November 12, 2008
Why I am Concerned About the Future
I have received a few nice pieces of mail from Obama supporting relatives "HAHA! LOOOOSER!!!" No, no actually some nice things. The cartoons I shared, and a WaPo story of a black White House butler's pride that after 34 years employment an African-American will be moving in upstairs.
I don't want to rain on their parade, and I'll admit that a modicum of pride is called for. I'll even go all honeymoon and say that I appreciate President-elect Obama's character and intelligence. He seems a decent chap and I hope for the best.
BUT
But there is more to a President than how he or she makes us feel. I prefer a stodgy old, Federalist #10 version of the Executive that we haven't seen since President Coolidge and likely won't see again. But why can't I celebrate this historic election? I think Holman Jenkins captures it pretty well on the WSJ Ed Page.
You have in GM's Volt a perfect car of the Age of Obama -- or at least the Honeymoon of Obama, before the reality principle kicks in.Even as GM teeters toward bankruptcy and wheedles for billions in public aid, its forthcoming plug-in hybrid continues to absorb a big chunk of the company's product development budget. This is a car that, by GM's own admission, won't make money. It's a car that can't possibly provide a buyer with value commensurate with the resources and labor needed to build it. It's a car that will be unsalable without multiple handouts from government.
The first subsidy has already been written into law, with a $7,500 tax handout for every buyer. Another subsidy is in the works, in the form of a mileage rating of 100 mpg -- allowing GM to make and sell that many more low-mileage SUVs under the cockamamie "fleet average" mileage rules.
Even so, the Volt will still lose money for GM, which expects to price the car at up to $40,000.
General Motors stock sits at a 60-something year low and the company begs Washington for help to avoid bankruptcy or liquidation. Yet the company banks most of its future on a car that will lose money, cost far more than a similar combustion vehicle, and present the user with a bunch of new problems from where to charge to handling stale gas if it is not used.
The Volt is very attractive and will generate a lot of buzz. But Jenkins is right that when the profit motive is completely discarded in favor of government subsidies, we are entering some scary places. The Volt will have to compete around the world with buyers who will not be getting paid $7,500 to buy an impractical car.
This is not where government belongs and I do not trust our 535 Automotive-engineers-in-chief to make the right decisions. Yet this is where we're headed with cars, energy, and heath care. I hope for the best and will give him every opportunity, but this is the wrong direction to take the country. So my pride is severely tempered.
jk, you're being far too charitable. There is NO WAY IN HELL that someone can be "decent" when advocating the raw theft of my property.
One of the biggest imbeciles I've ever had the misfortune of knowing, whom I've nicknamed the Mistress of Malapropisms, likes to use "decent" a lot. What she really means is "nice," which is a far lowel level than "decent."
It's been said, "One may smile and still be a villain." Even a tyrant can be "nice" to all but a select few. But for all his niceties and propriety, Obama can hardly be considered "decent."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 12, 2008 3:43 PMMy dad used to caution me that you cannot look into a man's heart. We can make our guesses, but at the end of the day, if I attack President-elect Obama's motives, I both fall out of the path of empirical reason and look suspiciously like the lefties who attacked President Bush and VP Cheney on perceived character flaws.
I can empirically prove the incorrectness of his ideas (and I think Mister Jenkins has given me a good start). Yet I cannot prove that he does not seriously believe his bad ideas will help. So I will assume that he is just misguided.
Is he decent? I will assume, again, that he is not in politics for personal gain or graft. That's a good baseline of decency.
Lastly, I'm not at all sure he is "nice." You may be too generous, bro.
Posted by: jk at November 12, 2008 4:44 PMWe cannot look into a man's heart, but we can certainly judge a man by his actions. As the scripture says, "By their fruits shall ye know them." So there's no reason we can't attack Obama's motives. If his motives are evil, we have every moral justification in attacking his means, his desired ends, and his purpose.
It's easy to see who the nutcases are. They're the kind who brandish signs with Bush as a chimpanzee. Or Obama with Mao, Obama as Che -- except, wait a minute, those actually *fits* him. The caricatures that the left perpetrated against Bush were insults, but the "extremes" about Obama are in fact appropriate.
I'm sure Obama is a "nice guy" by most people's standards, and sincerely believes his ideas will help. But "decency" is more than that, and being "misguided" does not excuse committing crimes, no matter how "beneficial" the act may be for "the greatest number." Being "misguided" also does not make him unassailable from a character perspective. Moreover, we don't have to look in obscure annals of history to know that tyrants generally think they're doing the best thing.
If Obama is truly not in politics for graft or money, then I suppose his wife won't mind returning her salary increase that was funded by earmarks her husband obtained for her hospital. That's one of many things the McCain campaign could have seized on, but didn't.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 13, 2008 1:51 PMBy the same token, Perry, I don't want to get stuck defending the Pres-elect from your well grounded points. I just think that it degrades the dialog.
State-Senator, then Senator, then President Elect Obama entered a world full of graft through its sleazy Chicago office. I'm not celebrating his moral perfection or anything (and why, why why didn't the McCain campaign avoid that perfect example of earmarks that their candidate opposed?). I'll say that, were he out to optimize income, a slick, smart, high placed Hahvahd Law grad with an affirmative action hook could write his own ticket. I think he went into politics to feed his preternatural ego, not to get rich.
Of course, once there, the money kinds of finds you. He has not done a superhuman job of resisting it (cough, Rezko, cough!). But I don't think he went in for financial aggrandizement How many of the exclusive 535 could I say that about? But there I go again, peering into hearts...
Posted by: jk at November 13, 2008 2:28 PMI'm not sure where my reply from the other day went, but I'll redo it here.
By the same token, Perry, I don't want to get stuck defending the Pres-elect from your well grounded points. I just think that it degrades the dialog.
Well I'd certainly hope you wouldn't defend him. There's nothing defensible about him or his policies. You can't even defend the "good" he wants to do, because the means are evil.
State-Senator, then Senator, then President Elect Obama entered a world full of graft through its sleazy Chicago office.
Add to that having a fundraiser party hosted by a domestic terrorist, and going to a dinner that toasted a Palestinian terrorist.
I think he went into politics to feed his preternatural ego, not to get rich.
We shouldn't forget the money, though. Once you retire from Congress, what a marvelous pension with health benefits for life! Even if you lose re-election, you have many lucrative years ahead of you, lobbying and speech-giving. Unless you pull a John Edwards, of course.
Of course, once there, the money kinds of finds you.
Which some people, myself included, would say means that a good person should avoid politics. There's a kid in my department who said that if he loses his job, he'd like to go into politics. The financial industry is contracting, and finding ANY replacement job in it, let alone one similar to now, will be hella hard.
I told him: "Don't. Even a good guy like you can lose his soul."
He has not done a superhuman job of resisting it (cough, Rezko, cough!). But I don't think he went in for financial aggrandizement How many of the exclusive 535 could I say that about? But there I go again, peering into hearts...
He didn't just resist it: he sought it directly. Wealth might not have been as important as fame, but money facilitated his rise to power, and surely he and his wife didn't mind that it facilitated a lavish lifestyle.
Don't be afraid to judge *righteously*.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 16, 2008 9:21 PM | What do you think? [5]