Constant Conservative

As  a writer, I am supremely conscious of the importance of the story or the narrative. It is interesting, then, that a number of journalists have taken it upon themselves to coach our President in the art of the narrative. Here is Reason’s Matt Welch:

Every successful [political] campaign,” Jon Taplin noted last month over at TPMCafe, “has a narrative.” And “if there’s one note that runs through many of the theories as to why Obama has disappointed in Year One,” The New York Times‘ Frank Rich added two weeks ago, “it cuts to the heart of what had been his major strength: his ability to communicate a compelling narrative.”

What does “narrative” mean in this context? “An overarching goal that explains, unifies, and gives motive to his multiple initiatives,” said Dan Payne in the Boston Globe. Or if you prefer neuro-management-speak, try Forbes columnist Nick Morgan: “Because our brains retain stories better than any other form of information, we develop shortcuts to handle all the information we need to in the modern world. The most important shortcut is the narrative. The narrative is the quick story that has developed over a long period of time for any organization, company or important public figure. It’s the way we store and organize the information.”

So to help citizens most beneficially organize information about his policies, the president, according to this narrative, needs a single, one-sentence explanation for his blizzard of initiatives and laws, each of which can run as long as 2,400 pages. The “problem,” political journalist Jonathan Alter told The New York Times, in a piece that ran under the headline “Democrats Need a Rally Monkey,” is “not finding a coherent message.”

Do go over and read it all.

It seems that all the different statements may be reduced to this: “If we somehow had the right story; the right way of framing this health care stuff (and everything else the President wishes to pass) then people would support him.” One term that Mr. Welch does not use in the article is “postmodern.” In particular, that definition of postmodernism which allows truth itself to be relative.

Here is the thing, if truth be relative, then the narrative is sufficient. It will be “true” (no matter the supporting details or lack thereof) because it is compelling. If, on the other hand, truth really isn’t subject to our whims, then a compelling narrative which is not supported by the truth is a beautiful lie.

I am reminded of the very first lie. Satan had the narrative down pat. “Do this and you’ll be like God.” Like Eve, it does seem as though many of us are willing to be taken in by the story–without examining the underlying evidence. Remember, the story is important, but it should be supported by the facts–not supplant them.

When the government gets into the business of business, the things which happen are generally not in the long-term best interests of the consumers. This principle definitely applies to the government takeover of most of the student loan market in the US:

[]Here [ED Secretary Duncan] is in a February op-ed in the Washington Post arguing his case that “direct student loans” will save taxpayers billions and make life easier for “educators, engineers and computer scientists—the backbone of the new economy.”

Not everyone is convinced.  A few days ago, another Secretary of Education—Lamar Alexander—inveighed in WaPo on what the folks at Department of Education “haven’t told us.”  Senator Alexander notes that DOE plans to borrow from the Fed at a 2.8 percent interest rate, lend to students at 6.8, and splurge with the difference with a massive new spending program.  He reports that the Congressional Budget Office has lowered the estimated savings from kicking out the private lenders from $87 billion to something like $47 billion.  Some 2,000 private lenders will be forced out of this business.  Services to students driven by industry competition will be eliminated in favor of typical federal bureaucratic “efficiency.”  And those “educators, engineers and computer scientists—the backbone of the new economy”?  They will be spending years longer and paying lots more to pay back loans that are actually being used to fund Congressmen’s favorite edu-pork programs.[]

Did I mention that:

[]The health care bill that the Democrats hope to pass by “reconciliation” to avoid the normal Senatorial voting procedure is now being amended to include the administration’s Big Grab on federal student loans.  If this works, we will have one bill in which the federal government not only takes primary control of American health care but also simultaneously takes practical control of American higher education.[]

Sigh.

No, really. That is exactly what is being requested. Here’s the solicitation:

[]The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14″ – PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT – XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID – 14″ LOP are designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
The required date of delivery is March 22, 2010.[]

Do they need them for spring break? Why would the ED have an existing shotgun inventory? What are they doing with armor and combat training? Are we sure this is the Department of Education and not the Department of Defense?

[]New equipment only; no remanufactured products. No partial shipments
Offer must be good for 30 calendar days after submission.
Offerors must have current Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at the time offer is submitted. Information can be found at www.ccr.gov.
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. The Government will award a commercial item purchase order to the offeror with the most advantageous offer to the government. All offerors must submit their best price and delivery capabilities.

Place of Delivery:
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
c/o: Gary Pawlak, Special Agent
500 West Madison Street – Suite 1414
Chicago, IL 60661[]

Why does the Department of Education have a “special agent”? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not faulting their choice in weapons, but I’m wondering why a non-military, non-law enforcement division of the federal government wants a bunch of shotguns which are generally considered appropriate for usage on SWAT teams.

