Tea Party in Wonderland

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, today is the 240^th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773).  These brave Americans sparked the movement that led to our independence as a nation.  And we know what they stood for because the ideals were boldly advanced in our Declaration of Independence.  Yet, Americans today, who claim to be affiliated with the Tea Party movement, are treated as far right wing extremists.  Unlike our ancestors, these Americans are not seeking a revolution; they simply want to restore the ideals that made America the envy of the world.

Old Gadfly:  Since we seem to have a fairly realistic understanding of our history and the political philosophy embraced by the Framers of our Constitution, today’s Tea Party appears to be experiencing the same kind of surrealism as Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  You suggest an interesting analogy, Gadfly.  What rabbit hole did they find?

AM:  The upside down world of politics.

Old Gadfly:  Explain.

AM:  Bluntly, while labeled far right and extremist, the Tea Party may be the only true voice of reason and authentic liberalism these days.  As I find myself spending more and more time in Gadfly’s library, I’m starting to see things differently.  Yesterday, I read F. A. Hayek’s postscript, “Why I Am Not a Conservative,” in his book, The Constitution of Liberty.  Hayek considered himself to be a liberal, but not in the way the term has been coopted by today’s “modern liberals” or progressives.  To Hayek, an authentic liberal was an advocate for individual liberty, a champion for removing obstacles to free growth (and conversely opposing new obstacles to free growth), and a defender of the long-standing institutions that enabled both liberty and growth.[1]  Modern liberals, on the other hand, and progressives are socialistic, not liberal, and they actually manifest the concept called conservatism.  Hayek compared liberalism and conservatism in the following way: 

Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time.  And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.[2]

 Old Gadfly:  It is not easy to follow Hayek because he is trying to instantiate a moving target regarding liberal and conservative dispositions of political philosophy in America’s political wonderland.  Many Republicans find themselves aligning more and more with socialistic policies of Democrats to curry favor for a label of “moderate” and fear being called “right wing.”  Some Republicans have opposed new obstacles to free growth (i.e., Obamacare, unbridled government debt, unbridled regulations, and any scheme for wealth redistribution).  As we have seen, they are called extremists, even by fellow Republicans who would rather go along to get along.  I still find it unfathomable that some Republicans still blame other Republicans for the recent government shutdown.  In essence, these acquiescing Republicans demonstrated exactly what Hayek was observing and writing about in The Constitution of Liberty.  Instead of standing for a set of principles, Republicans react to prevailing political momentum.  And, while it is the “modern liberal,” progressive Democrat faction that commands the direction of the prevailing political philosophy in America, which is increasingly socialistic, Republicans have failed to articulate an alternate philosophy to change public sentiment.  Thus, our nation drifts further and more rapidly toward a socialistic welfare state.

IM:  Wait a minute, Gadfly.  Democrats are generally recognized as liberals, and the party of ideas and social justice.  Republicans are generally considered conservative, the party of opposition, the party with no ideas.

Old Gadfly:  Yes, but that view is more myth than reality.  Our target audience for this analysis is the American people, not politicians.  It is the American people that advance ideas for innovation and progress.  The only ideas politicians have, whether Democrat or Republican, are how best to promise a good society to get elected.  The Democrat’s idea of social justice is justification for redistributing wealth.  These myths are why I say politics in modern America is like Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.   Unfortunately, the Democrat Party was inflicted with its progressive view in the 1930s.  Ironically, today’s Democrat Party actually demonstrates Hayek’s notion of conservatism because Democrat politicians are bound by the stock of ideas they inherited from Woodrow Wilson and institutionalized to a certain extent by Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.  The craziness of progressive politicians reminds me of the scene with Dodo, where he proposes a caucus race where everyone runs in some pattern of his or her own choosing, ending up where each began and each receiving a prize for “winning the race.”  The scene was pure satire on the ambiguity and indecisiveness of a political system; and, in this case, it figuratively describes the progressive political system. 

IM:  How does Hayek explain progressivism? 

AM:   Progressivism is a belief that political elite have superior knowledge and can advance progress through policies that will benefit the masses.  This is why they believe in strong, central government for planning and execution.  The ideology is socialistic in nature and has led to an explosion in entitlement programs.  Thus, governing principles are based on the two big Rs for political action:  redistribute wealth and regulate affairs in political, social, and economic domains.

Old Gadfly:  AM, let me interrupt you for a minute.  I recently read testimony by Dr. Roger Pilon, a Constitutional scholar, before a U.S. Senate Committee on October 25, 2005.  What I found striking about the testimony is that the majority of the laws and policies enacted in 1937 and 1938 exceeded the authority granted by the Constitution.  In the years 1937 and 1938 the Senate consisted of 76 Democrats to 16 Republicans, while the House consisted of 334 Democrats and only 88 Republicans.  Prior to his reelection in 1936, there was much debate within the Roosevelt Administration regarding how to deal with the US Supreme Court’s “nine old men” who were resistant to unconstitutional laws and regulations.  Roosevelt publicly threatened to pack the court with six more associate justices who would be comfortable with progressive intentions.  While this did not happen, the Court conspicuously changed its strict Constitutional lens and began rewriting the Constitution through Court rulings, not Amendments.  Does this sound familiar?  Remember when President Obama publicly rebuked the Supreme Court for its Citizen’s United-ruling during a State of the Union Address?  Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts had the Roosevelt experience in mind when he ruled the individual mandate was a tax in the Affordable Healthcare Act ruling—a ruling considered by many Constitutional scholars to be contrary to the enumerated powers of the Constitution.  Add to this Senator Reid’s historic and unprecedented rule change in the Senate (i.e., the nuclear option that allows a simple majority vote when a super majority vote was normally required) to break the logjam on Presidential nominees to key Administrative positions and federal courts, and we can see unbridled progressive power in full play.  Why is this alarming?  Three progressive nominees to a key Washington D.C. court will shift the current balance (now three liberal and three conservatives) in such a manner (six to three rulings) as to protect bold and sweeping rules and regulations being implemented by the Obama Administration.  These rules and regulations far exceed the enumerated powers delegated by the people in the U.S. Constitution.

IM:  Are there any regulations that we should worry about?

Old Gadfly:  Yes, the EPA is about to further impede economic free growth with new rules.  But the one that troubles me the most is the Treasury Department’s effort to prohibit 501(c)4 organizations from financially contributing to political campaigns.  This is the new tactic being employed to shut down many of the Tea Party and equivalent organizations that were successfully censored (and harassed) by the Internal Revenue Service between 2010 and 2012 (a tactic that was very successful until Congress became aware of it and started inquiring about it).  With a stacked progressive Court, these new rules will be protected.  Conspicuously absent is no Treasury Department effort to prohibit 501(c)5 organizations from supporting political campaigns.  This is the tax-exempt code for labor organizations.  The 501(c)4 distinction is available for left- or right-wing groups.  But, even in this current American political Wonderland, 501(c)5 organizations are all left-wing.  And, amazingly, following the government shutdown, more federal employees joined unions, even though they are public servants who serve at the pleasure of the American taxpayer.  Even the Hatter in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland would find this riddle to be a riddle wrapped inside a riddle.

AM:  How do we get out of this rabbit hole?

           Old Gadfly:  Following Hayek’s logic, the closest term to authentic liberalism in today’s vernacular is “libertarian.”  Libertarians believe in liberty, free growth, and the time-tested traditional institutions, such as a constitution with enumerated powers to limit the powers of government.  Members of existing political parties, whether Democrat or Republican, should try to better understand what the authentic liberal, now libertarian-oriented Tea Party movement represents.  This understanding is needed if they want our nation to regain its authentic American liberal ideals and the progress and prosperity they once generated.

---

[1] F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (The Definitive Edition), (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2011 [1960]),  pp. 520-521.

[2] Ibid, p. 526.

Two Michaels

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gadfly, as a 1970 United States Air Force Academy graduate, I am perplexed by the recent assault on one 1975 graduate by a 1977 graduate.

Old Gadfly:  You’re referring to Weinstein and Rosebush.  Recall, I too graduated from that institution in 1973; and, while I have known Rosebush since 1979, I had only a brief encounter with Weinstein about five years ago at the Academy Superintendent’s quarters during a social gathering.

