The Tea Party Is Still Winning

by Leslie S. Lebl

Like many, I've been reading all about the decline of the Tea Party, its relative invisibility in the Republican nominating process, and the widespread dissatisfaction with Republican members of Congress, many of whom were swept into office by the Tea Party. However, I'd like to add my two bits to the discussion before we hold a public funeral for the movement. 

Of course the Tea Party is quiet: none of the candidates really speak to them. It's discouraging, but on the other hand, look at it this way:

-- which Republican nominee would speak in favor of retaining Obamacare?

-- which Republican nominee is prepared to say that the federal debt isn't important?

You got it - none of them. That's because the Tea Party has succeeded in highlighting problems that can no longer be swept under the rug. Look what happened when Gingrich denigrated Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which contains the first public commitment to reform Medicare (and which was passed by the Republican House of Representatives). He had to eat crow.

What I find really interesting is that so many people (among them, I assume, many Tea Partiers) are focusing on electability. That's a bitter lesson learned in 2010, and it's clear people don't want to repeat the mistakes made then, especially with regard to key Senate races. That, folks, is real progress.

As for the low favorability numbers of Republicans in Congress: who would ever expect the guy trying to stop the spending to become popular? Look at Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin: he's facing a recall vote even though he saved lots of union jobs. The real lesson Tea Partiers have learned is that House Republicans can't make much headway resisting every bill raising the debt ceiling. While I suspect many people are disappointed, I'm confident that the majority understand that what's needed is systemic entitlement reform, which can't be done by only one House of Congress.

My prediction: as the Republican nominating process advances, watch the frontrunners come under pressure to formulate policies attractive to the Tea Party, hopefully framed in ways that attract support from Independents. The Tea Party may not have its nominee, but it will try to shape the platform of the party and persuade the nominee to espouse its positions. And it will have logic on its side. With U.S. obligations downgraded and our debt now equal to our GDP, it's pretty hard to argue that the level of government spending isn't a problem.

Only if the Tea Party fails to do this will I agree that it is a spent political force.
____
A retired Foreign Service Officer, Leslie S. Lebl is a writer, consultant and lecturer. In the Foreign Service, Ms. Lebl served as Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Mission to the European Union in Brussels. Prior to that, she was Political Advisor to the Commander of Stabilization Forces (SFOR) in Bosnia-Herzegovina, first in the American sector in Tuzla and then at SFOR headquarters in Sarajevo. Other assignments included Russia, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York, Bolivia, Germany and Poland, as well as a year as diplomat-in-residence at Yale University. She speaks French, German, Russian, Polish and Spanish. She is currently at work on a book about radical Islam and the European Union.

Ask the Candidates About These Issues

by Joseph Sternberg

Most of the questioners at these so-called Republican presidential primary debates are of the left. That has some advantages for the candidates since they get exposed to questions that would be raised later. But the choice of topics and the way that they are presented is skewed. For instance, the questioners seem to want to pretend that the Paul Ryan budget bill does not exist, yet it is certainly a top issue. The candidates should be questioned to determine how they would deal with the issues in it (if they differ from what has been written). That would also help voters to understand the degree to which the candidates have thought about these problems (if in fact they have). Foreign policy issues are still to be formulated, although the approach of the candidates to foreign policy is a prime aspect of being president.

1. National debt

What is the candidates' approach to this issue?

The Republican House passed the Paul Ryan Budget Bill earlier this year. This is a specific attempt to maintain US solvency and advances an approach to entitlement reform. If a candidate doesn't like this bill, what alternative would they propose? This kind of focus is necessary to keep the candidates from evading this fundamental issue.

President Barack Obama pushes the view that we can stop the rising national debt by taxing the wealthy, rather than decreasing expenditures. What are the Republican arguments against this position? This is important because President Obama is sure to trumpet this argument. My previous blog entry on the president's position was an attempt to contribute to our understanding of this issue.

2. Energy Policy

The formation of an effective energy policy for the US is prevented by the concern that fossil fuels are loading up the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. The illusion that green energy can be substituted for fossil fuels to alleviate the concern is rampant. But the priority countries such as China and India put on economic development shows that the control of carbon dioxide cannot be achieved in this way. Carbon dioxide is a worldwide problem, and fossil fuels will be needed by the world for a long time, My previous blog entry explains the scientific problem and the solution that can be pursued. Green energy should find its place in the US energy mix without massive subsidies.

The US national security demands an increase in the domestic output of fossil fuels. There are three compelling reasons for this. First, the US economy is vulnerable to disruptions in the Mideast oil supply. We spend billions on maintaining force in the area. The vulnerability seriously compromises national security policy. Second, self-sufficiency in fossil fuels would have a large positive effect on the US balance of trade and thereby help relieve the pressure on the dollar. In 2011 the trade deficit is projected to be $550 billion dollars. During the same period, the cost of oil imports is expected to reach $400 billion dollars. And finally third, thousands of US jobs would be created.

We should hear from the candidates on all this.

