Red State’s John Hayward writes of a new book by David Harsanyi, Obama’s Four Horsemen: The Disasters Unleashed by Obama’s Reelction. A key “revelation” Hayward refers to in Harsanyi’s book is that the relationship between the average American citizen and his government has been transformed forever into something unhealthy.
We note that some would suggest that the small government tranformational “solution” is to let the system collapse so that a new beginning becomes the only course of action . . . let people have a good dose of the Obamanation and they will come around.
Our pessimistic side tells us that in the meantime too many people will have lost all concept of life without big government. Their real and perceived dependence, aggravated by subtle and overt indoctrination, sets in. The solution for them becomes not less government, not a revolutionary shedding of the shackles, but more government. Low information voters who dominate blue states are probably there. Can successful red states serve as a beacon shedding light on the way? We hope and pray. It remains a possibility as long as they are not dragged down by Washington and the confluence of blue voters.
Along that line Hayward worries that: the “Overton window” of political possibility has shifted so far to the Left that the right ideas are virtually unthinkable. The people who should be championing them, Republicans, are nervously eyeballing public opinion polls and calculating how many principles they’ll surrender in order to remain electorally viable.
Hayword asks: Where are the great champions of economic liberty and capitalism? Who’s out there demanding pro-growth tax cuts, regulatory form, and the end of the absurd nightmare known as ObamaCare – which will inflict dozens of times more bloat to the deficit than the allegedly grim “austerity” of sequestration will save, all by itself? What political leader will stand up to end this famine of ideas, put the mighty principles of capitalist freedom that built our exceptional nation on the table, and force Barack Obama to oppose them?
Our answer is that we do not know that a single Reaganesque grand communicator is on the political horizon, such an appearance has never been sufficient, and we believe that it is essential that we should not wait for such an appearance. A commitment of the reasonably competent to being part of a choir, even if not individually illustrious, even when they stumble on some notes, can lead the parade in the right direction. Are current Republican leaders in Congress up to at least marshaling the parade to some extent? Can they lead us around some of the dark curves (forgive our clumsy and mixed metaphors) ?
A March 1st article by Steven T. Dennis and Daniel Newhauser in Roll Call suggests to us the possibility. It involves capitalizing on Obama’s Lost Leverage.
Senior administration officials had for months predicted that Republicans would cave on the sequester and agree to more taxes, even after agreeing to $600 billion in tax increases in the New Year’s Eve fiscal-cliff deal.
After all, aides noted, Republicans had caved again and again . .
But Obama gave away the one big legislative stick he has in his arsenal . . .
Obama would not threaten a veto out of fear the public would blame Democrats for the shutdown.
But the decision only underscored what many Hill Democrats believe was a major negotiating error by the White House and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the fiscal-cliff deal.
By making all of the tax cuts permanent but only avoiding the sequester for two months, the president traded away most of his leverage in return for only half of the revenue he had been seeking — and no clear way to force Republicans to the table for more.
“It’s playing out exactly as we warned them it would,” a senior Senate Democratic leadership aide said.
It’s not as if Republicans were shy about making that argument at the time: GOP leaders immediately said that the deal effectively set in stone revenue for the president’s second term.
Will Republican leadership in Congress and governorships hold firm on taxes, protecting working families paychecks, and parlay that into fundamental entitlement reform, saving the economy, indeed the culture? This is their moment.
Getting back to an analysis of the “Overton window” . . . it might seem to be a concept that mitigates against revolutionary change because, as described in Wikipedia , “At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.”
If that is the prevailing interpretation of the concept, perhaps it gives too little credit to the possibility of revolution in increments or, that with the right strategy, the concept can be applied to make or break revolution, or walk society back from a precipice, or blindly toward one. In other words might it be thought of as a vehicle for revolution, or counter-revolution? Fundamental change without one large (obvious) political cataclysm, and perhaps useful in overturning liberalism? We will continue to develop our thoughts on the matter. R Mall
