The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

Jonah Goldberg

With apologies to Henrik Temp

By Jonah Goldberg

March 21, 2012, 3:37 pm

Henrik, I agree with a lot of your points, for the obvious reason that they’re statements of fact. Young people’s attitudes are different than older peoples’ attitudes. That is part of the reason we call them “young people.” And while I agree that Republicans can and should do better in explaining conservative views in terms young people understand, I think Republican politicians should also go to some lengths to explain to young people why they are wrong.

Simply because young millennials have disproportionately liberal views doesn’t require conservatives to show disproportionate deference to liberalism when talking to millennials.

They shouldn’t do so for several reasons, but I’ll just expand on two.

First, young people are very good at spotting condescension and pandering. There’s nothing more uncool to young people than older people trying to act cool. If old Republicans start talking to young people “on their terms,” odds are they will make a hash of it. If you have to do that sort of thing, it’d be better to have young Republicans talking to young non-Republicans. I’m not a huge Ron Paul booster, but I’ve been struck by how many young people think Ron Paul is the exciting guy in the presidential field this time. Barack Obama, from what I can tell, is not nearly so cool to young people as he was in 2008 or as you make him sound today. You say that millennials love Barack Obama in part because he “gets” technology. I don’t get the sense that Ron Paul is a whiz at technology. Moreover, what an absurd reason to like a candidate! I like single malt scotch, Tommy Bahama shirts, and Star Trek, but I would never cite such shared affinities with a politician as a reason to vote for him.

Which brings me to point number two. Conservatives are supposed to believe in the power of ideas. If 2+2 = 5 is wrong for a 65-year-old, then it’s no less wrong for a 21-year-old. The same goes for free markets, foreign policy, and the rest. The rush to cater to the views of young people is not merely condescending, it’s a form of power-worship. Again, I hold no brief for Paul, but his success with younger voters stems directly from  the fact that he at least seems unafraid to hold unpopular and principled (and at times esoteric) positions.

Conservatives should be telling young liberals that they are wrong in their views not because they are young but because they are liberal. If that message needs to be sugarcoated or framed in such a way so as to protect their delicate sensibilities, that’s fine, even if it reflects poorly on young people. Politics is ultimately about persuasion, after all. And if the Republican Party wants to pander to millennials by showing how hip it is, it is free to do so. But it seems to me, as a conservative concerned about America, the wiser course of action is to level with young people in the hope that they grow up and put aside childish things as quickly as possible.

Jonah Goldberg

Is Intrade really that useful?

By Jonah Goldberg

January 30, 2012, 1:07 pm

I don’t want to start a war with my AEI colleagues, specifically Intrade junkies Mark Perry and Jim Pethokoukis, but can I offer a small bit of skepticism about Intrade?

I understand why prediction markets are interesting. But am I the only one who thinks they are incredibly overblown? On any given day, some friend of mine will blog or tweet or otherwise opine about how Mitt Romney is now at X on Intrade or how Newt Gingrich now has a 29.3 percent chance of Y on Intrade. I am always at a loss about how much, if at all, I should care about this information.

From what I can tell, the “prices” for shares in political candidates have been all over the place over the last year. So how predictive are they, really? It seems to me they don’t really measure the likelihood of anything so much as the prevalence of certain aspects of conventional wisdom. It’s a clever way to poll people in a given moment, not some ingenious new mechanism for gleaning the future.

When I complain about Intrade to some of my Intrade-obsessive friends, they say that the numbers change because the facts on the ground change. And in the end, the accuracy is great. Well, first of all, isn’t that true of conventional wisdom, pundits, polls, etc. too? In the end, everyone’s accuracy is great. The closer you get to an actual event, the more ironclad the predictions that that event will occur become. Predictions that your plane will crash in a giant fireball decrease precipitously once the plane’s wheels safely hit the ground, and they drop to zero when the plane parks at the gate.

It reminds me a bit of that scene from Fletch when Chevy Chase pretends to know someone who died.

Dr. Joseph Dolan: You know, it’s a shame about Ed.

Fletch: Oh, it was. Yeah, it was really a shame. To go so suddenly like that.

Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was dying for years.

Fletch: Sure, but… the end was very… very sudden.

Dr. Joseph Dolan: He was in intensive care for eight weeks.

Fletch: Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually died. That was extremely sudden.

At the very end, when Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum actually wins the Republican nomination, Intrade will predict that outcome perfectly. Until then, it’s just another kind of focus group.

Or am I wrong? What is the metric that proves the value of Intrade? I am open to correction on all of this.

Editor’s note: See Jim Pethokoukis’s response here.

In his Bloomberg column, my friend and National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru has a great list of questions he’d like to see asked of the Republican candidates at the next debate.

On the policy side, I can’t think of any I’d like to add. But there’s one on the philosophical side that might be worth asking: “Not including Ronald Reagan, who are the three Republican political leaders you most admire and would seek to emulate?”

I know it doesn’t sound like much more than a softball question, and if you’re prepared to answer it, it is a softball question.

