Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Majorities, as such, afford no guarantees for justice… They [are] … likely to be equally — perhaps more than equally, because more boldly — rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if entrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of the majority, than of a minority.”     Lysander Spooner

August 24, 2009

The “Logic” Of The Left

by Brad Warbiany

Why is Obama having so much trouble getting cap’n'tax, health care reform, and his other policies through? Apparently, it’s because he’s just too good at solving problems (emphasis added):

Rahm Emanuel famously said that you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. But the Obama administration made the mistake of effectively managing the financial emergency when they entered office. They faced a serious threat, but they never let it become a serious crisis. As such, the normal laws of political gravity never lifted, and everything went on pretty much as normal, albeit with the Federal Reserve sitting atop a much-larger balance sheet. The political dynamic right now is a lot closer to the mid-90s than the mid-30s.

If this isn’t tortured logic, it’s certainly been subjected to enhanced interrogation.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/08/24/the-logic-of-the-left/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

4 Comments

  1. Actually, the logic sounds accurate. The part he neglected to mention is that there is enough vehement opposition to his policies that he could only push them through in an abnormal political climate. Kinda like the “PATRIOT” act.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — August 24, 2009 @ 11:44 am
  2. So all the bad stuff in the economy that they are still struggling with is still all Bush’s fault. Any “mess” which is STILL a “mess” is a mess he “inherited.” But anything in the economy that turned out NOT to be as bad as they thought it was going to be is NOT a result of any inherited conditions. Oh no, it is a result of their “effective management” since mid-January.

    Shorter Emanuel: “Anything good? We get ALL the credit!! Anything bad? Blame Booosh!!!”

    Let me get this straight: He appears to be saying that what they did was a “mistake” in that it did not cause sufficient economic MISERY, so that even more draconian reforms and transfer of power from the private sector to DC (like that January “stimulus” lard package) could have been crammed down the throat of a public in panic “save us now” mode. So this Dickhead is now REGRETTING that unemployment did not hit 18% while President Wee Wee’d was still above 50% in his approval ratings?

    I like that benign sounding “sitting atop a much larger balance sheet.” As if this multi-trillion dollar mess is just a little bothersome accounting quirk.

    Comment by southernjames — August 24, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
  3. Jeff,

    You’re correct, in that the argument might be valid. I’d argue instead that it’s unsound.

    Premise 1: If the crisis had been worse, he could have passed cap’n'tax and health care reform.

    Rebuttal: Not sure. Stimulus round 2? Yeah. Nationalization of the banks? Probably. Environmental regulation or socialization of health care (long-term problems for which the solution has little short-term appeal), I’m not sure I buy it.

    Premise 2: He effectively managed the economic situation.

    Rebuttal: He let Summers & Bernanke throw money around into the banking system with reckless abandon and passed a pork-laden stimulus package with spending that won’t actually spend much until next year. And oversaw unemployment up to the 9.4% mark. It’s also highly unclear — since the financial problems are ongoing — whether they can keep the helicopter drops of money from turning into runaway inflation before the end of his term.

    So I think premise 1 is arguable (but probably the stronger of the two). Premise 2 suggests that without his “effective management”, the economy would have gone nuclear, which I think is unprovable (since you can’t prove what would have happened) and also incorrect.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — August 24, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
  4. You’re probably right on Premise 1. On Premise 2, though, you’re over-estimating the role of facts in political debate. The political consensus is that it would have been that bad and “letting Summers and Bernanke throw money around” was the “effective management” of the situation. They don’t need no stinkin’ proof when they gots consensus.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — August 24, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML