Let Him Lead

Four years ago, President Bush opined that, as a result of the election, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." A skeptical news media reacted skeptically while reporting that the Democrats, far from acknowledging the President’s "mandate", "were lined up to fight."

Indeed, the media reported that President Bush’s ambitious agenda, given budgetary restraints, was "mathematically impossible". The AP opined " ... all the political capital in the world won't pay for (Bush’s) his pricey priorities." Ah, the good old days, featuring an adversary press, and when math – and budgets – mattered.

Consider President Obama’s first few days in office, reaping the accolades of media cheerleaders, some of whom, based upon internet videos, stumbled around giddy, either with joy, under the influence, or both. The media reported on the new spirit of civility at the Inauguration, apparently missing the boos, hisses, and chants from the assembled Obamaphiles at the introduction of his predecessor, and neglecting the fact that essentially no conservative organizations rival Moveon and CodePink in willingness to loudly display their obnoxiousness and vitriol.

The new President, reaching out to Republicans for the sake of appearances, replied to their concerns about the astronomical costs of his proposals: "I won". Therefore, presumably, such arguments are passe. Can you imagine the media firestorm if Bush displayed such rank arrogance?

But the President has a point: he DID win. Inconveniently for him, so did every man and woman sitting around that table with him, many running on platforms diametrically opposed to his.

President Obama DOES, in fact, possess a mandate: the people chose him to lead. They did so for a variety of reasons: Bush hatred, McCain’s wishy-washiness, support of Obama’s proposals on this issue or that, etc. Pro-life folks voted for him based upon his economic proposals; pro-abortion folks in spite of them. It’s impossible to honestly contend that he possesses a mandate for any particular policy proposal.

But, again, HE WON. He has a mandate to lead. And he should do so. He should lead where his conscience and his intellect take him, insofar as he can craft Congressional majorities to effect those goals.

The Republicans, however, should give him not so much as a single vote for foolish policies, especially economic policies. As the loyal opposition, they should oppose. Not – like the angry left felt about Bush – because they believe he’s evil, but – like principled conservatives – because they believe he’s wrong.

As they’ve begun to realize, a "stimulus" package which simply repackages hoary old leftist programs, this time at greater expense, is not the change the country voted for. They should hammer home that a proposal to create 3 million new jobs – at $280,000 or so per job – is a fantastically silly idea. They should highlight the Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements in this "stimulus" package, which will add 25% or so to the cost of every infrastructure project, to the great detriment of the taxpayer. They should note that cuts in the payroll tax undermine Social Security, and that all this borrowing will suffocate our kids under an avalanche of debt. (40 years from now, there are going to be some very sorry Obama voters, lamenting the exuberance of their youth)

The GOP should argue that if you want economic prosperity, hiring 600,000 or so new tax-eating governmental employees ain’t the way to achieve it. That tax increases – even (gasp!!) on those miserable, horrible rich folks – during economic downturns, create havoc. That spending vast sums of money we don’t have may cause inflation, the like of which we haven’t seen since Jimmy Carter.

And, of course, we should offer alternatives. This credit crunch arose, initially, from foolish governmental programs, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the CRA. Obama pledged to eliminate programs which don’t work: here are exhibit A, B, and C. Cutting taxes on businesses, opening international trade, and securing our borders will produce real jobs – not busy-work governmental jobs subsidized by the productive – and with less competition for those jobs, wages will rise.

In short, the GOP should have the courage of its convictions.

There are three possible outcomes for this:

First, Obama could be right. Socialism might actually work. In which case, the GOP’s entire pro-freedom agenda will be held up as a mistake and we should all welcome the advent of socialist man and bask in our new (more equitably shared) prosperity. Given history – and common sense – that’s essentially impossible, but one must concede the possibility.

Second, Obama’s programs will miserably fail, while spending us into bankruptcy. Capital will flee his new, more confiscatory tax and regulatory scheme, the economy will collapse. The public will rebel at the rationing essential for national health care, or the taxes necessary to support it. They will recoil at ever increasing demands from an ever increasing horde of governmental supplicants, folks leeching off the productive sector. Persuaded of the idiocy of collectivism, they will be receptive to a new birth of freedom, presented by conservatives, and will vote accordingly, consigning Obama-mania to the ash heap of history.

Or, third, Obama’s policies will fail, but the vast number of people on the public dole, at one level or another, will selfishly vote to continue their own boodle flowing at the expense of their neighbors. In that case, the decline will be irreversible through normal political means, until the inevitable, Soviet-style collapse. And, in which case, conservatives will enjoy the macabre pleasure of knowing they were right all along, but that the people simply wouldn’t listen.

In short, the GOP should offer an alternative: freedom and prosperity. If we’re wrong, we deserve to lose. If we’re right, either we’ll win when the people realize their mistake or, alternatively, they’ll get the kind of government they deserve.