(As an aside, that’s true of pretty much all questions: they’re only hard if you don’t have a good answer ready. Michael Dukakis was famously asked about what he’d do if his wife was brutally raped and murdered. It was an easy question to answer for a politician not designed in a Harvard lab. But Dukakis’s monotone and unfazed reply helped solidify his reputation as a bloodless wonky automaton.)

Anyway, for decades now the Republican Party has become ever more worshipful of Ronald Reagan. That’s fine by me, of course, as I consider myself a Reaganite as well.

But Reagan was a product of a different time and his legacy offers something for everyone. Moreover, as his historical legacy has grown, he’s crowded out other inspirational figures in the party and the conservative movement. The result is that most of the candidates just get to say “I’m Ronald Reagan!” “No, I’m Ronald Reagan!” like they’re reenacting Spartacus, without ever having to align themselves with a distinct faction or tradition.

So since everyone claims to be a Reaganite, invoking Reagan doesn’t really tell us much. Even Ron Paul says nice things about the Gipper (even though they hardly got along that well when Reagan was in office). Still, you have to give Paul some credit; he at least invokes Robert Taft too, from time to time.

Personally, I’d like to know how the candidates see themselves in relation to Eisenhower or Taft, Goldwater or Rockefeller. They might not answer honestly, but even their dishonest answers would tell us something worthwhile.

The results in Iowa demonstrate why politics vexes the overly literal and technocratic. If you’re a young Mitt Romney type running a Powerpoint presentation on the metrics of your success in Iowa, it would seem like a home run. With much fewer inputs Romney got the same or better outputs. He won, albeit by a razor thin margin, whereas he lost last time. In 2008, he had ten times the staff he had this time. In 2008, he also invested enormous amounts of his own time. This time around he barely showed up in the state. Last night he dealt a mortal blow to Rick Perry and successfully crushed Newt Gingrich. Again and again, if you crunch the numbers Romney had a big win.

But politics isn’t just about the numbers. By hyping a win in Iowa over the last few weeks he raised expectations and then failed to fulfill them. He appears more like a man who can’t close a deal than he would have had he come in a respectable second—but had declined to seem like he was competing at all.

Jim—That’s an interesting theory and, like you, I have no idea if Fingleton is right. But I do think we should have a pretty heavy dose of skepticism. Fingleton is deeply invested in the idea that the Japan Inc. model is superior to America’s. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was one of the foremost champions of the idea. In 1995 he came out with Blindside: Why Japan Is Still Winning the Battle for Global Supremacy (alternative title Blindside: Why Japan Is Still on Track to Overtake the U.S. By the Year 2000). As far as I know he’s never given up on the idea that Japan’s corporatist model is superior to America’s messy version of capitalism (indeed, a chapter to one book is titled “Sayonara Capitalism”). Here he is earlier this year claiming that the two lost decades storyline is a myth.

Again, he may be right. But I would be extremely skeptical until an expert—several experts actually—in Japanese economics lacking his preferences and biases corroborates his conclusions.

A new Harvard poll finds that young people are not the feedstock of a new youth movement as so many on the left had hoped:

Do you consider yourself to be a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement?

So roughly three-quarters of young people and college students in particular don’t consider themselves Occupy Wall Street supporters.

When asked how closely they’ve followed Occupy Wall Street:

Overall, how closely have you been following the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations?

Six percent of 18-29 year-olds (and 8 percent of 4-year college students) said they followed them very closely.

That’s not exactly evidence of a movement catching fire with young people.

Jonah Goldberg

Marx was wrong about history

By Jonah Goldberg

December 13, 2011, 1:04 pm

It’s “first as tragedy, second as Farsi.” From Fars, an Iranian news service:

Obama Begs Iran to Give Him Back His Toy Plane

TEHRAN (FNA)- US President Obama is hoping that the Iranian government is in a Christmas mood because he has asked Tehran to send him his Christmas present back.

We are still wondering how he shamelessly asked Tehran to give the US back the stealth drone which had violated the Iranian airspace for espionage.

“We have asked for it back. We’ll see how the Iranians respond,” Obama said following a meeting at the White House with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Jonah Goldberg

Learning from Europe

By Jonah Goldberg

December 9, 2011, 7:46 pm

Given everything going on in Europe these days, I thought it might be worth jumping in the WayBack Machine and jaunting back to this January 2010 column by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman titled “Learning from Europe.”

As health care reform nears the finish line, there is much wailing and rending of garments among conservatives. And I’m not just talking about the tea partiers. Even calmer conservatives have been issuing dire warnings that Obamacare will turn America into a European-style social democracy. And everyone knows that Europe has lost all its economic dynamism.

Strange to say, however, what everyone knows isn’t true. Europe has its economic troubles; who doesn’t? But the story you hear all the time—of a stagnant economy in which high taxes and generous social benefits have undermined incentives, stalling growth and innovation—bears little resemblance to the surprisingly positive facts. The real lesson from Europe is actually the opposite of what conservatives claim: Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works.