 

            IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  This is interesting.  The public narrative so far seems pretty nasty.  Weinstein has sent a letter to the Acting Secretary of the Air Force demanding Rosebush be fired from his position at the Academy.  Of course, when I read the article that talked about the letter, I noticed it was written by Pam Zubeck, who used to be a journalist for the Colorado Springs Gazette but has since had her talents shifted to the Colorado Springs Independent—perhaps a discussion for another day.  How do you weigh the public narrative in light of your personal knowledge and experiences?

Old Gadfly:  Two mothers each gave birth to a son.  Each named their son, Michael.  One now goes by Mikey and the other Mike.  Both attended the Air Force Academy.  One became a lawyer and political activist.  The other became a pilot and counselor/therapist.

AM:  Ok, ok . . . what are your impressions?

Old Gadfly:  With an assault such as this, it is very difficult to remain bounded by political correctness.  So, here is a candid evaluation.  Mike Rosebush made a positive impression on me and my family in 1979 when our families were stationed together at Sembach Air Base, West Germany.  He cared about people.  He was a good man, full of love and compassion.  I know Mike to be a very spiritual person, yet he never proselytized with me or others in our unit.  While I have remained in contact with Mike over all these years, I know of nothing in his background to suggest he had lost his enduring love and compassion for others.  On the other hand, five years ago, I had about a 15-minute encounter with Mikey Weinstein.  He had no idea who I was or what I did.  For that matter all the individuals in our group were invisible to him.  The conversation was one-sided, and it was all about Mikey—his impressive contacts, his movie project, his nonprofit and all the issues he was taking on.  I later discovered Barry Fagin, a faculty member at the Academy, is one of his network allies.  Quite frankly, despite his ample girth, I saw a very small man who was all about power and taking power away from others.  In other words, we have two Michaels, one a giver and the other a taker.

AM:  Have you seen some of the trash being published?

Old Gadfly:  Yes I have.  And when I try to get through these attacks, it only reinforces the bigotry being perpetrated in the name of science.

IM:  Tell us more.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s start with Mikey’s letter to the openly gay Acting Secretary of the Air Force.  Here is the first paragraph of the letter:

With great shock and an enormous sense of disgust, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) has been informed of the notorious anti-gay bigot Dr. Mike Rosebushʼs employment at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). Needless to say, the employment of a fundamentalist Christian, “gay conversion therapy” advocate comes as a grave insult and palpable threat to USAFAʼs lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) cadets, staffers, and faculty members, including MRFFʼs 27 LGB clients at the Academy. Accordingly, MRFF demands that USAFA immediately terminate the employment of the notorious homophobe Rosebush.

Notice, the language is far from objective.  Look at the hyperbolic expressions:  “great shock,” “enormous sense of disgust,” “notorious anti-gay bigot,” “fundamentalist Christian,” “grave insult,” “palpable threat,” and “notorious homophobe.”  So, what is it exactly that Dr. Rosebush has done that has violated any laws, rules, or policies in his current posting?  Is there evidence that he has imposed his views on cadets, faculty, or staff?

Then, there is Dr. Barry Fagin’s column in the Colorado Springs Gazette.  Dr. Fagin’s biography claims he is “a committed scientist and critical thinker.”  Yet, in his public prosecution of Dr. Rosebush, Fagin makes, what is called in the world of science, unwarranted assertions.  He stated, “Far from being harmless, reparative therapy has done unconscionable harm to gay men.”  Yet, he offers no evidence to support the claim.  He further stated, “Practicing it on minors is illegal in many states.”  In fact, only two states make it illegal:  California and, most recently, New Jersey.  See our discussion on this action in our conversation, “A Progressive Republican?”  Then Fagin goes on to ask some good questions, something a critical thinker does:

But where is the engagement with "ex ex-gays," their heartrending stories of emotional abuse, the systematic denial of their ability to live a whole, integrated life? Where is the study that measures how many people who attempt reparative therapy are actually helped?

At this point in the article, I began to credit Fagin for critical thinking.  But, then he adds the following:

Where are the longitudinal follow-up studies that measure relapse rates? What are we supposed to make of the enormous body of scientific evidence against it?

Are we supposed to believe the infamous gay agenda has somehow co-opted the entire psychological community? I had no idea homosexuals in America had so much power. You would think they'd use it to avoid getting beaten up.

