Madison rolls over

As “Black Monday” dawned to the realization that the fraud-filled spectacle of "ObamaCare" has finally passed the House of Representatives, you may have noticed some rumblings under foot.  It wasn't an earthquake in the literal sense, though from the perspective of our constitutional republic, it might as well have been. It was the sound of James Madison rolling over in his grave.

Of all the Founding Fathers, Madison was the one who most understood the importance of structure and process in our new democracy.  He would have been shocked to hear the President of the United States telling the media that process doesn't matter, or the Democratic Majority Leader of the House of Representatives say that the American people don't care about how the government “makes sausage” -- only that it "gets things done".  To Madison, any such talk would be akin to blasphemy: the Constitution was set up to prevent the kind of system where rules could be changed on a whim, and where partisan, parochial "ends" could always be justified by employing "means" which would put government -- and not the people -- in charge.

In short, the sausage making matters.

Madison understood principally that if the American system of government was going to be truly "by and for the people", it had to function in a way that enshrined a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, thereby preventing both the whim of an executive acting by fiat, or a tyranny of a majority in Congress usurping the rights of the minority party and acting on "winds of passion".  The challenge for Madison and the other Founders – particularly Hamilton and Jay, his fellow authors of the Federalist Papers – was to create a structure of government that simultaneously gave vigorous representative power to the legislature, but which ensured that this power would be divided between different branches, two distinct houses of Congress, with different representations, rules and procedures.  The goal, as Madison outlined eloquently in Federalist 51, was to ensure that government -- in scope and power – be controlled:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Principal among these “auxiliary precautions”, according to Madison, was to “divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other” as possible.  The House of Representatives, then, was to be apportioned and elected differently than the Senate. House members, elected every two years and assigned to a relatively small constituency, was to be the “people’s house”.  The Senate, until 1913 appointed by state legislatures, offered equal representation among states irrespective of size and six year terms, insulating it from the vagaries of popular opinion. It also offered clear rules that protect the rights of the minority party from being steamrolled by the majority (thus the “filibuster”). The combination created, in Madison’s words, “opposite and rival interests, and the defect of better motives”.  And these motives were – first and foremost -- to create a government that reflected the will and interests of the people.

Given this, one can only imagine the outrage that Madison would feel today as the Congress – the very institution he crafted so carefully – made a mockery of its balanced powers to break every procedural rule in the book to pass a wildly unpopular bill.  It was a bill so unpopular, in fact, that the Democratic leadership in the Congress knew it could not pass on its own merits, and within Congress’ normal rules and procedures. After the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts as the “41^st vote against ObamaCare”, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid decided to do an end-run around the Constitution by re-writing House and Senate rules to fit their partisan goals . Thus you had Rep. Louise Slaughter (D, NY) putting forth “Deem and Pass” – essentially passing the bill without any vote at all -- and Harry Reid’s decision to in the Senate to use reconciliation on ObamaCare to avoid the filibuster, even though the architect of the reconciliation rule, Democrat Robert Byrd, has said clearly that the rule is not appropriate for legislation of this scope and magnitude and should not be used.

For the left, such opinions are nothing more than inconveniences. The goals of progressive government – universal health care, wealth redistribution and social justice -- are so important, not even the Constitution itself should stand in its way.  Obama has said so himself: In an interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001, he talked explicitly of the Constitution as a “flawed document” with “essential constraints” that were placed by the “Founding Fathers and Constitution” limiting its ability to promote social justice goals.  Thus the concept of the Constitution as a living document, open to modern interpretation and cultural updating.  This is no longer a theoretical threat to the Constitution.  This threat now sits firmly in power on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

James Madison certainly understood one important thing about the nature of man and power: “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”  Indeed, our leaders today are no angels.  And never have we more needed Madison’s prescriptions for a limited government that operates on rules which guarantee the rights of the minority, and which derives its legitimacy from We the People.  They work for us, after all.  We don’t work for them.

To Obama, Israel is the real problem in the Mid East

You know something is fundamentally wrong when the United States is playing hardball with its only ally in the Mid-East (outside of Iraq -- thank you, George Bush!) -- while giving Iran a veritable pass in its on-going efforts to build nuclear weapons. Why is the U.S. giving Israel a hard time? Because it had the temerity this past week to announce that it was going to pursue more construction in its capital city (Jerusalem) that was beyond the artificial "green line" border that marks the boundary left over from the 1967 war. Israel is, of course, a sovereign nation and this is (of course) an internal decision that is (frankly) none of the United States' business. Right?