Actually, Europe’s economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London? You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe—official economic statistics or your own lying eyes—the eyes have it.

In fairness, Krugman does go on to cite statistics to back up his impressions. But I’ve always liked this part of the argument. It reminds me of the old story about how Nixon was asked if he believed in over-population and he replied, “Of course the world is overpopulated. Everywhere I go, I see huge crowds.” (That’s the way I heard it, at least).

Suffice it to say that just because New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman didn’t see poor and backward parts of Paris, London, and Frankfurt on his various junkets doesn’t mean Paris, London, and Frankfurt do not have poor and backward parts.

Anyway, as Europe grapples with its troubles—troubles largely resulting from the fact that it cannot afford the successful economy Krugman sees as so apparent, maybe it’s time to learn from Europe after all.

Correction: The original post misstated the date of the Paul Krugman column.

I got a fundraising email from Obama campaign manager Jim Messina yesterday. It’s long, so I won’t reprint the whole thing here, but I liked the opening hook:

Friend —

This weekend, The New York Times Magazine ran a long analysis of the 2012 election headlined, “Is Obama toast?”

It uses a mathematical formula to conclude who will win this race.

In other words, it says neither you nor Barack Obama has a role to play in this election, because the outcome is essentially predetermined.

We disagree.

The outcome will depend on what we do every single day between now and November 6th, 2012. And I want to give you an idea of how we know that.

Now, Messina’s right. The computer models are only accurate if the future operates like the past. And it’s totally understandable that the campaign would want to tell supporters or would-be supporters that defeat is not foreordained.

Still, there’s some fun to be had here. For starters, Obama rode in to office on the claim that he was on the right side of history. We were destined for something big. He was the one we were waiting for. Or we were. Or something.

Computer models such as these are simply a way of quantifying probabilities based upon past history. If the models say that Obama’s chances are dim, that’s a pretty dismaying diagnosis because the math is saying that Obama’s now on the wrong side of history, as it were.

More to the point, the Times essay, written by Nate Silver, employs social science which—we’ve been increasingly told—is the sole property of the reality-based community. How dare it render a verdict that offends its masters?

Then there’s the whole spectacle of the Obama administration trying to use The New York Times Magazine to stir up populist defiance. The magazine has been a Hallmark card to Obama for half a decade now. But now, because it sides with perfidious math, it’s the official newsletter of Mordor.

Oh, and one last thing. The title of the article ends with a question mark. It’s not “Obama is Toast!” but “Is Obama Toast?”

In fact, Silver concludes:

Average these four scenarios together and the probabilities come out to almost exactly 50-50. A month or two ago, when Perry and Romney appeared about equally likely to be the Republican nominee, it would therefore have been proper to think of the election as a toss-up.

With Perry having slumped in the polls, however, and Romney the more likely nominee, the odds tilt slightly toward Obama joining the list of one-termers. It is early, and almost no matter what, the election will be a losable one for Republicans. But Obama’s position is tenuous enough that it might not be a winnable one for him.

That’s hardly the iron cage door of history slamming shut on the Obama re-election campaign, now is it? But Messina and his team are quite desperate to fire up the troops any way they can. Quite desperate indeed.

Allen McDuffee reads my column today and asks if I now think Occupy Wall Street is more conservative than I suggested last week.

He makes the leap that in order for Occupy Wall Street to get Obama out of office it would have to vote for the Republican presidential candidate. But that’s not true. It could tell people not to vote. It could throw its weight behind a third party candidate. I don’t see why Occupy Wall Street has to vote Republican in order for Obama to lose.

This assumption prompts him to ask:

So then the question is: Does Goldberg now suggest that the Occupy Wall Street movement does, in fact, have conservative tendencies or is he suggesting they abandon their ideals for the anybody-but-what-we-have strategy in 2012?

I don’t agree with the logic. But the short answer is no, I don’t think Occupy Wall Street is remotely conservative, save perhaps in some interesting but essentially fringe romantic, literary, or anarchist interpretations.

But I do think he pegs a more basic point about the nature of the two party system. Independent movements tend to hurt the ones they’re closest to. The Naderites hurt Democrats in 2000. Ross Perot hurt Republicans in 1992. Roosevelt stole votes from Republicans in 1912. Occupy Wall Street is by no stretch of the imagination a third party. But, generally speaking, it is much closer to Obama’s worldview than anybody in the GOP field.

I wasn’t offering tactical arguments to Occupy Wall Street, largely because I don’t think they’d listen and I don’t think they much care about such matters anyway. My point was that the OWS flame can’t become a prairie fire so long as Obama is soaking up all the political oxygen.

Still, McDuffee’s sort of right in the sense that, to paraphrase Orwell, being pro-OWS is to be objectively anti-Obama.

Our own Eric Teetsel has  produced an interesting video for the Values and Capitalism Project. I applaud his effort to build bridges and find common ground, but I’m afraid I have to dissent from his “takeaway” from his visit to the Occupy Wall Street encampment in New York.

He says that the protesters are “a bunch a people who are conservatives but just don’t know it.”