This is when Fagin displayed his skills at sophistry.  If he could not find “longitudinal follow-up studies that measure relapse rates,” then how can he logically follow that question with, “What are we supposed to make about the enormous body of scientific evidence against it?”  He just made an assertion:  that there is scientific evidence against it.  Against what—relapses or success?  If there is evidence, what is it?  Share it with the reader.  Finally, he mocks segments of our society by joking about who has power and who does not.

AM:  As you laid out your observations and arguments, I recalled an article by the Academy’s Superintendent about the importance of respecting others, in light of concerns about sexual assaults.  I especially noticed the thoughtfulness she demonstrated in the ultimate impact of rape:  “Research has proven that rape is about power, control and domination.  Rape is not about sex, though it is a violent crime expressed sexually. The victim has not ‘asked for it’ and does not enjoy it. Rape is often life-altering and can be life-threatening. In some cases, it can severely traumatize the victim.”

IM:  In this case, it looks like a gang rape of Dr. Mike Rosebush.  The perpetrators are Mikey Weinstein, Dr. Barry Fagin, Rachel Maddow, Chris Rodda (while visiting this article, I also noticed one by the Editor of Gay Voices at Huffington Post—this one spoke well for the pro-gay community), Sunnivie Brydum, Evan Hurst, John Aravosis, among others.  With the exception of Weinstein and Fagin, the people mentioned here are all gay.

Old Gadfly:  The major disappointment here is that those who are attacking Mike Rosebush want the public to believe individuals were victimized by those who have tried to help them.  To my knowledge, the programs designed to help are available for those who choose to use them when needed or desired.  Mike Rosebush did not coerce any individual into seeking his assistance.  Even Academy graduate Scott Hines, Academy Class of 1992, who was interviewed by Rachel Maddow, took the initiative to seek help; and, those involved during the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” era exercised admirable discretion in protecting Hines’ privacy and dignity. 

The irony is that those who accuse Mike Rosebush of being anti-gay also reveal their own capacity for bigotry and hatred.  Mike is not anti-gay.  He believes that certain behaviors, whether consciously chosen or passively acquired through imitation, can become habitual over time and may reach a point where an individual lacks the capacity to control them.  Mike’s expertise is in addiction counseling, which includes all forms of addiction.  I might like to gamble.  If I do it too much and become addicted, then I might need assistance in getting beyond the addiction.  In terms of addiction counseling for sexual orientations, whatever label people want to use, whether reparative, conversion, curative, or so forth obscures the helper’s (counselor, coach, or whatever label) intentions.  For those who want to change their behavior, as in moving from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation, current forces are working hard to discourage such a free choice.  Mikey Weinstein and others who are “raping” Mike Rosebush are also denying the freedom to choose for those who would want to make such a choice.  Those forces are examples of the secular progressivism that is trampling tradition.  In The Fatal Conceit, F. A. Hayek provided a compelling argument about such forces when they attack traditional values that have emerged from the trial and error of human behavior over time.  These traditional values balance the paradox of impulse versus reason.

AM:  That concept, progressivism, rears its ugly head again, Gadfly.

Old Gadfly:  It is an idea that is ubiquitous and insidious in penetrating our social conscience.  In 2005, Lee Harris authored an interesting article, “The Future of Tradition.”  At the time, a push for same-sex marriage was prominent in the news.  Harris argued that such a major change in modern culture would significantly tamper with time-tested tradition; thus, he was not in favor of such change.  I thought the article was bold and well-argued.  But, what really impressed me about Harris’s analysis is that at the end of the article he disclosed that he was gay and anticipated history would look back on this phase (homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular) in the evolution of the human condition as a mere experiment that would not survive the test of time and the enduring and stabilizing influence of tradition.

AM:  Obamacare might make it very costly for those who opt out of reparative or conversion therapy for smoking.  Maybe we’ll soon see a list of addictions that are eligible for reparative or conversion therapy.  But, then again, reparative or conversion therapy might be mandated for certain behaviors or political views.  North Korea and China still provide such services.

IM:  What can be done?

          Old Gadfly:  We must do three things.  First, we must challenge bigotry in all forms.  What Weinstein and his cohort are engaged in is bigotry.  Second, we must have the strength and courage to model the opposite of bigotry:  demonstrating respect for others (to include different views) through love and compassion.  Mike Rosebush is a model for this approach.  Third, we must continue to alert our friends, family, and strangers to the threat of secular progressivism.  This movement represents an ideology that seeks “power, control, and domination,” and is raping what used to be a liberty-loving society.

Accountability Is Bittersweet

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, last month, I promised a strategy for how to redeem America’s political quagmire.  The strategy is simple:  American citizens must demand accountability.

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, told a Congressional committee this last week that she was accountable for the rollout of the healthcare insurance exchanges.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  If Secretary Sebelius admits to being accountable, did she offer to resign?

IM:  She was specifically asked this question, and she said, “no.”

Old Gadfly:  So, if she admits to being accountable, what does “being held accountable" mean?

AM:  I would submit that if you are an American public servant in today’s bloated government, accountability means little to nothing.

Old Gadfly:  Amazingly, Watergate still serves as the notable example of corruption in government.  Yet, Nixon resigned.  Many of his aides were prosecuted.  Years later, after a spiritual epiphany, Chuck Colson turned himself in for obstruction of justice during the Watergate scandal.  He was convicted and served time.  He didn’t need to turn himself in.  Yet, as a man of character, Colson sought reconciliation with his conscience by holding himself accountable to the American people.  Colson shared his experience with the cadets of the United States Air Force Academy on November 17, 1993, nearly 20 years ago.  He opened his remarks with this statement:  “The breakdown of character is the number-one crisis in America.”

AM:  Now, we talk about other crises, like the 2008 financial crisis, the increasing inequality gap, and so forth.  Yet, Colson is so right in his assessment.  The character crisis of 1993 is minuscule compared to the absolute corruptness of character today, fueled either by greed in the private sector or power in the public sector.

IM:  I suspect this is what Pope Francis is implying when he said “We [the Catholic Church] cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

Old Gadfly:  What do you think Pope Francis meant by “we have to talk about them in a context”?

IM:  I think he means people find themselves in situations where the choices may be very limited and difficult.  The context means understanding the environment and conditions that that may be beyond an individual’s control, and that constrain the choices an individual can reasonably make. 

Old Gadfly:  Excellent point, IM.  I recall discussing some of these considerations in our conversation earlier this year about the reification of marriage.

IM:  Building upon these notions about context, are children more or less inclined to make bad choices when they grow up in a loving and virtuous family?  I think we know the answer.  A loving and virtuous family provides boundaries and rules for life, such as “the golden rule,” “the Ten Commandments,” “the Tau,” and so forth.  Children learn manners and respect for other people.  Unfortunately, the concept of family has been under assault in America.  The following Table compares poverty rates by family type in 2006 (the last year Republicans controlled Congress) and 2012.

AM:  The pattern reveals two important distinctions.   First, single parents are more likely to be below the poverty level, with single-mother families showing significantly higher rates.  Single-mother families are five times more likely than married couple families to be below the poverty level.  The second distinction is that the percent of the population below the poverty level has significantly increased since 2006:  9% for single-mother families, 24% for single-father families, and 35% for married-couple families.

IM:   These dynamics clearly explain why a certain party claims to protect women’s rights.  This party has been in power for nearly seven years now.  When will this single-mother voting demographic understand that a “protected class” and entitlement contract does not improve their conditions?  To the contrary, it worsens them.

AM:  Are we digressing, Gadfly?

Old Gadfly:  Not at all.  You and IM are describing facts that can help to articulate the context for the American political quagmire and how it can be remedied through accountability.  Unfortunately, for many on the political left, the facts will not matter if they do not fit their mental frame.  Many single-mothers are convinced by Democrats that Republicans, and even worse, Tea Party members, are committed to making life miserable for them.  Yet, historical data does not support this mental frame. 