Well, not exactly. You see, the Obama Administration sees Israel as the evil-doer in the region, and believes that if it weren't for Israel settlements and Israeli aggression, peace would be at hand. As Jennifer Rubin at Commentary Magazine writes, the "Obami's" (as she calls them) have now left it up to political Chicago players David Axelrod to go on national TV to chide the Israelis for having the gumption to defy "The Messiah's" wishes that Israel lie prostrate in front of Hamas and the Palestinians and beg for their lives:

The White House is, as this report suggests, upping the ante with continued criticism of Israel. Taking to the morning talk shows, David Axelrod — a political operative who now seems at the center of foreign-policy formulation (more on this later) — went on the Fox, ABC, and NBC Sunday talk shows to repeat how insulted the Obami were over Israeli building in Jerusalem and what an affront this was to them.

The reaction of the Obami is even more startling considering the location and strategic importance of Ramat Shlomo. But this administration doesn’t make such fine distinctions and is not like past ones, we are learning. It might have something to do with the fact that Axelrod and the Chicago pols are running foreign policy. It’s attack, attack, attack — just as they do any domestic critic (even the Supreme Court Chief Justice). It’s about bullying and discrediting, trying to force the opponent into a corner. And in this case, their opponent is plainly the Israeli government. For that is the party the Obami is now demanding make further concessions to… well, to what end is not clear. Perhaps we are back to regime change — an effort to topple the duly elected government of Israel to obtain a negotiating partner more willing to yield to American bullying.

The language the Obami employ – ”personal,” “insulting,” and “affront” – suggests an unusual degree of personal peevishness and hostility toward an ally. That, I suppose, is the mentality of Chicago pols and of those who regard Israel not as a valued friend but as an irritant. And it is the language not of negotiators but of intimidators.

Does this strike anyone other than me to be the height of hubris? The notion that Obama would be personally affronted by the actions of an democratic ally in a region that has nothing but monarchs, despots and terrorists? It also again reinforces that there is a strong anti-Israel lobby within the Obama Administration -- which is not surprising, since the liberal intelligentsia (oxymoron) and academic infrastructure that animates the Obama White House and foreign policy establishment is generally unsympathetic to Israel, if not down right hostile. The truth is that conservatives and Republicans have always been a better friend to Israel than has the left -- even as Jews vote for Democrats over Republicans by a 90-10 margin. Makes no sense -- but that's the deal!

In any event, the irony that Obama would be beating up Israel while the Mullahs in Iran continue their "centrifuge party" in Tehran is quite amazing. We have an Islamic revolutionary state that is trying to wage war against its neighbors while oppressing democracy at home and what is Obama excited about? Israel builing a few more homes in Jerusalem? Are you serious?

Here's a quote from Rubin's piece that sums this up nicely. From Illinois Rep Mark Kirk (now a Senate candidate):

This year marks the 15th anniversary of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, making it official United States policy that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel,” Congressman Kirk said. “As a staff member, I helped draft this historic legislation; as a Congressman I continue to urge its enforcement. History teaches us that a divided Jerusalem leads to conflict while a unified Jerusalem protects the rights of all faiths. I urge the Administration to spend more time working to stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and less time concerned with zoning issues in Jerusalem. As Iran accelerates its uranium enrichment, we should not be condemning one of America’s strongest democratic allies in the Middle East.

Couldn't have said it any better myself. The reality here is that Obama still believes that a lasting peace is possible with the Palestinians and their terrorist leaders, and the if only Israel would concede and appease, progress would be made.

Wait a minute: haven't we seen this play before? Didn't Ehud Barak offer up to Arafat a two-state solution with virtually every concession that Arafat (supposedly) wanted? And what happened? Did the Palestinians choose peace?

Up is down and down is up and through a looking glass we go (again and again)!

The Hurt Locker and Hollywood

Last night I watched my first Oscars telecast since at least 2004.  I will admit to having developed a profound distaste for the event during the Bush years, when poorly educated, overpaid actors professed their opinions (and feigned knowledge) of international politics and foreign policy.  These opinions -- from the likes of Sean (Jeff Spicoli) Penn, George (ER) Clooney and others -- were harsh, anti-Bush and, at a time when American is at war, anti-American.  And when coupled with the snarky comedy of David Letterman and Chris Rock was enough to make me ask repeatedly:"Where have you gone Billy Crystal"? The 2010 edition of the Academy Awards seemed to represent a change -- if not of political perspective, certainly of attitude.  Not only did "The Hurt Locker" -- a film about the U.S. military in Iraq -- run away with the evening, but it's victory was accompanied by an acceptance speech from the film's director that actually paid tribute to American soldiers in harm's way.  While in previous generations such a statement of support might not have been anything unusual, in today's leftist Hollywood the speech by Best Director recipient Kathryn Bigelow is significant, indeed.  Her words, greeted by polite applause by the audience, were not echoed by the film's producers who also accepted the Best Picture award, leaving Bigelow to again repeat her "thanks" to "those who serve" a second time, though this time she did seem a little sheepish (saying "sorry to reiterate") and then throwing firemen, hazmat teams and others who keep us safe.  In a telecast with admittedly very low expectations, and even with Bigelow's slight temporizing at the end, it was a significant moment for Hollywood.