Eric’s conclusion rests in large part on some pretty discrete pieces of evidence. One kid says that he likes the sound of Paul Ryan’s block-granting Medicare to the states after Eric describes it to him. Anyone else there like Paul Ryan?

Eric intriguingly notes that the protesters are creating spontaneous order, in the Hayekian sense. Okay. But while Hayekian spontaneous order is a conservative or libertarian term used to describe a universal social dynamic, it does not necessarily follow that all spontaneous orders are therefore conservative or libertarian in any meaningful sense. Convicts in prison, street gangs, and the cast of Survivor all create spontaneous orders out of their circumstances; that hardly makes them contributors to some sort of conservative enterprise in a philosophical or economic sense.

Or, to take a less pejorative example, consider the Israeli Kibbutz movement, which Irving Kristol and others have described as the most successful socialist enterprise of the 20th century. To be sure, the values of self-sacrifice, delayed personal gratification, self-reliance, communal cooperation, etc. were integral to the Kibbutz and those values have an honored place on the right, but how far does it get us to talk about the “conservatism” of the Kibbutz in the context of “values and capitalism”?

For instance, Eric says he was most impressed by the “entrepreneurship” of the protesters who built a water filtration system. I get that it’s creative or innovative and those things are integral to entrepreneurship. But, again, that sort of ingenuity is part and parcel of Kibbutz and prison camp alike. I have no doubt that one can find the ponies of self-reliance and social entrepreneurism in the manure pile of Occupy Wall Street if one looks hard enough, but that doesn’t make the manure pile invisible.

Meanwhile, is it really true that the protesters are all that self-reliant? According to the New York Times, they’re being sustained by free food shipped in daily.

Meanwhile, I think it’s important not to lose sight of the political import of Occupy Wall Street. Even if this was a campground for modern day Horatio Algers—which I do not believe—the OWS movement is lending its voice to institutions and personalities who are fundamentally opposed to capitalism. One needn’t call the full roll of speakers at Zuccotti Park and its sister protests to know that I am right. But when Francis Fox Piven, the American Communist Party, Slavoj Zizek, et al are being greeted with cheers or at least open arms or when surveys of actual protesters show that a third advocate violence to advance their cause, I for one do not find much solace in the fact that they’ve done yeoman work creating a water filtration system.

A few observations:

1. It was not a scintillating presidential debate. One of the biggest surprises for most viewers came in the form of the discovery that they actually had Bloomberg TV on their cable systems. That’s not a great sign.

There are plenty of recaps around of the blow-by-blow so I won’t rehearse all that (but Ed “Kilroy” Morrissey, who actually managed to appear in one of the video pieces, has a good one and NRO has a very good symposium).

2. For me, the big takeaway from the debate is that it confirmed the story arc of the last few weeks. Rick Perry is fading, Herman Cain is surging (some might say peaking) and Mitt Romney is the only guy in the race who looks both ready to be president and eager to be president.

That, I think, has been Rick Perry’s biggest problem. A lot of punditry on the right and in the mainstream media has focused on Perry’s alleged apostasy on immigration and the bizarre political riot over his policy of (almost) mandating Gardasil vaccinations for the HPV virus for young Texan girls. And while such criticisms (at least from the right) are for the most part sincere and substantial, they’re also exaggerated because of the partisan climate.

Regardless, none of these issues were—or are—insurmountable in their own right. It’s just that Perry entered the race unprepared to answer questions about them, never mind attacks. What has come through about Perry is that he hasn’t spent years plotting, thinking, maneuvering to be President of the United States. I think this speaks very well of his character. But it is also a major liability when going up against a guy like Mitt Romney, whose definition of relaxation is to do extra credit homework assignments.

Last night was Perry’s best performance insofar as he made few mistakes and had some solid answers. But he still looked like his heart isn’t it. He rarely interrupted, intruded or commanded the attention of the table or the audience. People who want to be president and know what they think—or know what they should say they think—barge in and make themselves heard. Winners always want the ball. Perry seemed like he didn’t want to play. That’s deadly for him because the only thing the base of the party wants more than a full-spectrum conservative is any conservative who can beat Obama. If he doesn’t show he has the fire in the belly, his positions don’t matter.

Unfortunately, Perry seems to still think he has a Romney problem. He doesn’t. He has a Perry problem. And he won’t fix his Perry problem by aiming negative ads at Romney. His lost supporters haven’t gone to Romney. They’ve gone to Gingrich, Santorum and, most of all, Herman Cain.

3. As for Mr. Cain, what’s not to like? Well, for starters, (as Jim Pethokoukis notes below) his 9-9-9 plan. But Cain did just fine last night. He didn’t get flustered. He didn’t back off. And he has one thing that no one else in the field has. He’s sunny.