Let’s look at the broader picture.  We look to the President of the United States for character-based leadership.  President Obama campaigned on a promise of hope and change.  He claims to be fighting for the middle class and that his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, will bring affordable healthcare to millions who have not had it.  He may have had good intentions, but his approach has had adverse outcomes.  Fighting for the middle class means advocating policies that give them jobs, not entitlements.  This is very consistent with the Catholic Church’s notion of social justice as explained in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.  Item 76 states, “Economic decisions and institutions should be assessed according to whether they protect or undermine the dignity of the human person. Social and economic policies should foster the creation of jobs for all who can work. . ..”  Item 77 states, “Welfare policy should reduce poverty and dependency, strengthen family life, and help families leave poverty . . ..”  As your poverty data reveals, the demographic impacted the most are married-couple families.

IM:  Data indicate economic decisions and policies under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress have “undermined the dignity of the human person” and have increased “poverty and dependence.”  The next graphic show actual labor participation rate (62.8% as of October 2013) is the lowest in 35 years.

The next graphic shows the average number of weeks unemployed (and drawing government-funded unemployment compensation) over the past 35 years.  The number peaked in October 2012 at 39.9 weeks.  Last month the rate was 36.1% and corresponds to the increasing number of “discouraged workers” who have exhausted unemployment compensation.  Under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress, dependency on the government has more than doubled.

The next graphic shows the number of Americans having to resort to part-time jobs.  As of October 2013, this number includes 8,050,000 Americans.  Complicating this particular labor statistic is that part-time jobs do not provide benefits, such as healthcare.  Again, the numbers have more than doubled under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress. 

Finally, the following graph shows the number of Americans who are classified as “discouraged” by the Labor Department.  These are individuals who want a job but believe no jobs are available.  The number peaked in December, 2010 with 1,318,000 individuals.  The number of discouraged workers as of October 2013 is 815,000.  These numbers are in addition to those listed as unemployed or part-time only.  Again, the numbers have more than doubled under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

 

AM:  These data clearly indicate the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress are failing to achieve positive social justice outcomes as encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Old Gadfly:  This is true.  Now, let’s look at a major policy that aggravates these circumstances:  the Affordable Care Act, that is, Obamacare.  Now that the government has reopened, the main news cycle topic is Obamacare, in particular getting individuals on insurance policies through the government website.  The website to this day is not working well.  And, we hear reports that most of the individuals signing up through the “exchanges” qualify for government subsidies or Medicaid.  Millions who had insurance have been dropped by their insurance companies because the policies did not meet Obamacare standards.  Many are discovering their options are more expensive.

IM:  President Obama did apologize in an interview on November 7 with Chuck Todd of NBC News.

Old Gadfly:  His apology was a superb example of sophistry.  Here is what he said:  "I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me."  He did not say “based on mandates in the Affordable Care Act.”  He said, “based on assurances they got from me.”  Think about what he is implying:  “People are losing their insurance and/or doctors because I, President Obama, said they can keep their doctors or insurance plans if they like them.”  Since Obama believes there is nothing wrong with the mandates in Obamacare, then people must be losing their insurance because insurance companies want people to lose their coverage despite assurances from President Obama.  This is consistent with his Freudian slip later in the interview when he said, “Now that -- you know, having said that -- given that I've been burned already with -- a website -- well, more importantly, the American people have been burned by -- a website that has been dysfunctional.”  I’m glad he added “the American people.”  But, it was an after-thought.

AM:  Ironically, none of this would be an issue had Reid and Obama “compromised” in September by agreeing to delay the individual mandate for a year.  Politically, this compromise was not feasible for the progressive Democrats because it was important to shut down the government in order to blame Republicans.  I think we argued a good case for what actually happened here in our October 18, 2013 discussion, “Obama’s Rubicon.”

Old Gadfly:  So, where is the accountability for the dismal economy?  Admitting mistakes might be a good first step.  Alan Greenspan does a great deal of admitting mistakes in a brilliant analysis of the global (yes, global—this was more than a U.S.-only manifestation) financial crisis of 2008 in a recent Foreign Affairs article, “Never Saw It Coming:  Why the Financial Crisis Took Economists by Surprise.”  In essence, Greenspan is critical of existing macroeconomic forecasting models (currently based on Keynesian principles), and calls for updated models that factor in herd behavior and investment risk factors.  Of course, these models are for policy-makers in government.

AM:  Speaking of risk, doesn’t Obamacare present a major risk to our economy?

