an even larger margin of victory than in his 2010 election, does give hope that citizens can act responsibility when their future is at stake.  Reforms that have seemed to work in the last two years can now be continued, and the people ofWisconsin, as well as the country, will see if there is a way we can dig ourselves out of this massive hole.

Lastly, this will affect the Presidential election as well.  Governor Romney will surely take notice and push the successes of Republican governors Walker and Daniels in their states’ respective fiscal reforms.  But what about the President?  Mr. Obama has a chance here to do two things- continue the Democrat Party line of blind allegiance to public sector unions, trying again to garner the vote of dependency that has just been rejected in a state he won by fourteen points in 2008.  Or he can take his party on a new path, joining Republicans in the fight to restore our country’s fiscal sanity, as well as revamping the Democratic image.  Reforms need to be put into place, and our public servants still need benefits.  This is a fine line to toe, and it is certainly a challenge considering the heavy hand of power yielded by public sector unions.

But nowhere did anyone say self-government is easy.  It’s just that the voters of Wisconsin, and Governor Scott Walker, are up to the challenge.

– John P. Burns

As the federal government continues to grow more intrusive on the lives of the American citizenry, this disturbing trend has taken hold at the state and city level as well, specifically in the city of New York.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the elected mayor and knighted Nanny of the city, has continued his crusade against personal choice and responsibility throughout his third term with ridiculous laws like the banning of smoking in parks.  Recently, he has floated the idea of allowing apartment buildings to ban smoking altogether, coming close to nearly outlawing the habit.  Today, as reported by the New York Times, the man without a doctor’s license took his healthy living fight a step further, arguing for a law to limit the size of drinks with sugar (soda, slurpees, coffee ect.) no more than 16oz. 

 The good Mayor’s reasoning, much like the rationalization of almost any constricting health initiative lately in the U.S., is the high obesity rate in the country.   To cut down on this obesity problem, drinks can then be regulated by the amount served to limit the sugar intake of our citizens, helping prevent this disease and the vast complications that arise at its contraction. 

I am no doctor, and quite frankly at twenty-six, one’s health is obviously lower on the radar screen of importance than it should be.  At the same time, if I choose to have a soda, and a large one at that, then it should not be up to the city of New York if I can or not.  I know, as all adults should, that having even one Pepsi (my all-time favorite drink) a day on average is bad for you.  I drink water and club soda with most meals.  The occasional Pepsi gets broken out if I am snacking or just in the mood.  But when I am in such a mood, I do not need the Mayor of New York City telling me I can’t have one over a certain size.  No one I know drinks water in the movie theater, and if one wanted to cut down on the ridiculous pricing of seeing a movie presently, it would be easier to split a large soda with his date than opt for two mediums.  But under this law, he cannot do that. 

If preventing illness by such measures is then acceptable, the Mayor should regulate the butter allowed on popcorn at the movies as well, to help prevent the possibility of heart disease from high cholesterol.  Or maybe ban beer from Yankee Stadium to prevent the side effects of alcohol.  At that point let’s get rid of Hot Dogs at the ball game too for whatever they do to you.  Maybe ban ketchup- there’s a decent amount of sugar there.  Only water and buns sold with mustard are allowed at Yankee Stadium now boys and girls, start spreadin’ the news. 

As always with progressive policies, the one’s created to “protect” the people from themselves inherently limit their freedoms.  Choice is no longer an option under such laws, and the Nanny state grows omnipresent as each new law is passed, making those of us with a head on our shoulders question as to how far the government can go.  If all of this is in the interest of health, and that is how it is spun by our government overlords, then logically it follows that there is no way to judge where this crusade will stop.  Thankfully though, The New York Times covered this story, and provided the public with this rationalization for these measures:

“The measures have led to the occasional derision of the Mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom.  But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption…”

Unsurprisingly, the NYT can be relied on to let the reader know that the government is always right, naturally because the people in office are smarter than you and I.  The proof, much to the chagrin of the few of us who “occasionally” deride the mayor as a Nanny, is that other old rich white men governing cities around the country have taken these measures as well!  Given the current state of the nation, it is comforting to know that we can rely on our mayors and councilmen to take time out of their busy schedules of passing on an all-encompassing debt on to our children and grandchildren, to pass legislation that won’t allow them to drink a large soda at a movie that they probably can’t afford to see in the first place. 

If the mayor is so interested in dictating the minutest details in the lives of his subjects, as we seem to be nothing but subjects at this point, then he should just switch over to the Democratic Party.  This will kill two birds with one stone, as it will rightly fit the ridiculous nanny state policies he has enacted as mayor, as well as ensure him re-election in Manhattan without having to spend half a billion dollars in the process.

 

– John P. Burns