It’s amazing. For all the talk among conservatives and Republicans about how we need another Reagan, Cain is the only one who seems to understand that being upbeat, happy and joyful is hugely important. Everyone else in the field (with the slight exception of Gingrich who you can at least tell enjoys being on stage), is either mean, angry, whiny, defensive or too self-serious. I doubt its calculation on Cain’s part. He’s just a happy warrior and that goes a long, long way.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice:

Saying the Republicans were “playing politics” with international issues, Susan Rice responded to Mitt Romney, who called the president’s handling of Palestinian statehood an “unmitigated diplomatic disaster,” and Rick Perry, who suggested the United States should cut off funding for the Palestinian Authority if it continues to pursue a UN vote on statehood.

“I think Governor Perry ought to really consider the real world implications of that for Israel. Because the security assistance that the United States provides the Palestinian Authority benefits Israel directly and Israelis are well aware of that,” Rice said.

Not to go all tu quoque on the Obamanauts, but this would be a stronger point from an administration that didn’t try to translate the killing of Osama Bin Laden into a rationale to support the administration’s economic and environmental policies, or from a president who didn’t suggest during the Gulf oil spill that we owed it to the troops to support green energy. Oh, and it would be easier to take if Obama and his crew didn’t win the Democratic primaries almost entirely because of their willingness to “play politics” on international issues—during a couple of wars.

Meanwhile, on the substance it seems to me that the GOP assault helps Obama make a credible threat that if the Palestinians don’t work with him the Republican-led House and Congress generally will be far tougher on the Palestinians. The GOP critics are a backstop that gives Obama’s warnings credibility. Without them to put steel in Obama’s threats, the Palestinians would probably just laugh.

I’m hearing that Ron Suskind’s new book reports that President Obama was warned much, much earlier that there’s “no such thing” as shovel ready jobs. Until recently, we were informed that Obama learned that shovel ready jobs didn’t exist only after dedicating stimulus money to them. This has been a minor obsession of mine for quite some time.

The fact that Obama didn’t know there were no shovel ready jobs is a damning indictment of his entire presidency, given that he came into office feigning mastery over public policy, and yet he didn’t know something so basic.

But it’s worth noting that when we say there’s no such thing as shovel ready jobs it’s not like saying there’s no such thing as the bogeyman or unicorns or good flan. Those things don’t exist, period. But shovel ready jobs do exist. Drive by your local Home Depot and hire some day laborers. Take them to your back yard and say “I’ll give you $50 to dig a hole.” Guess what? They’ll dig a hole.

What we don’t have is shovel ready government. The only impediment to shoveling is, simply, government. It is government that requires employers to jump through hoops for months to get the right paperwork. It is government that imposes costs on hiring and working. Some of those costs may be warranted, even if the delays are not. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are countless shovel ready jobs, shovel ready workers, and shovel ready shovels. What we don’t have are shovel ready bureaucrats. And that is something Obama could change if he wanted. He is perfectly placed to pursue shovel ready government if he wanted to. But he doesn’t, for political and ideological reasons, as well as a more basic failure of imagination.

But at the end of the day, the fact remains that the most important player for creating shovel ready jobs simply is not shovel ready himself.

UPDATE: Steve Hayward has similar thoughts.

Jonah Goldberg

Al Gore Finally Gives Up

By Jonah Goldberg

September 12, 2011, 1:28 pm

From The Onion:

EARTH—Former Vice President Al Gore—who for the past three decades has unsuccessfully attempted to warn humanity of the coming destruction of our planet, only to be mocked and derided by the very people he has tried to save—launched his infant son into space Monday in the faint hope that his only child would reach the safety of another world.

“I tried to warn them, but the Elders of this planet would not listen,” said Gore, who in 2000 was nearly banished to a featureless realm of nonexistence for promoting his unpopular message. “They called me foolish and laughed at my predictions. Yet even now, the Midwest is flooded, the ice caps are melting, and the cities are rocked with tremors, just as I foretold. Fools! Why didn’t they heed me before it was too late?”

Al Gore—or, as he is known in his own language, Gore-Al—placed his son, Kal-Al, gently in the one-passenger rocket ship, his brow furrowed by the great weight he carried in preserving the sole survivor of humanity’s hubristic folly.

In Malibu’s Most Wanted, the clinically awful movie that will only make you dumber if you watch it, Jamie Kennedy plays a spoiled rich kid senator’s son who fancies himself a gangster rapper. His real name is Brad Gluckman, but he goes by B-Rad (“My name is B-rad. Not Robbie van Winkle. I like my lattes non-fat and don’t fo-get the sprinkle.”). B-Rad may be from Mailbu but he’s not of Malibu.

For some reason the latest spin from the White House brought the movie to mind. White House spokesman Jay Carney insists that the president is unpopular right now because the voters misguidedly think Obama’s part of “Washington.” And “Washington” is apparently synonymous with the House GOP. From The Hill:

Carney focused the daily briefing almost entirely on jobs and congressional inaction, the two early hallmarks of the Obama 2012 campaign.

Obama’s high-30s approval ratings, Carney said, are a reflection of “a high reservoir of skepticism toward Washington in general.”

“I think that everybody associated with Washington is being viewed quite dimly right now,” Carney said.

