What Mitt said, and What He Should Have Said

Recently, ex-Massachusetts Governor and my fellow Mormon Mitt Romney addressed the Conservative Political Action Committee. He told them:

"In a world where others have lost their liberty by trading it away for the false promises of the state, we choose to hold to our founding principles..."

That sounds good, if only he had followed it up with something like this:

"Therefore, we renounce oppressive measures such as the USA PATRIOT Act, which is tyranny masquerading as security. We reject the siren call of some who would trade-off the rule of law for fleeting tactical gains in the fight against terrorism. We recognize the rule of law as the bedrock principle of liberty; that adherence to justice--to every person being treated honorably and fairly, receiving his due whether or not we like him--is the most important constitutional value we defend."

But alas, all he was talking about was the usual neo-liberal baloney--the magic of the marketplace. If only Brother Mitt still sounded like he did as Governor of Massachusetts--a moderate, reasonable man of conviction. But no, to appease the Mike Huckabees of the Republican Party, Mitt sold out the moderation that made him attractive to people who might actually vote for him, which the Huckabees never will do.

Now, Mitt is the Chairman of Bain Capital Group, a private equity firm. Of course he loves no-net capitalism, it has made him immensely wealthy and powerful. It did the same for Alan Stanford and Bernie Madoff. He's never going to like economic regulation, any more than I like plutocracy. One doesn't expect him to abandon the Old Whig line that "those who would trade [economic] security for [laissez-faire] liberty, will end up with neither." (It comes from Edward Gibbon, not Franklin, by the way. Franklin was plagiarising.)

What would be nice is to hear a so-called conservative of the 21st Century recognize that the Constitution is worth more than lip service. All of it. "Promoting the general welfare" in addition to "providing for the common defense." And that as that greatest of American conservatives, Abraham Lincoln, put it, we are a country dedicated to the rule of laws, not men. Sorry, Mitt: I can't support a person who doesn't see this, LDS or not.

A modest proposal that no one will listen to.

Learned a supreme irony today--the health insurance reform plan the Democrats are trying to get through Congress is, with a few omissions, largely the very plan the Republican proposed in 1993! Some of the biggest nay-sayers, now opposing this plan, sponsored it in 1993! Back then the idea that all should be required to obtain insurance at a fair price was touted by them as a model of "personal responsibility." Now they say that it is a violation of "liberty" to require people to obtain insurance.

What it appears to be is an abandonment of principle on their part. They are convinced they will reap short term political gain by continuing the "Party of No" thing. It is hard not to see these actions as an integral part of the partisanship that poisons everything in Washington.

In my view the smart thing for Dems to do is to dust off that old Republican plan that looks so very similar to their own, swallow hard, accept medical malpractice award caps and the other few things that the two plans don't have in common, and substitute the old Republican plan. Bring it up for a vote and quote their own speeches back at them. To get universal health coverage, curtailing malpractice awards would be well worth it. Make the system no-fault like Michigan auto insurance--to drive, one is required to have insurance that covers his own injuries. Only allow legal action on medical malpractice when the injury is permanent and affects a major activity of life, ie mobility or the ability to work. Provide for public coverage of catastrophic loss over a certain level such as $250,000. We could live with such a system; we live with it here in Michigan for auto insurance (except for the public coverage of catastrophic loss part) now.

But alas, hoping the Democrats will get smart on this point is like hoping someone will repeal the law of gravity. The parties posture, proclaim, and pretend, and meanwhile this is the only industrialized country on the planet that does not provide universal health coverage in some form or other. A distinction the Republicans can be proud of, to be sure; it belongs to them!

The politics of greed and envy

America is plagued by the politics of greed (Republicans) and envy (Democrats). This is the spirit that doomed Rome and it will doom us if we don't get over it. Yet I see nothing on the horizon to indicate that the politicals are waking up to this fact. One side is obsessed with an ever-expanding wish list of "rights" for anyone and everyone, regardless of economic or social/civic cost. The other is obsessed with libertarian economics despite centuries of evidence that unregulated markets lead to abuses and real people being hurt for the profit of the few. I see no reason to expect this to change on either side unless we the people respond to extremism by no longer voting for it. I will say that I find it extraordinary that the Republicans who six years ago said they would be "bipartisan" when they had a veto-proof majority in Congress, now say "bipartisanship" means giving the minority party control of governing. I blame both parties for the mess in government, but I blame the Republicans all the more because they are supposed to be the responsible and realistic party.

I am convinced the Republic is in real trouble and that Washington is full of little Neros, each fiddling his or her little tune of "Reelect Me At All Costs," while Rome burns.