By Michael Giometti –
You might remember British comedian John Cleese. He was the one who played, very competently, a haughty, condescending psychotherapist in one episode of the 80s sitcom Cheers. He is also one of that breed of Europeans (called “Europeans”) that feels the need to characterize America as uncivilized, uncouth, and unenlightened. This breed habitually attempts to soothe, through slander, its wounded collective (per EU) ego over the success of its upstart bastard child, the United States. The fact that the U.S. had surpassed its parent continent long ago by just about any measure you care to use: economic, cultural, altruistic, etc. is of no end of annoyance to the Mother Race.
It’s not just that we’ve achieved more and are resented for it; what’s truly galling is that, on net, we’ve benefitted the rest of this benighted planet (including Europe) more than any other society in history—and, on a lot of that planet are resented, in direct proportion, for it. We do deserve to be criticized, but not for our racism, or laissez-faire thinking (which are more at odds with each other than some think) but, ironically, for our increasing tendency to ape our critics, from Europe and elsewhere, in their statism.
In an interview just before the election of President Obama, Cleese gleefully smeared any American who didn’t look forward to that outcome. Without defending unduly George Bush (a truly bad president), John McCain, Sarah Palin, or Republicans in general, I bristle at his judgment that only the election of statist (and black) Barack Obama could prove to the rest of the world that we’re not a “backwoods, redneck, and racist country.”
I have two big problems with Mr. Cleese—well, three, if you count Monty Python. Ignoring for the time being that silly, over-rated waste of time (Monty Python, that is), my first problem is with the idea that in this day and age a genuine, discrete difference in philosophy exists between evil, plutocratic, racist Republicans and compassionate, deep-thinking, heroic Democrats. There certainly is not more than a marginal difference between the philosophies of your run-of-the-mill Republican and your run-of-the-mill Democrat—which, make no mistake, Barack Obama very much is. My second problem is that this shared philosophy is not at odds with, but rather is largely in accord with, contemporary European thinking, and is thus disastrously illiberal and statist. It is also, ironically, a repudiation of those civilizing classical liberal ideals which we took from our European parents (they weren’t really using them much anyway), applied assiduously here, and built the best society ever.
Right or Left?
As for the supposed distinctions between Republican/Democrat, Right/Left these days in America, Cleese should do some homework. Consider the record of the previous “evil” Republican administration regarding domestic, non-security-related matters:
· George Bush enthusiastically supported and signed into law the biggest entitlement program enacted since the genesis of the Great Society, namely, Medicare Part D.
· George Bush increased education spending 58% faster than inflation during his time in office. As usual, leftist objections to Bush’s education policy are laughably hypocritical.
· Bush’s tax cuts were modest and temporary, and, press coverage notwithstanding, increased the relative tax burden on the rich, while decreasing it on the less well-off.
· De-regulation, again notwithstanding misleading press coverage, did not occur under Bush.
· George Bush was actually quite green, and didn’t deserve the hysterical scorn heaped upon him by “environmentalists”.
· Bush’s Ownership Society idea, supposedly a way to reduce people’s dependence on government, actually fostered more, as in the case of home ownership. Long a fetish of politicians of both parties since the New Deal, government sponsorship of home ownership through tax policy, mortgage guarantees, secondary mortgage purchases, and onerous arm-twisting of lenders accelerated during the Clinton and Bush administrations. These chickens have recently come home to roost.
· George Bush increased federal spending by about as much as Lyndon Johnson--remember him, the author of the Great Society, the biggest package of misguided welfare spending in world history. Far from dismantling egalitarian Democrat panaceas like the Great Society and the New Deal, Bush extended them more than any other administration. What helped Bush here was his refusal to veto a single appropriations bill until the second half of his second term. In answer to those inclined to defend Bush’s profligate spending by pointing to the demands of pressing national security issues, consider that Johnson had a little thing called the Vietnam War.
In short, Mr Cleese, on domestic, non-security-related matters, Bush and the Republican Congress acted not like the aloof, laissez-faire caricature living in leftists’ heads, but rather like fairly typical twentieth-century statist politicians—in other words—like Democrats . . . or Europeans . . . or Barack Obama. By the way, John McCain wouldn’t have disappointed on this score.
(The second part of this post will explore the “surprising” ways Democrats act like Republicans.)
No comments:
Post a Comment