To that end, Carney continued the White House assault on House Republicans, whom Obama and his allies are blaming for gridlock that “wasn’t just frustrating; it was harmful.”

“For no other reason than ideological purity, Washington almost brought the global economy to its knees this summer,” Carney said. [Emphasis added.]

The upshot here is that the addlepated American voter has unfairly lumped President Obama in with “Washington.” What sad commentary on the intelligence of the American people: They associate the president of the United States with Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital, where Obama has lived since 2005. Moreover, they actually seem to think that simply because he and his party had complete control over the federal government for two years, that he has some responsibility for what Washington does and has done. Maybe they got that idea from a fawning press corps—which Carney used to belong to—that took Obama at his word when he said he was “changing the way Washington works.” Maybe they saw the Time and Newsweek covers comparing him to Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln and, in their regrettable confusion, said “Hey, maybe this guy is going to run the country?”

The fools.

Obama is truly at sea here. He desperately wants to defend the role of government while at the same time denouncing the seat of government. He wants to cast himself as a problem solver while complaining that he’s incapable of solving any problems. He wants to cast himself as centrist while letting Jimmy Hoffa be his surrogate. He wants to run “Washington” but he doesn’t want people to think he’s part of “Washington.” He wants to rise above politics while at the same time suggesting that anyone who disagrees with his policies doesn’t care about the country. He wants to foment disgust with the “Washington” he helped to create while at the same time insisting that he be allowed to keep his job for another four years.

Jonah Goldberg

The Obama-thon Continues

By Jonah Goldberg

September 1, 2011, 11:43 am

President Obama’s big speech next week to a joint session of Congress is an enormous political risk, so far very poorly handled. The White House raised expectations by previewing it during the president’s vacation. They raised them even more by requesting—in a shockingly ham-fisted way—to deliver it to a joint session. If he’s overly partisan, people will be turned off by his exploitation of the venue—and their time. If he’s overly bipartisan, his ideas will likely come across as dull and unambitious. If he manages to be bold while not being partisan, he will still risk cementing the idea that he’s a big government liberal, which is not the image he needs for 2012.

The record does not suggest he’ll be able to pull it off.

Two years ago this week, President Obama came back from his summer vacation and asked to speak to a joint session of Congress. It was the fifth prime-time sales pitch for ObamaCare in his seven-month-old presidency. ObamaCare eventually passed, but the address did essentially nothing to make the plan more popular. Indeed, it remains unpopular.

Why? Surely the substance of the legislation amounts to its essential flaw. But it’s also worth noting that, measured by effectiveness, President Obama (unlike candidate Obama) simply isn’t a very good speaker. Indeed, with the possible exception of his post-Arizona shooting speech, it’s very difficult to think of a single instance where Obama has delivered a politically successful address on domestic issues during his presidency.

Such statements stun some of his biggest fans—though fewer and fewer these days—because they think he talks the way a president should. It seems they pay little heed to the possibility that they like what they hear because the president tells them what they want to hear, or because their fondness for Obama clouds their judgment. The fact remains that the president is very bad at persuading people who don’t already agree with him.

For a White House that never really shook off its campaign mentality, this is a bitter pill to swallow. Back when Obama was a Rorschach test without a record, putting him in front of the cameras always worked. But that changed, quickly, when he became president. Almost overnight, Obama became the most overexposed new president in modern memory, appearing everywhere. It was like he was running for a job he already had.

Back in September 2009, on the eve of that joint session address, I wrote:

Obama’s advisors think the answer to every problem is more cowbell, if by “cowbell” you mean “Obama.” It’s like Obama guru David Axelrod is the Christopher Walken character from the “Saturday Night Live” skit about Blue Oyster Cult … Every time someone comes up with an alternative to throwing Obama on TV, Axelrod says, “No, no, no. Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription … is more Obama!”

The challenge for the president next week is multifaceted, but at its core is the fact that Obama is a known quantity. Again, save for his biggest fans, his speeches are often akin to the teacher’s dialogue in the Charlie Brown cartoons. If he yanks the American people away from what they’re doing (including watching the season debut of pro football), just to recycle the Barack Obama schtick again, he’ll get nowhere.

In short, this White House needs a lot less cowbell.

Nick, Klein’s post is interesting. But I have a problem with it you don’t address. Liberals just can’t make up their minds about the Great Depression. All they seem to really know for sure is that FDR is responsible for ending it. For decades, liberals—including the writers of textbooks, mainstream journalists, et al—insisted that the New Deal simply ended (or helped end, if you want to get persnickety) the Great Depression. But there are few economic historians or economists who think that traditional narrative is remotely plausible.

For starters, the National Recovery Administration—the heart of the early New Deal—was an unmitigated disaster. Also, it gets complicated because people mean all sorts of things by the New Deal. And many of the things we most associate with the New Deal, like Social Security, had little to nothing to do with fighting the Great Depression.