But what does it really mean?  Bigelow herself has called the film "anti-war" -- which may have swayed some dovish voters to support it, though when I saw the movie I did not come away with that message at all.  The Academy may have been rewarding a female director who has gotten herself out of the outsized shadow of her ex (fellow Best Director nominee James Cameron), or it may have found a movie that allowed it to tell the rest of America that it is "pro troops" even as it remains anti-war.  Or maybe in a crowded field where Avatar and its computer generated characters took the air out of the room, the movie was simply "the best of the rest".

We will never know the collective reasoning of the Academy, of course.  But could it mean that Hollywood has begun to tire of the leftist diatribe it has been on for the past decade?  Roger Simon at Pajamas Media asks this question in a piece entitled: "Did the 2010 Academy Awards mark the end of liberal Hollywood"?

The 2010 Academy Awards may not have marked the end of “liberal Hollywood” as we know it, but they certainly put a solid dent in it. With the pro-military “The Hurt Locker” winning over the enviro-pabulum of “Avatar” and Sandra Bullock garnering the Best Actress Oscar for a Christian movie, the times are a-changin’ at least somewhat, maybe even a lot.

But one thing is now certain. It is time for conservative, center-right and libertarian filmmakers to stop feeling sorry for themselves and go out and just do it. Their “victocrat” days are over. No more excuses. “The Hurt Locker” and “The Blind Side” have proven that it can be done. Get out of the closet, guys and gals. If you want to make a film with themes you believe in, quit whining about Industry prejudice and start writing that script and trying to get it made. That’s not an easy thing, no matter what your politics.

Right siders can take inspiration too from Sunday’s Oscar ceremonies themselves. They weren’t defamed for a moment. Missing in action was the usual libo-babble, no extended hymns to the cause du jour or ritual Bush-bashing. And Barack Obama wasn’t even mentioned. Not once. But the troops were – several times by Kathryn Bigelow.

We are obviously long removed from the Hollywood of John Wayne, who embodied American patriotism in film, or of Jimmy Stewart, who heroically flew a B-17 in combat in the real war against Germany. But it is possible that we've turned a bit of corner in the vehement anti-Americanism that Hollywood has taken up since 9/11, though I certainly wouldn't call the success of the Hurt Locker last night a sea change.  As Donald Douglas has recently pointed out, there is an effort underway by Robert Greenwald's  Brave New Films to fund a series of "hardline leftist films on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars" that use U.S. veterans to pursue a very typical anti-American line of exploitation and imperialism.

If past is prelude, I'd say that Greenwald will need a big star or some gratuitous nudity to find a large audience for his leftist fare: previous anti-American films on Iraq have fared badly at the box office, and have failed to find an audience -- let alone win mainstream cinema awards.  The Hurt Locker's appeal stems in part from its avoidance of policy and its gritty, realistic portrayal of young American soldiers in battle.  In fact, I found the Hurt Locker to be a patriotic film -- not in the "Flying Tigers" or "Hellcats of the Navy" genre, but rather in it's portrayal of American kids showing courage, ambivalence and even fear under fire.   These are things that ordinary Americans can relate to, and that is in part why the film has been so well received.

The free market fix for health care

You might remember last year when Whole Foods CEO John Mackey sparked a furor among progressives for having the temerity to exercise his First Amendment rights and pen an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal that proposed an alternative to the big government takeover of health care that Obama/Pelosi and Reid have been pursuing.  Mackey had the gall to point out a central truth that the left seems to ignore time and time again: incentives matter.  If you continue to shield patients from the true cost of care through an overly regulated, overly complex system,  while insisting that they not be financially responsible for all but a tiny fraction of their treatment, you will get abuse of the so-called "health care dollar".  It's a pretty basic concept for those who understand (and accept) that human behavior is sensitive to incentives: when things are perceived as "free" or when someone else is paying, consumption goes up.  When people have "skin in the game" they require more information, look harder at choices and tend to make better (more cost-effective) decisions. Businessmen like Mackey at Whole Foods and Steven Burd, the CEO of Safeway, understand this much better than do the politicians in Washington.  Of course, Mackey and Burd view the health care issue as a problem in search of a rational solution, rather than as an opportunity for government to achieve its ideological goals while taking over one-seventh of our economy.  They both instinctively know that doubling down on government entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security are not the answer. Burd, in particular, has written a number of outstanding op-eds on how Safeway has used incentives to drive down the cost of their company's health care programs, principally by rewarding healthy behavior and making employees financially responsible for a portion of their out-of-pocket health care costs.  As Burd notes, what Safeway has done has been successful beyond dispute:

As a self-insured employer, Safeway designed just such a plan in 2005 and has made continuous improvements each year. The results have been remarkable. During this four-year period, we have kept our per capita health-care costs flat (that includes both the employee and the employer portion), while most American companies' costs have increased 38% over the same four years.