It would appear that we have an answer to a question I posed a yesterday, after Representative Herseth Sandlin was invited to meet with the President and hear why she needed to get with the program:

[]The South Dakota Democrat confirmed during a telephone conference call with reporters that she won’t vote for the Senate version of health-care reform, just as she didn’t vote for an earlier version approved by the House of Representatives.

As for an additional piece of legislation being developed by President Barack Obama to answer some concerns about the existing Senate bill, Herseth Sandlin said she won’t vote for that if it comes to the House by way of the reconciliation process in the Senate.

“I will not vote for the Senate bill as is,” she said. “I will not vote for a package of changes that would go through the reconciliation process.”[]

Sounds good to me. Let’s give Representative Herseth Sandlin credit for sticking to her previous position in light of the fact that nothing has really changed in the interim–except certain people’s desires to make this happen no matter what it might do to hurt (as well as help) the general citizenry.

While it is difficult to know the precise motivations which supported her “No” the last time around, it would appear that the pressure to say “Yes” is reaching maximum:

[]President Barack Obama invited Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and nine other House Democrats to the White House Wednesday night where the president tried to convince them to vote for the latest version of his health care initiative.[]

Calling it “his . . . initiative” seems to be stretching things a bit. Rather, he took one of the existing bills, mixed it with a bit of special Republican topping and is apparently trying to lay claim to result. But, I digress. The question is, where will Representative Herseth Sandlin be after all of this wooing?

[]Herseth Sandlin on Wednesday praised Obama’s inclusion of Republican ideas but said she has not decided how she would vote on the revamped proposal.

Herseth Sandlin said the earlier House health care bill did not meet the dual goals of increasing access to quality care while cutting costs.

She said she will examine the language of the latest Obama proposal to see if it accomplishes those twin goals.

“There are many details yet to be determined, and as this package comes together, I will closely examine the legislation to determine its effect on South Dakota families, businesses and health care providers,” she said in a prepared statement. “It’s also critically important to understand the impact on the cost of health care going forward.”[]

If she is to be honest, then the latest bill does not meet the goals of “increasing access to quality care while cutting costs” either. Of course, she might just be waffling to ensure that she gets a nice meal at the White House, but I think it unlikely. It is more probable that some dealing is going on right now (and will continue over the next several days).

Unfortunately, I’m concerned that the thinking behind some who are backing this bill (and even some who are not currently, but may in the future) is not unlike the thinking behind electing the first permanently tanned president–they want to be part of something big, something historical, something that just causes people to break out in an updated chorus of “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.”

Of course, there is nothing in the Constitution which would support teaching the world to sing, or providing for massive government interference in the health care economy.

Here is hoping and praying that Representative Herseth Sandlin clearly sees what this legislation would do to her constituents and follows up her previous “No” with a repeat of the same.

In honor of the summit today, I thought it would be of benefit to have a few views of the situation from some of the voices on the conservative/libertarian side of things:

Legal Insurrection thinks that the summit is indicative of the “fight coming to a head” and thinks that:

Obama’s plan is neither a starting point nor an endpoint. It is a dead end of government expansion paid for with borrowed money and developed through a process in which Democrats have refused to consider alternatives to bigger government.

His encouragement to Republicans? Don’t be bullied.

Melissa Clouthier calls the summit a “power play” on the part of the President:

The President will get up in front of Republicans and say that they’re obstructionist. The President will make bold statements that force grin-and-bear-it Democrats to go along to get along.

Her encouragement for Republicans? This isn’t about you.

Heritage (via Conn Carroll) finds that this summit is a bit of a sham:

That means the White House must convince a sizeable chunk of conservative Democrats to switch their votes. Brown University political scientist James Monroe says that is the true purpose of today’s event: “House Democrats have told Obama, ‘Move the needle on public opinion,’ and that’s what this is about.”

His encouragement to Republicans? A majority of Americans are not in favor of any of the Democrat’s proposed plans for changing the health care system.

Michelle Malkin is covering things live. Here are her comments (and realtime video of the unfolding events).

CATO is also doing live coverage with full audience interaction.

Whatever the outcome of today’s discussion, I’ll make the following prognostication: The President will claim victory, the Democrats will claim victory and the Republicans will claim victory.

From the Black Hills Pioneer Press (subscription-based):

Local school administrators agree it’s time to take a closer look at No Child Left Behind, stating that an educational model originated at the federal level might not be right for educational systems in rural areas like western South Dakota.

Good. Of course, I would have stopped the sentence right after “systems” to ensure that the statement applied to all schools, regardless of the geography and demography.

Interestingly, the President is prepared to spend some political capital on the continuation of NCLB (with some modifications), as noted by the New York Times:

Significantly, the White House reportedly wants to change federal financing formulas so that a portion of the money is awarded based on academic progress, rather than by formulas that apportion money to districts according to their numbers of students, especially poor students. The well-worn formulas for distributing tens of billions of dollars in federal aid have, for decades, been a mainstay of the annual budgeting process in the nation’s 14,000 school districts.

