Hollow Populisms

Union members and supporters protest Governor Scott Walker's assault on unions
Madison, Wisconsin, 2012

Conservative populism is inherently unstable; it must constantly struggle to keep cultural populism from bleeding over into economic issues.  That is, white working people are encouraged to resent snobbish, over-educated, cosmopolitan, elitist liberals who look down on them for their unsophisticated tastes, crude manners and backward views.  But they must never resent the rich simply for being rich; they must never consider the injustice of being forced to work for less pay in worse conditions while CEO’s and hedge-fund managers make millions.  Since in conservative mythology, capitalism always rewards the virtuous and punishes the lazy, conservative populism must be about attitudes and humiliation, never about wages and power.  It must remain purely affective, never material.  You’re only allowed to hate someone for their condescension, never for their money.  Thus is real populism neutered.

But that’s what makes the conservative split on immigration so interesting: it sneaks in some genuine economic populism through the back door.  Conservative elites – commentators, writers, the Republican establishment, the Chamber of Commerce, big money – are quite happy to let in lots of unskilled workers from other countries.  It provides cheap labor, and it indulges their stark libertarianism, the view that any interference in the market – even a national boundary – is the work of the devil.  And after Hispanics voted overwhelmingly in 2012 against Mitt Romney and his severely restrictive anti-immigration position, Republican leaders are eager to appear more accommodating toward Hispanics.  And did I mention that immigration provides lots of cheap labor?

The conservative base, of course, is strongly opposed to both allowing in more immigrants and allowing undocumented immigrants to stay.  Their reasons are partly cultural: they’re afraid that too many foreigners will resist assimilation and alter the national character.  And on the farther reaches the reasons become more nativist and racial: they’re convinced America is meant for white Christians.  But their objections also include perfectly defensible and plausible economic concerns: they don’t want to compete against cheap labor.  Of course, that’s the same cheap labor – I may have mentioned – that employers and investors are quite happy to have them compete against.  So the split on immigration between the conservative establishment and the conservative base is an economic split.  It’s a split defined by class.  Not class in the sense of who’s looking down his nose at who, but in the sense of who holds economic power and who is subject to it.

Into that breach has stepped Scott Walker, the conservative Republican governor of Wisconsin and credible presidential candidate.  During an interview with conservative Glenn Beck, Walker staked out what breitbart.com calls a “pro-American-worker” position:

In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying—the next president and the next congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages, because the more I’ve talked to folks, I’ve talked to [Alabama] Senator Sessions and others out there—but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today—is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.

Clearly, Walker is siding with the base against the establishment.  But to do so, he’s taken a populist position, an economically populist position: the rich and the powerful are making decisions that hurt everyday people, that hurt them in their pocketbooks.

Now Scott Walker, like most conservatives, is not exactly a friend of policies and institutions that promote the economic interests of working people.  Indeed, he’s loved by conservatives specifically because of the ferocious battles he fought against organized labor in Wisconsin.  And many conservative commentators consider Walker’s newfound suspicion of a completely free labor market to be a real betrayal of conservative principle (there are exceptions).  Consider Philip Klein's delightfully dogmatic reaction:

The idea that policymakers should protect current American workers from competition from immigrants who come here legally and are willing and eager to work hard is a perversion of American ideals and a recipe for decline.

But in addition to Walker’s newfound moderation regarding market purity, there is his newfound immoderation on the immigration issue itself; i.e. he’s gone quite a few steps further than most of his conservative presidential rivals by questioning not only illegal immigration, but legal immigration.  Together these deviations add up to a new, more comprehensive conservative populism.  That is, Walker is positioning himself, consciously or otherwise, to be the genuine voice of working America (white working America, at least) championing both its cultural instincts and its economic interests.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Or so it would appear.  But will Walker embrace a broader range of policies helping working people?  Will he support raising the minimum wage or progressive taxes or public works?  Will he come out fighting in favor of unions?  If he does none of those things his populism will have been detained at the border’s edge.  If it seems that the immigration controversy might be the herald of a more genuinely populist conservatism, it isn’t happening yet, and it probably won’t happen any time soon.  And that’s because conservatives – even populist ones – believe that American workers merit special consideration only for being American, not for being workers.  American workers should be protected from competition from foreigners but not from the depredations of American capitalism.  This is the full extent of conservative concern for American workers: they must remain American.

But if conservatives have no concern for American workers as workers, liberals have no concern for them as Americans.  Indeed, most liberals seem to have no more consideration for American workers than they do for workers from other countries.  It’s true that the Democratic economic agenda – minimum wage increases, Obamacare, etc. – is directed at helping working people, but when faced with the choice between American workers and immigrants, liberals choose the immigrants.  Have their national feelings attenuated that far? They’re terribly concerned about the injustice suffered by African-Americans, Hispanics, other racial minorities, women, gays, the handicapped, etc., and rightly so.  But do they have no particular consideration for their fellow Americans as Americans?

If not, if liberals have gone that far, then American liberalism is on a short one-way trip to history’s dust bin.  No one will vote for a party that doesn’t put a special priority upon the interests of its own citizens.  Indeed, no one should!  Especially if one supports the social welfare state and hopes for a more egalitarian and just society, since those are practically possible only within the confines of a well-defined polity.  It’s much easier to convince a rich New Yorker to pay taxes for doctors in Texas than for doctors in Bangladesh.  Liberalism without patriotism is liberalism standing upon thin air.

Liberals used to understand this.  Only a few years ago they were much more willing to express worry about the effect of immigration on American wages.  Now they only worry about doing even the tiniest damage to their demographically expanding non-white electoral coalition.  And by spending so much time and energy portraying any conservative resistance to immigration as based entirely upon racism, they’ve made it too politically costly to question immigration themselves.  Their populism is a victim of their own propaganda and their own hypertrophied broad-mindedness.  To love everyone is to be of no use to anyone.

And conservatives, whose national feelings could probably do with a little attenuation, are all too happy to demonstrate how this undermines liberal economic populism.  Here is the Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey H. Anderson explaining how immigration shows that liberals don’t care about workers (in a piece written before Walker staked out his anti-immigration position):

If there is anything that liberals and Big Business can seemingly agree upon, it’s that we don’t need an approach to immigration that benefits Main Street.  It remains to be seen whether anyone running for president will seize this opening and buck the liberal-corporate consensus.

But liberals seem blithely unaware how much they’re playing into that consensus.  Hillary has even come out in favor of more immigration!  And that’s in perfect keeping with her pro-business positions and the general cosmopolitan tilt of liberal elites.  And, of course, it helps Democrats cement their support among Hispanics.  But it drastically undermines liberal credibility among working Americans, the very people that liberalism used to be about.

We’re left with no real populism.  Liberal populism shrivels before our eyes.  And a hollow conservative version tries to steal its place.  But the only American populism worthy of the name is one that actively works for the material good of American workers.  Liberals may call that nativism and conservatives may call it socialism.  But in reality it’s neither, it’s justice made practical.

Why Do Conservatives Love Israel So Much?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warmly greeted by Congress, March 3rd

The most striking thing about the conservative reaction to the Obama administration’s unprecedented diplomatic breach with Israel is its abject identification with the other country. To recap: Benjamin Netanyahu successfully campaigned for re-election as Prime Minister by explicitly repudiating what has been the central proposal of both Israeli and American diplomacy for a generation: the two-state solution, the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state at peace with Israel.  He also lamented that Israeli Arabs were actually exercising their political rights as citizens by voting against him in great numbers.  By retracting the only important conciliatory position Israel has taken, and by appealing to the worst instincts of his embattled base he has made progress on the Palestinian problem impossible for the foreseeable future.  Indeed, that seems to have been his intent.  But he has badly damaged Israel’s diplomatic and moral standing, and that is reflected in the new American disapproval.

But American conservatives are angry beyond reason, not at Netanyahu for sabotaging chances for mid-East peace, but at Obama for having the nerve to criticize him for it.  Of course, overwrought indignation deafens our current political discourse, but in this case the apoplectic table-pounding seems all too sincere.  What gives?  Israel, as the only genuine liberal democracy in the region, is an admirable country in many ways.  But how do we understand the intensity and extremity of conservative protectiveness?  Is it possible to imagine conservatives losing their minds over official American reproach of, say, Britain?  Or Canada?  Or any other country in the world?  Why is Israel so special in the conservative mind?  Why do they love it so much?

And it’s not just that they love it.  They seem to love it as much as they love America.  And, crucially, they love it in the same way: it’s pure and noble in essence and can do no wrong.  Of course, many American Christian fundamentalists support Israel because it plays a central role in their vision of the end of days; i.e. Armageddon and the destruction of all non-believers, especially any Jews who stubbornly remain Jewish.  Israel must be quite happy at this sort of “support”.  More to the point, such obscurantist, adolescent revenge fantasies might explain instrumental affection for Israel, but they don’t explain super-national love.

As personal love is the extension of one’s ego to include another, conservative Israel-ardor is the extension of patriotism.  Consider a country whose creation was ordained by God Himself, whose purpose is to bring righteousness to the world, whose political heart is democratic and free, and which from the moment of its inception was besieged by implacable evil.  Is that America or Israel?  Yes.  Yes, it is.  In the conservative imagination Israel is an extension of all that’s good in America, in Western civilization, in humanity.   Conservatives love Israel the way they love America because Israel is America.  It’s the only country that has a franchise on American exceptionalism.

And since, as conservatives have warned us, Obama doesn’t really love America, it makes perfect sense that he doesn’t love Israel either.  Indeed, some conservatives claim that Netanyahu loves America more than Obama does!  The farther fringes are certain that Obama actively desires the humiliation – or worse! – of both.  The crucial confusion here is mistaking an ideology for a country.  Conservative love America for its essential goodness, which in their minds flows from its strong, beating conservative heart.  Israel equals America equals conservatism equals moral purity.  To oppose any of them is to oppose them all.

But even more important than moral purity is moral strength.  From the moment of its birth Israel has beaten off its attacking neighbors, even expanding its territory and its military power.  This is what makes conservatives swoon: bad-assed righteousness.  God must be on Israel’s side.  At the very least, the conservative principles that made America so great are doing the same for Israel.

And now we can correctly perceive Israel’s enemies.  They’re evil in essence and retrograde in practice.  Non-white, non-Western, non-Judeo-Christian, they’re present-day Native Americans, indulging their strange, savage habits and hoarding land they don’t know how to properly exploit.  They can’t possibly have any legitimate grievances.  Any resistance these place-holding squatters feel toward their eviction by the rightful owners can only be motivated by simple spite.  The conservative vision of Israel as America is complete: sturdy, righteous pioneers subduing the physical and moral wilderness, armed with only a Bible and an atomic bomb.  And this is the Puritan self-image: a pillar of morality strong enough to resist the temptations, corruptions and enervations that threaten his soul.

This is the myth of American and Israeli goodness that, to varying degrees, informs conservative thinking on the subject.  The increasing polarization of American politics – i.e. the escalating ideological purification of conservatism – has increased the influence and intensity of that myth.  As with the embattled Puritan, the greater the evil outside the door, the greater the intensity of belief inside the temple.  The more conservatives feel America is threatened – by immigration, by liberalism, by terrorism – or that Israel is threatened – by Arab demographics, by Iran, by insufficient American devotion – the more they reject reasoned analysis and embrace mythology.  Obama has pushed all their Israeli buttons: by pressing it to halt settlement-building, by negotiating with its enemies, by criticizing its politics, and – most importantly – by not worshiping its moral superiority, by treating it like a normal country, like the flawed and morally complex country that it is, that every country is. 

Of course, fawning conservative admiration of Israel doesn’t negate what actually is admirable about Israel.  But American conservatives defend Israel for all the wrong reasons, for reasons having more to do with American mythology than Israeli reality.  That confusion doesn’t lend itself to the prudential, moderate diplomacy that Obama is trying so hard to practice and that Netanyahu is trying so hard to subvert.  And this is the irony of the American conservative position: they’re defending Israel’s reputation so vehemently just when its own leaders are so carelessly doing it the most damage.

American Crusader

Bradley Cooper as American sniper Chris Kyle

The sniper clearly sees his target.  That’s what makes him such a compelling figure.  He directly sees the impact of his actions; he knows who he kills and he knows what killing means.  The chaos of war may prevent the grunt soldier from knowing if he ever hits anyone; but the sniper knows.  He rains down death like a wrathful god and he sees who he smites.

So he must confront the question: Who is an enemy and who is not?  That’s the dilemma crouching at the center of American Sniper, the movie by director Clint Eastwood, which presents the life and career of legendary Iraq War sniper Chris Kyle.  The movie sees Kyle as an admirable, old-fashioned military hero: courageous, smart, tough, willing to sacrifice for his comrades.  He protects the good guys by killing the bad guys, and it’s quite clear to him which is which and who is who.

But from where did such old-fashioned moral clarity spring?  According to Eastwood, from the simple teachings of Kyle’s father, a Texas Sunday-school teacher and church deacon.   In an early scene the stern father illuminates for Chris the moral facts of life:

There are three types of people in this world: sheep, wolves and sheepdogs.  Some people prefer to believe that evil doesn’t exist in the world.  And if hatred ever darkened their doorstep they wouldn’t know how to protect themselves. These are the sheep. Then you got the predators. These people use violence to prey on the weak. They are the wolves.  Then there are those who are blessed with the gift of aggression and an overpowering need to protect the flock.  These men are the rare breed that live to confront the wolf.  They’re the sheepdog.  Now we’re not raising any sheep in this family and I will whoop your fucking ass if you turn into a wolf.

Strength without goodness is evil, but goodness without strength invites evil.

The rest of movie shows Chris living out his father’s creed, committed to being a strong and protective sheep dog.  He finds purpose after terrorist attacks against American embassies in Africa and, of course, after 9/11.  The determination to do good sustains him through the rigors of Navy Seal training, through his four terrifying tours in Iraq, through bitter struggles with a wife and family who resent his unending service, through the confusions of returning to civilian life.  He only wavers when he doesn’t know who he’s fighting for, when he’s home and has no sheep to protect.  Finally home for good, he tells a military doctor:

It’s the guys I couldn’t save. Those are the faces I see. That’s my regret – that I couldn’t hold on longer. That I couldn’t do more.

The doctor introduces him to his last fight: helping physically and emotionally wounded soldiers come to terms with the horrors they’ve experienced.  And like every other fight, he faces it bravely and squarely, never doubting his intentions or his ability to help his fellows.  But this is the fight that defeats him; one particularly damaged veteran, Eddie Ray Routh, slips into psychosis and murders Kyle.

The Chris Kyle portrayed in the movie is a genuine hero (though the real-life Kyle was a more ambiguous figure).  There is much to admire in someone so eager to fight the good fight, to sacrifice and risk so much to help his comrades and his country.  But it is a sad, limited heroism, a heroism with blinders on.  As a sniper he saw his victims clearly and as an American soldier he saw good and evil clearly.  But are good and evil really so clear?  To Kyle anyone who fights America must be evil, since America can’t possibly be in the wrong.  It never occurs to him that he was part of a military occupation of a foreign country that did not want him there!  Neither Kyle nor the movie ever considers the complexity of the Iraqi situation, with its wide array of insurgencies, peopled by Baathist ex-functionaries, Iraqi ex-soldiers, and Islamic militants; with Sunni groups, only a fraction of which were connected to al Qaeda; and Shiite militias aligned with Iran fighting against Sunni groups like al Qaeda.  The Iraqi hell was ignited by an American invasion against a regime that had no weapons of mass destruction and had no connection to attacks on the U.S.  Can we honor Kyle’s heroism when we face these facts?

Some of the movie’s most compelling moments come when Kyle is uncertain about a particular kill.  In the opening scene he must decide whether to shoot a mother and son who may be preparing to attack a vulnerable American column.  He hesitates, but when he’s sure of their evil intent, he shoots them down, professionally and decidedly.  In another scene a small Iraqi boy picks up a grenade launcher with great difficulty and tries to aim it at approaching American soldiers.  Kyle’s heart races as he hopes to God he won’t have to kill the boy.  But the child suddenly drops the weapon and runs away, and Kyle breaks down and cries in relief.  He’s a killer, but he’s not heartless; he’s the good guy!  But tactical doubts are as far as Kyle allows himself to go.  He may worry about killing a child, but he never worries that there’s something wrong with a situation which compels him to kill children.  He just stubbornly refuses to consider the reckless, brutal, irresponsibility of preemptively invading a country that posed no threat.  He simply will not let himself see the bigger picture.

But Eastwood’s point seems to be that Kyle could only be a hero by not seeing it.  When Kyle’s friend and fellow Navy Seal Marc Lee is killed in action, Kyle and his family attend the funeral stateside; Lee’s mother reads aloud a letter her son had written shortly before his death, a letter in which he expresses his doubts about the war.  On the drive home Kyle tells his wife what he thinks about his friend’s death and that letter:

We were operating off emotion and we walked into an ambush.  But that’s not what killed him. That letter did. That letter killed Marc Lee.  He let go and he paid the price for it.

Doubt is deadly; only rock solid faith can sustain us.  Eastwood seems to be saying that a soldier fighting a war must believe in it for his own sake.  Kyle was certain that he and his fellow soldiers were the sheep dogs, the insurgents and terrorists were the wolves and Americans back home were the sheep, and that’s all there was to that.  It may be simple-minded and foolish, but seeing his situation that way is what gave Kyle his strength.  To Eastwood, he is strong because he is good and he is good because he is simple.

And what applies to Kyle applies to America as well.  Eastwood is suggesting that this is the only way for a country to fight a war: it must believe in itself.  Since war is sometimes necessary, and therefore sometimes justified, we must believe in that justice if we are to triumph.  Could we have defeated Hitler if we had doubted ourselves? And is the determination to be a sheepdog foolish in itself?  There’s nothing wrong with committing oneself to fighting the good fight, to protecting the weak, to combating oppression.  Indeed, isn’t that the highest calling?

But Kyle’s sin, and America’s, is believing that good intentions are enough.  It was easy to justify fighting Hitler, but it’s not so easy to justify invading Iraq.  A thoughtful sheepdog – a sheepdog who wants to make sure he’s not a wolf – accepts the responsibility of understanding the meaning and consequences of his actions.  But also, more fundamentally, where both Kyle and his country – our country – go wrong is in believing that our intentions are always good.  Americans really love this movie, and we do so because it indulges our fervent wish to reclaim the conviction that we’re inherently, inescapably good.  And in that way, this movie – and every American war movie made in the last 40 years – is really about Vietnam.  Vietnam made us doubt, and we still have not come to terms with that.  Kyle’s simple faith and heroism urge us to join him in rejecting the doubt.  The farther right one goes on the political spectrum, the more one reveres that American goodness and applauds its forceful application.  But to some degree all Americans feel this Puritan instinct to save the world.

This is the tragedy of American idealism.  We ache to do good in the world, to be a force for good, to be an example of good.  But to blindly believe in our own crusading righteousness, and to deny the moral complexity of the world in order to cling to that righteousness, is to invite victimization by foolish and cynical politicians.  American idealism exploited Kyle and destroyed Routh, and through Routh, it destroyed Kyle as well.  It’s right to celebrate and admire Kyle’s courage and sacrifice, but we must overcome his limitations.  The best way to honor Kyle’s heroism is to prevent any further exploitation of the generous, eager idealism still out there. But that idealism must itself become more sophisticated and responsible.  We must absorb the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq and become less self-righteousness and more genuinely righteous.  We must become more humble about our intentions and our capabilities.  We can be both good and wise, but only if we concede that both we and the world are so much less simple than can be seen down the scope of a high-powered rifle.

The Liberating Tyrant

President Obama has dramatically reduced the federal government’s infringement of individual freedom – and conservatives are furious!  Yes, that’s right.  He has issued an executive order that directs the Department of Homeland Security to stop the prosecution and deportation of an enormous number of undocumented immigrants; that is, he’s freed millions of people from governmental oppression.  Before Obama’s order, they were afraid of arrest, detention, punishment and deportation; they feared the power of the state, and they no longer do.

Because of their respective positions on immigration, liberals are quite happy about this broad almost-amnesty and conservatives are quite upset about it.  But conservatives are also quite upset over Obama’s methods, calling them “impeachable” and “tyrannical”, claiming that by ignoring Congress and changing policy by executive order he is acting illegally and unconstitutionally.  On a technical level those questions remain murky, particularly since immigration law does allow the executive a fair amount of latitude regarding whom to prosecute.  There are over 11 million undocumented people living in the United States, but Congress only allocates enough funding to detain and deport 400,000 a year.  The executive branch is obligated to prosecute as many illegal immigrants as its funding allows; liberals claim that all Obama has done is to indicate which categories of immigrants those will be.  But publicly announcing that entire classes of previously illegal immigrants are now free from prosecution is to de facto make those classes legal (temporarily, at least).  In a very real way, the president has done something only Congress is authorized to do: change the law.  Even if he isn’t violating the letter of the Constitution, he is in direct violation of its spirit.

That is, he’s clearly defying some very important democratic norms.  Both Democratic and Republican Congresses have failed to enact any comprehensive immigration reform for years and the public just elected an explicitly anti-immigrant Republican Congressional majority.  Arguments about technical legality and constitutionality don’t address normative concerns since the whole point of norms is to sustain the environment that allows politics and law to succeed.  Consider that there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the unprecedented and ruthless Republican debt ceiling threats of recent years.  Dramatic increases in partisan polarization plus the dysfunction lurking within the separation of powers mean reliable norms are needed now more than ever.  It also means they’re more threatened than ever.

Of course, the general destruction of the norms didn’t start in the Obama years.  It’s been going on for about five presidents now.  But that doesn’t make it right.  And that doesn’t make it fair to the millions of recent voters whose wishes Obama just explicitly disregarded.  And, of course, liberals should worry that the next Republican president – and there will be one at some point – will also engage in such unilateral action.  Although he certainly would have even if Obama had never done any of this.  But why give him the excuse?  Why open the door for him?  Some Republicans are gleefully planning how their president should employ the “Obama Rule” (though more scrupulous ones argue against it).  By supporting Obama now, liberals undercut any normative argument they’ll make against that future “tyranny.”

But it’s an unusual tyranny that frees individuals from state oppression.  How does it happen that an over-reaching executive ignores the popular will, twists the law, arrogates power to himself, and then uses that power to liberate millions of people?  Prosecutorial discretion, that’s how.  Obama’s brand of tyranny seems so strange because it’s so limited; all it can do is explicitly decline to enforce the law.  But using prosecutorial discretion to – in effect – abolish laws is an inherently conservative enterprise.  Why?  Because it’s a negative action, it inhibits government.  Eric A. Posner explains:

The point is not just that Republican presidents can do what Obama has done. It is that enforcement discretion creates an advantage for Republicans—it favors conservative governance and hurts liberal governance. The reason for this asymmetric effect is that the great bulk of federal law is liberal economic regulation, not conservative morals regulation. A conservative president can refuse to enforce laws, but a liberal president can’t enforce laws that don’t exist.

Immigration is an atypical case in which conservatives want more government and liberals want less, so it lends itself to liberal executive discretion.  But the pseudo-Constitutional powers that President Obama has unearthed can easily become the broad weapon of choice for President Christie or President Paul, and that’s because those powers have a libertarian bias.  Imagine a GOP president announcing that he’s directing the IRS not to prosecute anyone who fails to pay income taxes above 20%; he will have unilaterally flattened income tax rates.  But a liberal president can’t unilaterally raise rates, since prosecutorial discretion only allows the president to do less than the law specifies, not more.  Liberals applaud the substance of Obama’s action and overlook the method, but they don’t realize that in this case, method is substance.

What liberals are missing is that Obama is violating democratic norms, not libertarian ones.  He’s not violating individual rights, he’s ignoring his obligations as defined by acts of Congress and he’s ignoring the will of people as expressed in the recent election.  But the people can restrict freedom and a dictator can enhance it.  The liberal welfare-regulatory state that has constrained the power of oppressive social actors – corporations, the rich, racists – was created by popular determination.  But if it is to be dismantled, it should be by popular determination as well, not by an unscrupulous conservative president armed with the super-power of broad prosecutorial discretion thoughtlessly provided him by liberal apologists.  Liberalism could not arise and cannot succeed without the will of the people; but the libertarian destruction of the welfare state can now more easily happen without popular consent.  It won’t need to remove existing law, just ignore it.

The norms fall, and the more norms fall, the more they fall.  Winning becomes all; compromise, comity, playing fair, playing by the rules – those are for suckers.  Obama, with this one stroke of his pen, has made his greatest contribution toward turning our politics into open warfare, and for that alone he deserves our censure.  But, from a liberal point of view, he’s done much more than that, much worse than that.  In his rush to extend the blessings of liberty to millions of marginalized people, in his reckless expediency, he may have helped seal the fate of the liberal welfare state itself.  Conservatives are wrong to decry Obama’s methods, instead they should celebrate.  Even though they’ve lost this particular battle, Obama has given them the perfect weapon for winning the entire war.

Stupidity, Dishonesty and Cowardice

"I cannot tell a lie"

Another video has surfaced of Jonathan Gruber saying cringe-worthy things about Obamacare.  Gruber is an MIT economist and health care expert who worked as a number cruncher for the White House during the push to enact Obamacare.  Here’s what he said last year regarding the way political pressures distorted the legislative process:

This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. So it’s written to do that.

In terms of risk-rated subsidies, in a law that said health people are gonna pay in — if it made explicit that healthy people are gonna pay in, sick people get money, it would not have passed. Okay, lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get anything to pass.

Conservatives are up in arms, particularly over the “stupidity” part, convinced that Gruber’s comments expose the dirty truth of modern liberalism:  It’s a conspiracy of snooty technocrats confident their superior brains and sociological analyses authorize them to control the everyday lives of the smelly masses, the rednecks and rubes too foolish to make the right choices, too stupid to know what’s good for them.

But let’s ignore that ridiculous argument and consider what Gruber was actually saying: that for any legislation to pass it must be politically presentable, it must not afford its opponents an easy target. And that applies to Obamacare in two ways.  First, Democrats could not allow the individual mandate to be seen – by the CBO or the public – as a tax.  Second, the essence of Obamacare is a transfer of health insurance dollars from the young, rich and healthy to the old, poor and sick; the public would never have allowed such governmental redistribution, so it had to be disguised.  And Gruber was also saying that it was easy to slip those two deceptions past an American public that doesn’t closely follow healthcare policy debates.  Charles Krauthammer charges that, “in order to get it passed, the law was made deliberately obscure and deceptive.”  Is he wrong?

It’s true, as Brian Beutler protests, that Obamacare’s legislative process was more transparent than most (compared to say Bush’s 2003 Medicare expansion or the run up to the Iraq War).  And it’s true, as Neil Irwin concedes, that certain aspects of the law itself (not the process) were deliberately obscured; and that is a “commonplace” tactic that's been employed by both parties on many occasions.  So who’s responsible for the fact that the American public does not really understand Obamacare?  Andrew Sullivan blames liberals and the administration for not making a better and clearer case for the law.  But many pundits, such as Paul Krugman, Jonathan Cohn, Ezra Klein and Jonathan Chait, have been explaining it clearly for years.  Gruber himself even wrote a comic book to make it easily understandable!  And conservatives, of course, have invested an enormous about of time and energy lying about the very law they now accuse of deceit and deception.  The national press did a bad job of covering all this, as they always do, by focusing on optics and neglecting substance.  But if any individual wanted to know more about the law, they could have quickly and easily done so – as long as they turned off Fox News.  The one actual, explicit lie used to sell Obamacare was the president’s promise that, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it.”  He knew it was a lie when he said it, but he also knew that admitting that 7 or 8 million people would have their policies regulated away – even though they’d be replaced with better ones – might have put the whole law in jeopardy.  The entire structure of American political discourse worked against an honest assessment of the law.

But let’s make the real confession.  There is one fundamental lie liberals have made and continue to make about Obamacare, and it’s a lie of omission.  The components, the details, the numbers have been endlessly examined, analyzed and debated.  But the real meaning of the law has, for the most part, not been adequately addressed.  What is its deeper significance?  What is it really about?  Redistribution.  Both Gruber’s confession and conservative complaints really boil down to this one point: Obamacare severs the connection between income and healthcare coverage; it indirectly redistributes money from the rich, young and healthy to the poor, old and sick.  The “indirectly” in that last sentence is what the current controversy is really about.  Gruber both regrets the necessity of that indirection and gloats over its devious utility.  And that gloating gives conservatives cover to deplore its dishonesty, though in reality they only lament its effectiveness.

But should we deplore its dishonesty?  Only if we care about American democracy.  Only if we wish it to be more rational and effective.  Sullivan puts it nicely:

If someone were willing to explain the ACA in simple, clear and honest terms, I think most Americans would back it . . . I refuse to believe that a democracy has to operate this way for change to occur. Gruber’s arrogance and condescension are just meta-phenomena of this deeper dysfunction. Someone needs to treat Americans as adults again before this democracy can regain the credibility it so desperately needs to endure.

But is Sullivan right that Obamacare could have withstood a thoroughly candid presentation?  Would a majority of Americans have supported it, even knowing the governmental redistribution that lay at its heart?  The answer is not clear, but I think probably not.  The idea of redistribution, explicitly promoted, would probably have been too unnerving.

We see that the distrust of Obamacare is primarily ideological.  American instincts are generally conservative: they fear centralized authority, they mistrust regulation, they insist that each person is the master of his own fate.  But American instincts constantly conflict with American interests.  Modern society would not be livable without the welfare and regulatory state that liberals have created and conservatives threaten, and Americans affirm that every time they deposit their social security checks and present their Medicare cards.  American conservatism evaporates at the door of the unemployment office.  Put more prosaically, the American people are ideologically conservative but operationally liberal, as has been noted many times.

That’s the real reason public policy is often deceptive.  Social Security pretends to give you back the money you paid in, but it actually pays more, relative to income, to those who made less.  So liberal laws must be dressed up in conservative clothing.  Many liberals, possibly including Obama himself, would have preferred single payer healthcare but considered it politically unpalatable, so they offered a market-friendly program cooked up in a right-wing think tank and instituted by a Republican governor.  Many Americans dislike Obamacare (some hate it for the evil Satanic, Islamic, Communist conspiracy it is!) while they like most Obamacare provisions.  Kentuckians, for example, hate Obamacare but love Kynect, their state’s implementation of the Obamacare exchange; but they returned to the Senate Republican Mitch McConnell, who has explicitly vowed to repeal Obamacare yet who refused to condemn Kynect when cornered in front of a Kentucky audience!  In the last election people all over the country voted for liberal policies like marijuana liberalization and minimum wage increases while voting into office conservatives staunchly opposed to those very policies.  Huh?

In effect, Americans want to be lied to.  They want it both ways: to enjoy their liberal dessert while believing it’s sturdy conservative fare.  This is the real deception at the core of this debate: the American people are kidding themselves.  They’re not stupid, as Gruber and some liberals believe, nor are they solid conservatives.  They’re inconsistent, and unaware of it.  And that encourages politicians and pundits to see what they want to see.  Conservative operatives dream of an America utterly given over to its deepest conservative instincts, but they’re woken from the dream by picketers angrily cursing any cuts to Medicare.  And liberals can never understand why Americans don’t follow them out of the laissez-faire wilderness into the social democratic Promised Land.  A consummate seduction of the American public eludes them both, though conservatives whisper sweet poetry and liberals offer alluring gifts.

But you don’t practice politics with the public you wish you had.  Ultimately, Americans want to be told the truth.  And they deserve the truth.  Liberals need to come clean.  The Democratic Party is the party of redistribution, and it should damn well act like it!  That’s not socialism or authoritarianism – conservative paranoia to the contrary – it’s the pragmatic amelioration of the worst inequities of modern society.  An economy that provides more and more to those at the top but demands more and more from everyone else does not satisfy the demands of democracy and justice.  Unfair economics is as destructive to democracy as dishonest politics.  If liberalism is not about justice for working people then it becomes little more than a loose confederation of identity groups, fighting over the scraps of a long gone shared prosperity.  It abdicates its claim to universalism, it loses its fire and its soul.  And so it has.

Gruber thought he bravely spoke the truth of American politics, that the people are so stupid that good policy must be deceitful policy.  But Gruber’s story is really one of liberal cowardice.  And there’s so much of our current misfortune that would be greatly improved with just a little more liberal courage.  Human nature being what it is, game-playing cannot be removed from politics.  But why can’t liberals successfully balance cunning and conviction?  And can they do the ceaseless, thankless work of educating the public about what they stand for and why?  And most importantly, can they learn to trust the people again?  The people are not stupid, they have as many practical instincts as conservative ones; they are amenable to prudential, fair, liberal policy that would benefit them and strengthen the country.  They’re merely waiting for leadership that both works for them and respects them.  Conservatism, in its modern incarnation as plutocratic propaganda factory, does neither.  Timid liberalism can only do the former.  Only confident and candid liberalism can do both.