It is clear to me after watching the recent "Health Care Summit" that neither Obama, Pelosi, Reid or their fellow ideologues on the left are really interested in solving the health care cost problem.  If they were, they would be looking at the real world examples where market-based solutions have worked.

And its not just in the private sector.  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels -- who has been getting a lot of positive attention recently for his handling of Indiana's fiscal house during the recession -- has penned an opinion piece today that takes the Safeway model and expands it for government workers.  The foundation of Daniels' program are Health Savings Accounts (HSA) that put tax-free cash into accounts for patients to use for their own health care.  It's the kind of market-based innovation that promises to create incentives for patients to ask questions about how much things cost and about how effective a given treatment is (not surprisingly, ObamaCare eliminates the use of HSA's altogether -- all the better to keep patients out of their own health care decisions.)  Daniels describes this as "individually owned and directed health care coverage" -- a description that big government progressives will undoubtedly dislike, since it actually puts power in the hands of people.  But the Indiana experience shows that in health care plans where the patient has "skin in the game" the use of medical care is more judicious and effectively applied.  Indiana state employees enrolled in the plan will save some $8 million in 2010 compared to their co-workers enrolled in the old-fashioned PPO system where the employee pays nothing more than a co-pay.

It should be no surprise that the real solution to rising health care costs is to let the free market work: empower consumers with more information, give them a stake in the process and then let dollars flow to the most efficient, effective providers.  Health care has an example it can look at today in the area of cosmetic surgery -- a fee-for-service market place that is highly competitive.  Patients shop for the best combination of quality and price because they are generally paying out of pocket for the service; the result is a true market where providers actually compete for business.  Its the best way to enforce the twin goals of quality and cost.

One can only hope that Pelosi and her band of merry socialists fail to jam through Obamacare now, and that a new Republican majority in November will enact a series of market-based solutions that will work to make care both more accessible and affordable.

When will we wise up?

I was first inspired to start blogging back in the summer of  2005 in the wake of the July 7 terror attack in London.  I had lived in London during the late 1980s, and I was concerned then that Britain's penchant towards "multiculturalism" was creating an environment that was all too accommodating of radical Islam.  Indeed, the mosques and Imams in Finsbury -- not far from where I lived  -- were the source of the radical students who set off the bombs on the London transport system. Britain has sown the seeds of its radicalism by allowing the hate mongers to preach their venom without fear of retribution, and indeed with many legal protections. In the interest of being "open" the Brits have actually enabled an enemy to thrive inside its borders. It seems that at least some in the UK have gotten the message. From the Telegraph UK comes this piece entitled Detroit Terror Attack: A murderous ideology tolerated for too long. Its primary thesis is that the murderous ideology of radical Islam is tolerated in a way that other radical beliefs are not -- and that we do so at our own peril.  The most pertinent passage is as follows:

Is it time for a fundamental rethink of Britain's attitude towards domestic Islamism? Consider this analogy. Suppose that, in several London universities, Right‑wing student societies were allowed to invite neo-Nazi speakers to address teenagers. Meanwhile, churches in poor white neighbourhoods handed over their pulpits to Jew-hating admirers of Adolf Hitler, called for the execution of homosexuals, preached the intellectual inferiority of women, and blessed the murder of civilians. What would the Government do? It would bring the full might of the criminal law against activists indoctrinating young Britons with an inhuman Nazi ideology – and the authorities that let them. Any public servants complicit in this evil would be hounded from their jobs.

So, somehow preaching the murder of innocents is tolerated when it is done by Muslims, but not when it is being done by Nazis. Why? Because of the fear of being labled a racist. It is why so many things go unsaid in our culture today: it is too dangerous for people to speak the truth. It is more important to be sensitive and tolerant than it is to be right. We have dumbed ourselves down to the lowest possible common denominator.

Hear no evil.  See no evil.  Speak no evil.

The radical Imams who preach this hatred to young, middle class students in British university understand this all too well. They are gaming us -- and preying on our desire to be politically perfect in our sensibilities. It is a weakness from within that they are exploiting mercilessly.

By the way, lest you think this only happens in Europe: This is exactly what happened at Fort Hood, when Major Hasan was tolerated by his peers and promoted by his superiors even though he was openly preaching hatred. He wasn't stopped because even in the military we've been chilled by political correctness and a desire to be open.

When will we wake up and start to understand that our tolerance is being used against us?  When will we conclude that profiling and proactive security measures is needed to keep air travel safe?

When will we wise up?