Over time, Milton Friedman and others showed that the monetary history of the 1930s was much more important to the story than the pictures in our civics textbooks or the clips from old newsreels. The sophisticated liberal position was that the New Deal helped, but it didn’t go far enough with Keynesian stimulus and that only came with World War II (this is Paul Krugman’s position). Recently Larry Summers proclaimed: “Never forget, never forget, and I think it’s very important for Democrats especially to remember this, that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed.”

In recent years liberals have grown more defensive as the argument has shifted to whether or not FDR prolonged the Great Depression.

Here’s how I began an essay for National Review on the subject a while back:

“A normal person,” the liberal economist Brad DeLong recently pronounced, “would not argue that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.” New York Times financial columnist and Newsweek contributing editor Daniel Gross is even more emphatic. “One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian—I mean a serious historian, not a think-tank wanker, not an economist, not a journalist—who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression.” David Sirota, an activist-journalist, writes on the Huffington Post: “Every high school civics class teaches the broad truth about Roosevelt, the New Deal and how it helped end the Great Depression, and if the conservative movement has gone so off the deep end that they want to make crazy-sounding arguments that even high schoolers know are silly, then the progressive movement is in an even better position than we may have thought.” And in his syndicated column, he adds that any argument otherwise is “abject insanity.”

Sirota’s point about high-school civics classes helps explain the vitriol. The glory of the New Deal is, for liberals, settled dogma. To question it is akin to casting doubt on geocentrism in the 14th century. Worse, it is an attempt to erase liberalism’s most usable past.

Significantly, FDR has recently become more relevant and popular among “progressives” than he’s been for a generation. In 2006, Nancy Pelosi reportedly said that three words prove the Democrats aren’t out of ideas: “Franklin Delano Roosevelt.”

Anyway, getting back to Klein. I have no idea if the argument he makes is right. It might be. Or it might be simply part of the answer. It’s certainly worth thinking about. But a few things are obvious. First, if FDR devalued the dollar on purpose in order to boost exports, that’s no defense of the New Deal. He could have done that without putting dry cleaners in jail and cartelizing big business. Second, if he did it on purpose, blind luck is a better explanation than some liberal technocratic expertise. Remember, this is the guy who set gold prices based on his lucky numbers. And his “bold, persistent experimentation” had far more failures than successes. Third, if Executive Order 6102 ended the Great Depression, then it follows that all of those wonderful things that New Deal voluptuaries routinely cite as the success and the glory of the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. And if that’s case, maybe we don’t need a new New Deal after all.

Jonah Goldberg

Texas and Jobs

By Jonah Goldberg

August 18, 2011, 10:15 am

Now that Texas Governor Rick Perry has entered the presidential race, the debate over Texas’s true jobs numbers has begun. This will probably be required reading for anyone who wants to enter the fray.

Jonah Goldberg

Tea Parties, Explained

By Jonah Goldberg

July 29, 2011, 4:10 pm

If you truly want to understand the Tea Party vs. Boehner split these days, there’s really only one place to go: Taiwan!

From the Jerusalem Post:

73% of 1,010 Palestinians in W. Bank, Gaza agree with ‘hadith’ quoted in Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees.

Only one in three Palestinians (34 percent) accepts two states for two peoples as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to an intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip completed this week by American pollster Stanley Greenberg.

The poll, which has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, was conducted in partnership with the Beit Sahour-based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project, an international nonprofit organization that provides journalists and leaders with information about the Middle East.

The death penalty is not exactly a signature AEI issue. I suspect views on it around here (as at National Review, my other home) vary widely. My own position is straightforward, certain people deserve to die for their crimes. We can debate the merits of all that another day. Instead I thought it would be more fun to debate the merits—or lack thereof—of E.J. Dionne’s column on the execution of Humberto Leal, a Mexican national who lived in the United States from the age of two, and raped, murdered, and mutilated a teenage girl. Here’s how Dionne begins:

WASHINGTON—The unseemly love affair of some American politicians with the death penalty is bad for justice and bad for our country’s standing in the world. It inflicts a wholly unnecessary moral stain on a nation that rightly preaches the rule of law to everyone else.

Even more remarkable is the indifference that five justices of the Supreme Court have shown to such considerations.

And then there is Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who insisted upon pushing ahead with the execution of Humberto Leal, a Mexican national convicted of the rape and killing of a teenager. Even former President George W. Bush—who presided over 152 executions as Perry’s predecessor—had qualms about the case. Bush hasn’t gone soft. He’s legitimately worried about the costs of the United States thumbing its nose at the government of Mexico and the world.

President Obama, the International Court of Justice and the Mexican government all wanted a stay of execution. But Perry’s press secretary was unapologetic. “Texas,” said Katherine Cesinger, “is not bound by a foreign court’s ruling.”

Imagine if an American life was at stake and a press secretary said that Iran—or Russia or Saudi Arabia or China—did not feel “bound by a foreign court’s ruling.”

Let’s be clear: This case involved a brutal crime, and Leal himself seemed to confess his guilt just before he died. “I take full blame for everything,” he said. “I am sorry for what I did.”

Many points could be made, but I’ll settle for two.