IM:  More than people know.  Just imagine the damage already done.  Millions have lost their insurance.  Millions are being added to subsidized programs.  Remember, “subsidized” means taxpayer revenue filtered through the government. 

Old Gadfly:  Who should be held accountable here? 

IM:  Obama cannot run for reelection.  History will hold him accountable, possibly equating him to a modern Sisyphus, a chronically deceitful King of Ephyra. 

AM:  Yet, there are many elected officials who collaborated in the creation of the Obamacare monster, even though most of them were clueless as to what was in the legislation. Speaker Pelosi advertised this notion when she said we needed to “pass the bill to know what was in it.”  These irresponsible individuals can be held accountable in the 2014 elections.  Here is the list of Senators and Representatives who voted for Obamacare, who did not vote to repeal any of its provisions, and who are up for reelection in 2014:

            IM:  What is challenging about the relationship between elected officials and their constituents in some cases is a case of “self-fulfilling prophesy.”  For example, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee represents Houston, Texas.  Houston represents constituents heavily in need of government subsidies, such as Medicaid.  How could she vote against Obamacare?  Yet, “going along to get along” on the government dole did not benefit Detroit.  Is this scenario what “you pay me now, or pay me later” implies?

AM:  Politicians ignore “the context” and people they represent suffer because of their blind lust for power.  Politicians play and the people pay. 

Old Gadfly:  All good observations, gentlemen.  Now, despite political and cultural differences, I believe people throughout the world generally look to America to lead the way beyond current circumstances.  Don’t forget, the economic woes afflicting America are being experienced throughout the world.  Right now, Iceland, which has gone through what America is experiencing, seems to understand the importance of accountability as a means for moving forward.  Icelanders have assumed sovereignty and are now codifying a new government. 

            IM:  Accountability seems to be a backward-looking activity.  We need leaders to look forward in order to move our nation beyond its current circumstances.

            Old Gadfly:  True. And, this is where Pope Francis’s “context” is so important.  Politicians of the progressive movement operate from a normative worldview.  They see the world the way “it ought to be” and set out to make it so.  As we have discussed numerous times, George Lakoff assures his progressive cohort that it is this frame that matters; facts are merely convenient or irrelevant.  The character-based leaders we need are idealists grounded in reality.  These leaders must understand the context that bounds possibilities before advocating policies that advance the human condition.  These leaders understand, as God intended, the power of individual freedom.  These leaders understand that governments merely “promote the General Welfare,” as prescribed in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Governments do not “provide” welfare.  Welfare is a condition that results from cooperative efforts among individual citizens and the institutions of which they form, where government, whether federal, state, or local, is merely one among numerous institutions.  For example, corporations and small businesses are institutions.  Government regulation can enable or constrain the extent to which corporations and small businesses can operate to create wage-paying jobs and wealth for communities and the nation.  Right now, government regulation and the suffocating effect of Obamacare are heavily constraining corporations and small businesses.  The graphs we examined earlier are strong evidence of this constraint.

            Character-based leaders understand the importance of education.  Yet, today’s progressive approach to education is to program our children with a certain set of values, bounded by political correctness, to shape the way they see the world.  C. S. Lewis observed this approach as early as the 1940s and sounded an alarm about the “conditioners” and the “conditioned” in his book, The Abolition of Man.  Character-based leaders would understand that an authentic education is based on the Latin root verb, “educare,” which means “to draw out.”  Educators then should facilitate this process of “drawing out” individual capacity to love others at the level of agape and to advance original thought and invention.  Jesus “drew out” such a capacity of agape in His Sermon on the Mount (and its Beatitudes; Matthew 5:1-12).  Jesus inspired individual accountability as a liberating commitment.  This notion is elegantly described in the parable about Zacchaeus, the wealthy tax collector, in Luke 19:1-10.

            As Chuck Colson demonstrated in his actions, accountability is more than rhetoric.  Authentic accountability, while bittersweet, is a liberating experience that can benefit the advancement of the human condition.  We should demand it for ourselves as character-based citizens, and as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and neighbors; and, we should demand it from those in public service who choose to serve the citizens.

            AM:  It looks like we all have a lot of work ahead of us.

            Old Gadfly:  Yes, and it must start with each of us right now.