Evasions, Omissions, Lies and Misinformation

The Republican Party once again demonstrates its intellectual bankruptcy with its proposed 10 point manifesto. The only description for this collection of evasions, omissions, lies, and misinformation is that it is yet another gigantic step towards the lunatic right.

The lunacy is that that, unless a candidate agrees with at least eight of the points, the result will be withdrawal of support by the Republican National Committee.

Years in the wilderness anyone?

Here is the manifesto with some comments:

1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Smaller government is good but reducing taxes and running up deficits is not the way to go. Starving the beast does not work. What is needed is to reduce spending. The stimulus bill is not the problem so long as it is a one-off item and the Congress sets about restoring fiscal discipline as soon as the recovery is assured.

Uncontrollable spending on entitlements - Social Security. Medicare, Medicaid etc. - will eat the budget, first, and then the economy. The courage to tackle those seems to be entirely lacking.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

There are times when markets fail. Markets don't work well without clear price signals and the price signals in the medical sector are particularly obscure.

Another problem is asymmetry of information. Markets also fail when consumer and provider do not have equal knowledge. Every used car salesman, prior to the Internet, understood that and it still works fairly well in that business. Tort reform would help to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance and, more significantly, the cost of defensive medicine.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

Admittedly 'Cap and Trade' is command and control with a leavening of market discipline but it may be necessary. What is the Republican alternative?

While it is possible to argue, with a fairly straight face, that global warming is not actually happening, there is no denying that the supply of fossil fuels is ultimately finite even if it is sufficient for a century or more. On the other hand, the capital costs and time involved in switching energy sources are so daunting that we need to start now unless we simply have no sense of responsibility towards our grand children and their children.

A carbon tax in addition to cap and trade would add a stronger price signal. Rebating the proceeds through the payroll tax process would make it cheaper to hire new employees but there is no sign of that.

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

Finally something sensible and democratic. Intimidation by companies is a real problem but 'Card Check' would only counter it by substituting intimidation by union organizer.

A company that gets itself a union almost certainly deserves it. Most employees don't want to pay union dues but they do have to be treated decently or they will go looking for someone to help them. Legislation to restrain some of the worst company anti-union behavior would be a good (and democratic) idea but "card check" is not it.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Get real. What are you going to do with the 12 million or so illegal immigrants that are already in the country?

Just fix the broken system which, admittedly, will not be easy.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges:

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are political problems with a military component. This is not World War II which was a primarily military problem requiring the defeat of, and unconditional surrender by, the Axis powers.

French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau said it well: "war is too important to be left to the Generals."

Not only should the Republican party remember this, it should also take heed of the concept of civilian control of the military. We have enough retired Generals in senior policy positions as it is and giving the uniforms carte blanche is hardly a good, or democratic, road to walk down.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

What are you suggesting? Bombing - or invasion?

Fairly draconian sanctions on North Korea haven't worked and there is no real evidence that more intense sanctions would deter Iran. That leaves military action.

If so, what resources do we have available? Since we don't have the resources to start two more wars, then this is only bluffing. We may not like the Iranian or North Korean governments but they are shrewd - not stupid - and our bluff is likely to be called.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

That is one way to go but it would be nice to get some clear thinking on marriage.

One part of marriage is a religious sacrament. That, however, brings into play the 1st Amendment ('Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...') so the government should probably remove itself from the definition of that form of marriage.

The other part involves privileges and benefits that the State grants to what might be regarded as 'Family Company, Inc.' All of these 'Family Company' marriages are State sanctioned but many are not blessed by any religion. The 14th Amendment (that's the one that abolished slavery) requires equal treatment under the law. Why then are all 'family company' type arrangements - regardless of the sex of the primary partners - not treated equally?

In addition to the simple provisions of the 14th Amendment, discrimination on the grounds of gender is specifically prohibited by many laws. Why then is it permitted here?

We did eventually, after a very long gap between the ratification of the Constitution in 1878, and the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1919, allow women (not clearly an inferior group that would justify such treatment) to vote.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

The Soviet Union had ration coupons: so do we. It is just that ours are green, have pictures of George Washington on them, and we are allowed as many as we can earn. There is no reason for rationing if you are spending your own money.

When, however, patients or their families demand that others pay unlimited sums of money for their treatments - many of which are of dubious worth with respect to well being or increased lifespan - there would seem to be some moral issues that need to be addressed.

Note also, that much health care is delivered via an equivalent to the so called public option: Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration Health Benefits, SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) etc.

Perhaps rationing is the only way. Is it morally reasonable that I demand that others spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend my life for a few days?

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

How are you going to keeps guns out of the hands of crazies and ideologically motivated terrorists? Or do you suggest that we go back to the Wild West and make the whole country a free fire zone?

What do you suggest about the perverse inner city culture that makes being 'dissed' or just perceiving that one has been 'dissed' a justification for opening fire? What about all of the felons who are currently locked up but most of whom will eventually be released.

What do the victims of Maj. Nidal Hassan (Ft. Hood), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia tech), John Allen Muhammad (Washington sniper) and many, many, others think about this idea?

So here is the scorecard as analyzed by a long time Republican who, for many years, was more or less in the middle of the party but is now hanging on by his fingernails:

Sensible 1; Partly sensible 1; Irrelevant 2; Really stupid 6

Our country deserves better. President Barack Obama may be too far left and too much of an intellectual to be a great - or even good - leader. That leaves the Republican party an opportunity which it is in the process of squandering.