3. Health Care Reform

All the Republican presidential candidates seem to agree that ObamaCare must be repealed. It may be declared unconstitutional but, if that does not happen, it should be repealed because it overwhelms the health care system with bureaucrats and the government and increases the cost of health care.  Republicans, however, cannot stop there.  Health care, as it is now organized, has serious problems.  Republicans should assemble a package, perhaps including items such as tort reform and allowing the sale of medical insurance across state lines.  Among all the candidates, this should be especially asked of Romney.

4. Avoiding another financial crisis.
       a) Housing

The US has had a bipartisan policy dating back many years to have the government intervene in the market to increase home ownership. It is clear that home ownership is not for everyone. The ability of homeowners to meet the financial requirements of home ownership, including down payments, cannot be bypassed. Government guaranteeing of mortgages where lending standards were debased led to trillions of mortgage-based securities flooding the market. Well over a trillion dollars worth of these securities are now resting uneasily in the possession of the Federal reserve. Fannie and Freddie were key agents in creating this debacle and so far have cost taxpayers $170 billion dollars. To allow these organizations to continue to operate is to insure a recurrence of the housing collapse.

      b) Ending too big to fail

The financial collapse started by the housing collapse showed another serious defect of the financial system. We have to prevent financial institutions from becoming "too big to fail." This is a failure of capitalism. Now we don't seem to have any serious trouble in deciding that a company is too big to fail. The problem is preventing them from getting to that point. Financial experts need to spell out ways that this can be done. Under the present circumstances, the incentives push in the direction of massive bets. If things go well, millions are earned. If the bets turn out to be bad, the new millionaires are gone and the taxpayers are faced with the debris.  And many of the super-rich whose incomes have soared into the stratosphere are in the financial sector.  Subsidizing these salaries is absurd, yet that is precisely what we’re doing.

If we measure the presidential candidates on these issues, we’ll have a good way of determining who is the best one.  Certainly a lot better than seeing who scores more points at a “debate.”

***

UPDATE: About foreign policy questions that the candidates should be asked, I would start with the famous quotation from Palmerston, " Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." So what do the candidates believe are our national interests in the Middle East, former satellites of Russia, Africa, China, etc. Such responses would help to understand how candidates would respond to developments and the degree to which they have thought about such matters.
____
Joseph Sternberg
Retired Professor of Physics
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA

I'm the 99 Percent, But You Don't Speak for Me

by Libby Sternberg

Supporters of the Occupy Wall Street crowd have been posting signs on Facebook. That is, photographs of people holding signs with their "stories" on them. These tales are usually some variation of "I am an average guy/gal who tried to do everything right and now I've got tons of debt and can't find a job." Some tell of losing their houses or practically going bankrupt when serious illness hits them without a health insurance coverage safety net.

While these stories generate a painful pang of sympathy--no one likes to hear of others' hardship -- they also stir in me a sense of befuddlement.

As sad as these tales are, they're all, more or less, confessions of mistakes, big life-altering mistakes. So it bewilders me why these sign-makers would want to share these embarrassing stories with the world. Surely they must know that even the most sympathetic readers probably silently ask questions like these:

Why did you rack up so much college debt?
Why did you choose a major in a field with few employment opportunities?
Why did you forgo buying a high-deductible/low-premium health insurance policy?
Why did you take out a mortgage, or refinance one, with little to back it up?

I know, I know -- some of these storytellers would argue that when they made these mistakes, the economy was strong, and they expected to be able to land jobs, get health insurance from an employer, and pay off their debts responsibly.

I'm sorry you are having trouble.
I'm a writer, too. It doesn't
always pay the bills.
Even if we are
 in the "99 percent"
income bracket together,
you don't speak for me.

That part of the tale has a "there but for the grace of God, go I" quality to it that everyone can relate to. We all make mistakes. We all take on debt. Heck, I was a music major...at a conservatory, no less.

But that's where the differences start. Although my parents paid for my degree,  I knew I'd have a hard time finding work in my field, which was highly competitive, when I graduated. I knew I'd have to make tough choices if I wanted to stay in it. Eventually, I chose another path.

So I understand "mistakes" (although I don't look at my music conservatory days as a mistake; music study enriched my life immeasurably in other ways). Everyone understands mistakes.

But not everyone takes to the streets with the implied message that these mistakes--no matter how well-intentioned the original goals were at the time--are someone else's fault, or that someone else should pay for them.

Not everyone points their finger at those who are doing better than them and says "you're to blame; your wealth makes me poor."

So please don't say you speak for the entire "99 percent" who aren't mega wealthy when you broadcast your mistakes and your implied message that others are to blame and should pay on your behalf.

I've made my fair share of mistakes, too, and haven't blamed the wealthy or Wall Street or corporations or capitalism in general. You don't speak for me.

Forget the Frontrunner

By Leslie S. Lebl

I'm so tired of listening to pundits decry the lack of a credible Republican presidential candidate that I feel moved to proclaim the exact opposite. I think it's a very good thing that we don't have a frontrunner on whom all Republican hopes are pinned, for two reasons.

First, right now the Republican platform is in flux, as shown by how House Speaker John Boehner's position on "revenue increases" changed during the debt ceiling negotiations. At first, he obviously thought he had to give President Obama some kind of concession. Then he discovered that he could get the deal without one.

Obama may think the fall "supercommission" will produce significant tax increases, although I doubt it. But imagine if, as the Republican nominee, you had to offer an opinion - without being at the negotiating table. The perils are extreme: if you say some kind of increase is okay, you look like a wimp if Obama caves. If you refuse to consider any hikes and the package includes tax reform that may involve some increases, you're toast. And if you refuse to say anything, you get painted as a coward -- just ask Mitt Romney, the current leader of the pack.

Second, and conversely, choosing a front-runner for Republican nominee could hurt the evolution of the Republican platform. Just think if criticism of ObamaCare had to be tailored to avoid criticizing RomneyCare. Or if concessions made to Michele Bachmann alienated too many independents.

The truth is that the current configuration has its advantages. Boehner and Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lead the charge for spending cuts, debt reduction -- and bipartisan compromise. They may win fame and glory but, if recent opinion polls are any indication, opprobrium is more likely. However, they can at least do what they see as necessary without worrying about how this will affect their presidential campaign, as neither is running. And the future Republican nominee, whoever s/he is, will profit from any progress they achieve.

Yes, I know: President Obama is out there raising lots of money that no Republican can match. That probably won't change. But if Republican congressional leaders can build consensus among Republicans and independents for real fiscal reform, that may make all the difference.

False Memories

by Libby Sternberg

There have been a lot of references to Ronald Reagan lately, with President Obama quoting him to reinforce his own point of view during the debt ceiling debate, Democrats releasing a video of Reagan seeming to endorse their point of view, and pundits like Joan Walsh declaring that President Obama is the "Reagan" figure in the debate.

Leaving aside the disingenuousness of these comparisons -- yes, Reagan did once support raising taxes to get spending cuts he wanted, but later regretted the move, with one adviser calling it "the greatest domestic error" of the administration. Instead, let's look at this new-found love of a president that liberals loathed back in the 1980s.

I was no political or news junkie back then, but one of the few things that managed to seep into my youth-addled brain was the hatred of Reagan among Democrats. At that time, I was heavily involved in the arts world. I'd gone to a music conservatory, and I was singing with some choirs, opera companies and the like. During breaks, I remember hearing passionate grumbling about Reagan, and even a bitter denouncement of Nancy Reagan when she decided to replace the White House china. I recall her being criticized, too, for her choice of a mastectomy over a lumpectomy when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. (Does it get much lower than that?) I'm sure it would be ridiculously easy to find columns, commentary, news articles and more scathingly critical of Reagan during those years.

The point is, Reagan was not beloved at all by those on the left. He was loathed. So this new appreciation for him involves some "false memories."

Among those is one that's seeped into the greater consciousness-- the notion of Reagan, the Great Communicator. Whenever my husband and I would hear that appellation, we'd look at each other and say, "huh?"

We cringed watching Reagan in debates and answering questions from the press. He could give a good speech, sure, but isn't that the minimum standard of communication skill -- being able to read, without stumbling, words someone else has written for you?

We came to the conclusion that the Great Communicator label was, in fact, not praise but veiled insult. It implied that he was able to "sell" his ideas well, not that his ideas (of limited government and strong defense) had merit on their own.

Today, I picked up the Wall Street Journal to discover that Peggy Noonan, former Reagan speechwriter, was pretty much saying the same thing, as she discussed the problems President Obama faced during the debt ceiling debate. He famously told Rep. Eric Cantor not to "call his bluff" (a Freudian slip?) because he'd "take this to the American people."

He had used the Reagan analogy enough to actually believe it, I guess, and he also had mistakenly bought into the idea that Reagan prevailed because his speeches connected with the American people.

But taking "this to the American people" didn't work. Whatever his fine attributes, Obama can't be considered a "great communicator" any longer. His rhetoric no longer soars. The teleprompter is a constant reminder that his words are studied and carefully chosen, at least as much to avoid offense as to persuade.

And this brings me to Noonan's final point: "Democrats were sure Reagan was wrong," she wrote, "so they explained his success to themselves by believing that it all came down to some kind of magical formula involving his inexplicably powerful speeches. They misdefined his powers and saddled themselves with an unrealistic faith in the power of speaking." She went on:

 "But speeches aren't magic. A speech is only as good as the ideas it advances. Reagan had good ideas. Obama does not.

"The debt-ceiling crisis revealed Mr. Obama's speeches as rhetorical kryptonite. It is the substance that repels the listener."

I couldn't agree more. By misinterpreting the history of Reagan, President Obama mistakenly believes that rhetoric will win the day. Talk is cheap, though, and a skeptical American public has always known that. If they bought what Reagan was saying, it was because they liked the ideas, not the words themselves.