Under the Obama administration’s proposals, a new accountability system would divide schools into more categories, offering recognition to those that are succeedingand providing large new amounts of money to help improve or close failing schools.

A new goal, which would replace the 2014 universal proficiency deadline, would be for all students to leave high school “college or career ready.” The new standards would also define what students need to learn in earlier grades to advance successfully toward high school graduation.

On the face of it, this is a good thing (and rather private-sector in execution): paying for performance. However, the idea that the federal government is best suited to decide what is necessary for someone to be “college or career ready” does seem to bypass local control by school systems.

The more troubling sentence from the above is the one which says that “The new standards would also define what students need to learn in earlier grades. . . .” That is, the bureaucrats of the Department of Education are not happy with defining instruction for high-school students–they must needs ensure that everything is planned out for children from kindergarten forward.

We are anything but a nation of cookie-cutter citizens. Supposedly, this diversity was and is one of our remarkable strengths. How can we lay claim to increasingly diversity while at the same time ensuring decreased diversity with regard to education–an area where the strengths and weakness of each person should be brought into full relief and exploited (in the best possible sense of the word) for future benefit?

Here’s part of an article from Edutopia which (while written a little over a year ago) does provide us with an overview of where matters stand in the debate for education standards:

The necessary discussion cannot be held unless the real alternatives are on the table. Today, essentially three currents of education reform compete with each other. One sees inspiration and motivation as the keys to better education. Reform in this direction starts by asking, “What will draw the best minds of our generation into teaching? What will spark great teachers to go beyond the minimum? What will motivate kids to learn and keep coming back to school?”

In this direction lie proposals for building schools around learners, gearing instruction to individual goals and learning styles, pointing education toward developing an ever-broader range of human capacities, and phasing in assessment tools that get at ever-subtler nuances of achievement. Overall, this approach promotes creative diversity as a social good.

A second current, the dominant one, sees discipline and structure as the keys to school improvement. Reform in this direction starts by asking, “What does the country need, what must all kids know to serve those needs, and how can we enforce the necessary learning?” In this direction, the curriculum comes first, schools are built around the curriculum, and students are required to fit themselves into a given structure, controlled from above. As a social good, it promotes national unity and strength. This is the road we’re on now with NCLB.

A third possible direction goes back to diversity and individualism — through privatization, including such mechanisms as tuition tax credits, vouchers (enabling students to opt out of the public school system), and home schooling. Proponents include well-funded private groups such as the Cato Institute that frankly promote a free-enterprise model for schooling: Anyone who wants education should pay for it and should have the right to buy whatever educational product he or she desires.

As someone whose own schooling was a blend of this and that and the other educational approach, I’m open to quite a bit of experimentation. Something to keep in mind is that children are, broadly speaking, not capable of not learning–the question is rather how best to ensure that they learn what we (the parents) deem important/essential/necessary.

I wish clearheaded thinking to the school officials in the Black Hills and elsewhere who are considering moving past NCLB and its arguably goodhearted but wrongheaded approach to education.

Caught this little blurb from KSFY a few minutes ago:

Federal Emergency Management Agency teams are in South Dakota this week assessing damage from last month’s ice storm.

[...]

FEMA will determine whether the counties are eligible for public assistance to help rebuild infrastructure. Residents in four of the counties may also be eligible for individual assistance.

Keep in mind that “public assistance” means taxes collected by the federal government and that “individual assistance” means taxes collected by the federal government.

It is not the federal government’s brief to provide assistance to anyone because they planned poorly, got caught in a disaster, etc. It is my responsibility (and yours) to provide assistance for our fellow humans. Oh, you say, but then I’m for doing it with my taxes, so this is fine with me. True enough, it may be fine with you, but it is patently not fine with the US Constitution.

If you wish to help the folks in South Dakota (or Haiti, or Pandora) who need it–then go for it. See, it is not a question of helping or not helping. The answer is that we help. However, the means by which we help makes all the difference in the world.

There may even be those who read the article above and thought to themselves something along the lines of “Oh, the government is taking care of things. Guess I’m off the hook.”

That, my friends, is government-assisted apathy in full kit running down the field.

The decision (or un-decision) to try the Christmas Eve bomber as a US citizen would have every right to be treated can still be an anomaly. Scott of PowerLine notes that the basis for this decision is . . . well, maybe it isn’t:

The Obama administration’s policy is indefensible. But it has not been required to defend it. It has simply served up Eric Holder to render his judgment in specific cases. The rationale supporting his judgment has yet to be articulated. It is what passes for the higher wisdom in the Obama administration, but they are awfully bashful about straightforwardly proclaiming its substance.

When the determination is made to accord rights to this person or that person who would not normally be considered to have those rights under our system of law and governance, we are owed an explanation. Further, that explanation should be rooted in the laws of our nation–which are themselves founded upon the constitution. We do sometimes get things wrong (as affirmed by the recent correction provided by the judgment in the Citizens United case). Perhaps we’ve got this entire “they are not citizens who broke laws, they are enemy combatants who are waging war against our citizens” understanding of Mr. Christmas et al wrong. If that be the case, let us hear a solid argument to that end and see if we need to change our thinking.

The President of the United States speaks about the health care debate in the following montage:

Now, transparency is apparently a bad thing, with the President pushing for closed-door decisions:

President Barack Obama is prodding House and Senate Democrats to get him a final health care bill as soon as possible, encouraging them to bypass the usual negotiations between the two chambers in the interest of speed.

Obama delivered the message at an Oval Office meeting Tuesday evening with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., joined in by phone.

They agreed that rather than setting up a formal conference committee to resolve differences between health bills passed last year by the House and Senate, the House will work off the Senate’s version, amend it and send it back to the Senate for final passage, according to a House leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the private meeting.

Obama himself will take a hands-on role, convening another meeting with congressional leaders at the White House on Wednesday. Pelosi and four Democratic committee leaders are expected to attend.

How much more will it take for people to realize that the President seems intent on doing what he will–regardless of the desire of the citizens for whom he is to be the chief representative?

Update

Some reporters tried to find out from Press Secretary Gibbs if the President had some justification for apparently reversing himself.

From a paper in Denmark (one can only imagine that this was written expressly to generate traffic):

From the start, Obama’s critics have claimed that his supporters have idolised him as a saviour, thus attempting to dismantle the concrete hope that Obama has represented for most Americans.

The idea was naturally that the comparison between Jesus and Obama – which is something that the critics developed themselves – would be comical, blasphemous, or both.

If such a comparison were to be made, it would, of course, inevitably be to Obama’s advantage.

The article goes on to say that while the effects of Jesus’ life and teachings are impossible to quantify (and only benefited a handful of people), Obama is the proper miracle maker. Wow.

I am reminded of the the following:

On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

Before anyone gets carried away, I am not claiming that Obama is Herod or even that he should be eaten by worms (or die in any fashion at all). I am reminded, however, that those who take to themselves the honor which belongs to another (or let expressions of worship toward themselves continue unchecked) are eventually called to account.

By now, just about everyone in the world who cares to know understands that a young man (23) of privilege (his father is one of richest men in his country) attempted to take his life and that of some 300 of his fellow passengers–and who knows how many on the ground.

Reversing her initial statement (and you are welcome to argue about whether or not it was taken out of context) Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano has now admitted that the system–which was established to prevent this type of act–did not work:

“Our system did not work in this instance,” she said Monday on NBC’s “Today” show. “No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way.”

Under our  system of law Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is considered a suspect (though I suspect in his own mind he’s guilty of failing to complete the task to which he had set himself). By his family’s statement, his suspected behavior is in keeping with recent developments:

Prior to this incident, his father, having become concerned about his disappearance and stoppage of communication while schooling abroad, reported the matter to the Nigerian security agencies about two months ago, and to some foreign security agencies about a month and a half ago, then sought their assistance to find and return him home. We provided them with all the information required of us to enable them do this. We were hopeful that they would find and return him home. It was while we were waiting for the outcome of their investigation that we arose to the shocking news of that day.

The disappearance and cessation of communication which got his mother and father concerned to report to the security agencies are completely out of character and a very recent development, as before then, from very early childhood, Farouk, to the best of parental monitoring, had never shown any attitude, conduct or association that would give concern. As soon as concern arose, very recently, his parents reported it and sought help.

It would seem then, that despite a childhood and young adulthood of plenty, Umar chose death. For all who would say “But, we do not know what motivated him” I would agree. However, it is highly probable that his motivator was firmly rooted in the same ideology as Richard Reid, Mohammed Atta, et al.

The best thing coming of this affair? Well, I believe we should consider it a Christmas grace or Christmas mercy (pick the one you think most suited to where you stand). While many hundreds of people could have died, and yet another memorial could have been built, and another family could have grieved the actions of a son, and millions would have mourned, and pundits and newspeople would have had many opportunities for grave discussion of why this “tragedy” occurred–we have none of that. Oh, we will have the discussions about why it was not entirely prevented and why the system did/did not work, etc but we did not have the brutal reality of waking up on Christmas Day 2009 plus one to hear “Hundreds are dead in an airplane crash near Detroit . . .”

For that, I am grateful. Are there things which can and should be done to prevent a more successful attempt of a similar sort? Of a certainty. But we should not lose sight of the truth that we were given quite a gift this Christmas. May we not waste it.