First, his opening sentence makes it sound like the death penalty itself—and not this case—undermines our ability to preach the rule of law. At minimum that is unproven.

But it was this sentence that really bugged me. “Imagine if an American life was at stake and a press secretary said that Iran—or Russia or Saudi Arabia or China—did not feel ‘bound by a foreign court’s ruling.’”

Dionne is stealing a number of bases here. If an American raped and murdered a teenage girl in one of those countries, I don’t know that many people would put up that much of a fuss if the perpetrator were executed. After all, Leal, as Dionne grudgingly concedes, admitted to his guilt. What would enrage the American people is if one of those countries—or any country, including the United States—executed an American for a crime that he didn’t commit or that didn’t rise to the level of capital punishment. Dionne’s analogy blurs that distinction in an attempt to play upon sentiments not applicable or at issue.

This is a common technique among opponents of the death penalty. They compare the United States to countries that use the death penalty for abominable reasons and say, in effect, “Do we really want to be like them?”

The answer, of course, is that we don’t want to be like them and, more importantly, we are not like them. We don’t murder people for whistle-blowing on corruption in the government and we don’t murder them for converting to Christianity. We lawfully execute people for crimes like Leal’s. The man raped a teenager, mutilated her body with a stick, and crushed her head with a rock. That is not a “crime of conscience,” it is a crime that shocks the conscience. Blurring the distinction between the two is slanderous.

“The System Worked”

That’s what a lot of folks, across the political spectrum, have been saying in response to the Casey Anthony verdict. I paid precious little attention to the case, at least compared to the many obsessives out there who devoured every minute of it. I believed she murdered her baby girl, and I still suspect she did (quick: why should duct tape ever cover the mouth and nose of a two-year-old girl?). But I wasn’t a juror. I didn’t watch the whole trial unfold in real time, outside of the media hothouse. So maybe she’s innocent and given my only middling attention, I’ll give the jurors the benefit of the doubt. Besides, it sounds less like they felt Casey Anthony is innocent and more like the prosecution failed to make its case.

But that’s why I don’t like the phrase “the system worked.” The system was supposed to find Caylee Anthony’s murderer and bring her or him to justice. That’s not what happened here, not by a long shot.

One of the great institutional advantages of the presidency is that it gets to try and try again. Or as NPR’s Mara Liasson likes to say, the president has the ability to run to the front of the parade again and again and claim he’s been leading it the whole time. This is partly due to the fact that most Americans don’t pay very close attention to politics, so if the president comes out and says X one week and then says not X three weeks later, in both cases he looks like a president doing his job. Moreover, the president, for reasons good and ill, obvious and mysterious, gets to claim credit for stuff he has no business claiming credit for.

Last night Fox News’s Brit Hume said in his Special Report on-air commentary that “This president is in as full of a political retreat as this town has seen in many years.” I think Hume’s right. But the amazing thing is how it just doesn’t look that way. Yes, to people paying very close attention, the mess Obama has made for himself is a thing to behold (For instance, he could have demanded a debt-ceiling hike from the Republicans last winter in their tax deal). But if you hadn’t been following politics and just turned on the TV and happened to see clips from his press conference yesterday, you might say ”There’s Obama scolding that no-good Congress to grow up. Good for him!”

Here’s Obama yesterday:

Now, I’ve heard reports that there may be some in Congress who want to do just enough to make sure that America avoids defaulting on our debt in the short term, but then wants to kick the can down the road when it comes to solving the larger problem of our deficit.  I don’t share that view.  I don’t think the American people sent us here to avoid tough problems.  That’s, in fact, what drives them nuts about Washington, when both parties simply take the path of least resistance.  And I don’t want to do that here.

I believe that right now we’ve got a unique opportunity to do something big — to tackle our deficit in a way that forces our government to live within its means, that puts our economy on a stronger footing for the future, and still allows us to invest in that future.

To listen to that you might think that the president has long been at the forefront of getting our fiscal house in order. But the truth is very close to the opposite. Leave aside what was and was not necessary during the fiscal crisis. Indeed, leave out all of the debates about the stimulus, the bailouts, and “ObamaCare.” Even leave aside the fact that the congressional leadership of his party hasn’t come up with  a budget in almost 800 days, with nary a peep of protest from the White House.

But do keep in mind that just last February the president introduced a budget proposal that simply called for more spending and made no effort whatsoever to deal with the deficit. That grotesquely irresponsible budget was voted down 97-0. Meanwhile for most of the last year, the White House has been insisting that anything less than an up or down vote on a “clean” hike in the debt ceiling would be outrageous, irresponsible, dangerous, and in every other way ill-advised.

Now all of a sudden the president gets yet another do-over and announces to all of the world that this is a great moment for a grand bargain on the deficit and he denounces those who want to “kick the can down the road.”

It’s an interesting exercise to imagine what our politics would be like if everybody paid attention.

Jonah Goldberg

Not a Parody

By Jonah Goldberg

June 29, 2011, 10:59 am

UN names North Korea chair of arms control agency.


The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI