Why "Founderstein"? Read the original essay here.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Why We Should Care that 279 Members of Congress Have Promised Not to Do Their Jobs


"For heaven’s sake, you have Grover Norquist wandering the earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you. He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house. The only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection. And if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress."—Former US Senator Alan Simpson, “I Guess I’m a RINO”

       When the current moment becomes history, I suspect that historians will be as baffled as I am by the fact that 238 members of the House of Representatives and 41 Senators—all but three of them Republicans—have signed something called the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” in which they promise that they will never (ever, ever) cast a single vote to raise taxes. Given that “the power of the purse” is one of the most important duties entrusted to Congress by the Constitution, the pledge they have taken amounts to a solemn oath not to do their jobs.
       Let me be very clear here. I am not saying that the job of a legislator is to raise taxes. It is to determine, by the facts available at a given moment, what the appropriate rate of taxation should be. This is not an easy job; it requires a painstaking balancing of different interests and potential consequences, which is why legislators get large staffs, big salaries, and choice parking in downtown Washington DC to deliberate about such things. Nothing shuts down the purpose of a deliberative body quite like an a priori declaration that you will not, under any circumstances, deliberate.  
       Anyone making an absolute and unconditional promise not to ever vote to increase taxes must, of logical necessity, accept one of the following statements: 1) that there will never ever ever come a time when raising the tax rate is in the best interest of the country; or 2) that something (i.e. campaign contributions, the political support of the anti-tax lobby, etc.) is more important than doing what is in the best interest of the country.
       Since no politician will ever admit to believing the second statement (as true as it might be), the only possible grounds for signing the tax pledge is that one believes that there is NOTHING that could EVER justify a tax increase, which is clearly an insane position to take, our not being gods or having access to the future and all.
       The Founders—especially Alexander Hamilton—thought about this stuff quite a bit, and they tried hard to design a system that would be capable of responding to anything that the future might throw at them or us. In Federalist #34, Hamilton argues that the government’s power to tax should be virtually unlimited because the issues requiring a government response are impossible to anticipate:

We must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.

          What is the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” if not a unilateral decision by an individual elected official to limit the government's capacity to raise revenue for an indefinite period of time? It assumes, not only that the government does not need more revenue right now; it assumes that the government will never, under any conditions, need more revenue. Such an assumption as Hamilton clearly understood, is an abdication of the Constitutional responsibility to govern.
       Alan Simpson has apostatized from the Republican Party to tell us that now would be a good time to consider raising taxes--and cutting spending--in order to reduce the deficit. There are some fairly compelling reasons to listen to him. The federal tax rate is currently at its lowest point since the end of World War II, and, not coincidentally, the deficit is higher as a percent of GDP than it has been since 1947. Serious economists on both the left and the right agree that we cannot manage the debt without raising taxes, and Americans support modest tax increases for deficit reduction by a 2-1 margin. And yet, as Simpson acknowledges, we will almost certainly not see any Republicans voting to increase taxes any time in the near future because “Grover Norquist won’t let them.”
       The important question, now, is ours: why do we keep sending people to Congress to do a job that they have signed a written agreement not to do?

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Eight Great American Political Novels that People Don't Read Much Anymore





1. Democracy, by Henry Adams (1880): Henry Adams was the original "Anonymous" political author. and Democracy remains one of the finest political novels ever written. The novel , whose authorship was not revealed until the 1920s, tells the story of Madeline Lee, a wealthy young widow who comes to Washington, D.C. a generation after the Civil War. She becomes a famous hostess, an informal power broker, and the romantic object of several powerful men, including Silas P. Ratcliff, the new Treasury Secretary and a likely contender for the presidency. 
          As Madeline sees how the Washington game is played, she becomes increasingly comfortable in a world of moral grey areas, but she holds to the belief that there is some core of virtue underneath the American system of government that resists the corrupting nature of politics. The central question of the novel is the question of "American Exceptionalism": is the American political system fundamentally different than other political systems? Are Americans, at some level, immune from the corruptions of power and position? "There is only one thing in life," she confides to a friend "that I must and will have before I die. I must know whether America is right or wrong."
          At the time that Adams wrote Democracy, America had yet to become a military or economic superpower. It was still a young nation, still licking its wounds from a disastrous civil war. But the novel's central question could not be more important today, when "American Exceptionalism" has become a hiss and a buzzword and American power has shaped the world for more than 75 years.
  

2. It Can't Happen Here, by Sinclair Lewis (1935): Generally considered the best of Sinclair Lewis’s post-Nobel Prize novels, It Can’t Happen Here still lacks the canonical heft of works such as Main Street, Babbitt, and Elmer Gantry. And even these novels don’t exactly reside in the literary canon’s better neighborhoods. But It Can’t Happen Here deserves a place as one of the great political novels of the 20th century.
       In the novel, a nationalist demagogue named Buzz Windrip becomes President by appealing to nationalist sentiment and amasses dictatorial power. Many of the issues that propell Windrip to power will strike modern readers as eerily familiar, though not as ideologically consistent in 2012. Like real-life almost-dictator Huey Long, Windrip combines the redistributionist impulses of the left with the militarism and ultra-nationalism of the right—along with unhealthy doses of racism, antisemitism, and instutionalized Protestantism. The result is a plausible scenario for the 1936 election (written only the year before) in which FDR is defeated in the Democratic primary and replaced by a Homespun Hitler figure who transforms America into a fascist state.   
       Lewis wrote It Can’t Happen Here at a time when it was still possible for Americans to have a good word for Hitler and Mussolini—and for the extreme nationalism of fascist government generally. The novel’s main character—a Vermont journalist named Doremus Jessop—watches the transformation of America, first as a detached observer, and later as a victim. Throughout the novel, he listens in amazement as his fellow small-town Americans repeat, over and over, some version of the novel’s title, “it can’t happen here.”



3. All the King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren (1946): Interest in Warren’s classic novel of American politics has not quite faded--All the King’s Men still appears the top of most people’s lists of “Best Political Novels.” But not many people read it anymore. I was barely aware of its existence until Russell Fox steered me in its direction. Most of the good things that people say about the novel are true.
       All the King’s Men tells the story of the rise and fall of Willie Talos (renamed “Willie Stark” by Warren’s editor, and then restored to “Willie Talos” in the official 2003 reissue). Talos, the governor of an unnamed Southern state, bears a quite intentional resemblance to Louisiana’s Huey Long, who must be considered a primary subject of the book. Warren always said that the book was not about politics, but about human nature—which was kind of a joke, since he knew perfectly well that the two were the same thing.
       What strikes me the most about All the King’s Men is it’s nuanced Machiavellianism. The viewpoint character, Jackie Burden, calls Machiavelli “the founder of the modern world,” which Warren seems to accept. He does not mean the Machiavelli of myth and legend, but the very real, complex, and morally complicated political philosopher who actually wrote The Prince. Willie Talos believes in power alone, which is bad, except that he mostly does good things with it, which is good, except when he doesn’t, which is . . . . well, complicated.

4. The Devil's Advocate, by Taylor Caldwell (1952): Taylor Caldwell is the Ozymandius of 20th century Anglo-American letters. She was one of the most well-known and highest paid writers of the mid-century, she wrote more than 40 books, nearly all of them bestsellers. And today, very few people under 60 have even heard her name.
       The Devil’s Advocate is not even one of her better known novels, but it has had something of a second life among various right-wing patriot groups, who see in it something of a blueprint of how they are going to fight the war against the government. The novel centers around Andrew Durrant, a Constitutional patriot in an America that has forgotten the Constitution. He is part of a small group of “Minutemen” who infiltrate the government with the intention of making things WORSE for the people so that they will remember their liberties and throw off their oppressors.
       I read this book as a teenager, when I was reading books by Richard Bach and Ayn Rand and imagining myself to be an intellectual. And though Ms. Caldwell held many of the same views as Ms. Rand, she was a much better writer and storyteller. I would argue that she was a more powerful thinker as well. The Devil’s Advocate makes a good case against Constitutional mission creep and large-government totalitarianism; today's liberals would do well to consider it carefully. 


5. The Mouse that Roared, by Leonard Wibberly (1955):
Like many insufferable teenage geeks, I saw the Peter Sellers movie on TV and thought that that was as good as reading the book. But it wasn’t. The movie was comic genius, but the book is excellent satire, which is not the same thing.
       The Mouse that Roared tells the story of the knights of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, who (around the time of the Marshall Plan) set out to attack the United States, lose the war, and “be rehabilitated beyond our wildest dreams.” They send a small pack of longbowmen in medieval armor to New York City and manage to capture the world’s leading nuclear scientist and his new super-weapon that can destroy the entire world. With this weapon in hand, they form the “League of Small Nations” and force the world’s powers to sue for peace.
       In the process of telling this story, the Irish-American Wibberly gets his satiric hooks into all of the principal players in the Cold War: American exceptionalism, Soviet triumphalism, British colonialism, scientific detachment, and the absurdity of “arming for peace.” And it is short enough to read in a few hours. Not a bad way to pass an evening with nothing much going on.

6. Advise and Consent, by Allan Drury (1959): Though it reeks of the Cold War, Advise and Consent has a number of surprisingly modern themes. It treated Mormonism, homosexuality, and the politics of personal destruction before any of the three had an official “moment.” It was the bestselling novel of 1959, and a Pulitzer Prize winner to boot. And, for all that, it has not been in print for years.
       Advise and Consent tells the story of a controversial political nomination. A dying president names Robert Leffingwell—a well-known liberal, a professor, and a supporter of engagement with the Soviet Union—to be the new Secretary of State. A number of powerful senators immediately object, and, during the hearings, he is accused of hiding a Communist past. As the nomination plays out, Utah’s earnest Senator Brigham Anderson, who holds the nomination in his hands, is blackmailed by somebody aware of his homosexual past. Things, of course, go drastically astray.
       The most important character in the book, though, is the United States Senate itself, which Drury treats with reverence. The Senators disagree with each other, but are able to do so in a cordial way, until one senator breaks ranks with the august body and stoops to blackmail. He is the only real villain in the novel, and, once he is exorcised, the democratic process of disagreement, debate, and compromise produces a desirable result.

7. Mother Night, by Kurt Vonnegut (1961): Kurt Vonnegut’s reputation as a major American writer seems secure, but Mother Night remains one of his least read works, which baffles me, as I consider it one of his best. It is also, he has said on many occasions, the only one of his works that has a clear moral, which is this: “you are what you depend to be, so be careful what you pretend to be.”
       The hero (sort of) of Mother Night is Howard Campbell, Jr., an American writer who becomes a Nazi propagandist during World War II. Except that he isn’t really a Nazi agent, he is an American agent who uses his anti-American broadcasts as a way to get important intelligence out of Germany. But nobody knows this but the agent who runs him, and, when the war ends, everybody considers him a traitor.
       I have thought back on this work many times when I look at politicians pretending to be things to get nominated, to get elected, or to stay elected. We do tend to become what we pretend to be, so what we pretend to be is every bit as important as what we are.

8. Our Gang, by Phillip Roth (1971): Roth has written a number of brilliant political novels, such as Operation Shylock (1993) I Married a Communist (1998) and The Plot against America (2004). But none of them hit my funny bone like this gem of a book published during the first Nixon administration. Before the Watergate break- in even happened, Roth created a brilliant satire of Nixon’s essential duplicity.
       This is not really a novel. It is more like six separate satiric shorts featuring the American President Tricky Dixon (who has followed Lying B. Johnson and John F. Charisma into office). Tricky is shown giving a press conference on abortion (confronting accusations that some of the women killed in the My Lai massacre might have been pregnant, therefore making the heroic act of killing them abortions instead), working with his various advisors to find a way to prove that he has never had sex, and, in the end, going to hell and mounting a campaign against Satan.
       Our Gang was Roth’s follow-up to Portnoy’s Complaint, and it has all of the irreverent zing of the more famous novel. It got lost in the shuffle of Watergate, however, and is now read only by academic Philip Roth specialists, which is a shame, as it is a darn funny book.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Dancing with Them What Brung You: Why One Mormon Won’t Be Voting for Romney


Mr. George Milacek, who taught Psychology at Enid High School, was the closest thing that we had to a rock star. He spoke in a cartoonish voice that we all tried to imitate, and he always spoke his mind. When we asked him whether he was going to vote for Reagan or Mondale (kids, check Wikipedia on the second one), he told us exactly where he stood. “I’ve only voted for one Democrat in my life, and that was John F. Kennedy,” he announced. “People think that I voted for him because I’m a Catholic, but that’s wrong. I voted for him because he was a Catholic.”
       For years, I have wondered if I would ever have a “Milacek moment” of my own.  I am a lifelong Mor
mon from a multi-generational Mormon family. My ancestors did not walk with Brigham Young across the plains to Utah; they converted in England and met him there. But I have also spent most of my adult life voting for Democrats, and, though I would not identify myself as a liberal, I would certainly be comfortable with the label “non-conservative.” I am a confirmed centrist, and, for some time, the Democrats have been the only major party that even rents a storefront near the political center.
       But I like moderate Republicans too, when they can be found. And, from the time that he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, I have followed Mitt Romney’s career closely in a way that most Mormons (and very few others ) will understand. Seeing a powerful Mormon politician from outside of the Mountain West excited me and seemed to legitimate my faith and my heritage. Whenever I felt awkward about being a Mormon boy in the big, bad world--or when I was judged negatively by my peers--I could point to Mitt Romney and say, “there, I’m like him.”  I imagine that this is very much what Mr. Milacek felt in 1960, and, had Romney won the nomination in 2008, I might very well have allowed my tribal affiliation to trump my normal voting patterns.
       But then the Tea Party happened.
       Let me make a few disclaimers before I go on. First, I do not see the coming election as a choice between the lesser-of-two-evils. Quite the opposite, I think that we have a choice between two reasonably good candidates. I believe that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are decent, honorable men who love their country and want to serve it according to their lights and their talents. I am also not clearly attracted to Obama’s politics and repelled by Romney’s. Like most non-ideologues, I think that America is in a fiscal mess that is going to require both substantial tax increases AND deep cuts in entitlement spending, and I am frustrated that the two major parties each accept only half of that equation. But I am also encouraged that both candidates support least part of the truth as I see it. As abstract individuals, removed from their larger political contexts, the candidates appeal to me (and don't) more or less equally.
       But it's those larger political contexts that make all the difference. The recent primaries have made clear that there is no room in the Republican party for political moderation. Republicans in 2012 are, as they were in 2010, driven by an extremist ideology that is contemptuous of science, ignorant of history, and bereft of good sense. These extremists have swept away thoughtful conservatives such as Robert Bennett (UT) and Richard Lugar (IN) and replaced them with ideology-obsessed clowns. And, because they are clowns, the Tea Party faction in Congress has been willing to drive the nation to the brink of financial default before even considering the sorts of political compromises that make representative democracies work. By definition, these people cannot govern.
       I do not believe that Mitt Romney, in his soul, aligns with the Tea Party movement. If it were possible to kick them to the curb and still become a Republican president, I think he would do just that. It is not, however, possible—and that is the problem. The pressures that have forced Mitt to the right of Idi Amin are not going to disappear if he becomes President. In all likelihood, they will intensify in the House and at least remain constant in the Senate.
       If Mitt Romney becomes the President of the United States, he will owe his position to the extreme right wing of his party, and they will not go gentle into any good night. One of the few rules of modern politics is that, in the end, you got to dance with them what brung you. And whatever tribal affinity I may have for Mitt Romney—and I admit that I do have some—I cannot abide them what he will have to dance with if he makes it to the ball.