THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN & THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES

• First, some thoughts about the Democratic primary.  This past Saturday (31 May 2008), the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Committee met to determine what to do about the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan.  The entire Committee deliberation had been framed by the Clintons as an issue centering on democracy and feminism.  During the weeks leading up to the Committee meeting, Hillary Clinton framed the issue by comparing her situation with the African American voting-rights struggle in the segregated South and with the democratic forces currently struggling in Zimbabwe.  Such analogies are, quite frankly, absurd!  Here are the brutal facts of the situation:  Harold Meyerson correctly reports that “Had Florida and Michigan conducted their primaries the way the other 48 states conducted their own primaries and caucuses—that is, in accord with the very clear calendar laid down by the DNC well before the primaries began—then Clinton’s marchers would be utterly justified in their claims.  But when the two states flouted those rules by moving their primaries outside the prescribed time frame, the DNC, which gave neither state a waiver to do so, decreed that their primaries would not count and enjoined the presidential candidates from campaigning in those states.  Obama and John Edwards complied with the DNC’s dictates by removing their names from the Michigan ballot.  Clinton did not.”  What is especially difficult here is that the Clinton campaign gave total support to the calendar, the sanctions and the entire procedure concerning Michigan and Florida.  The importance of Florida and Michigan was never an issue until Clinton was in danger of losing the nomination fight.  Then, both states became critical and she re-framed the entire issue as one of democracy and making certain that “every vote is counted.”  Neither Hillary Clinton nor any of her supporters on the DNC Rules Committee at the time the sanctions were imposed on Florida and Michigan argued that the sanctions “were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values.”  The threat to “democratic values” occurred only when Clinton was in danger politically.  Listen again to Meyerson:  “Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida [and Michigan] of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed these sanctions.  All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties. . . Harold Ickes, a committee member, leading Clinton strategist and acknowledged master of the political game, said, ‘The committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced.’”  Clearly the DNC Rules Committee is not destroying democratic values nor is it turning its back on Hillary Clinton because she is a woman.  The simple, yet brutal reality is, Florida and Michigan broke the rules and appropriately, by everyone’s agreement, should suffer the consequences.  What the DNC Rules Committee did on Saturday was amazing in its grace and magnanimity:  It gave them exactly 50% of their deserved delegate seats.  The committee had every right to refuse to seat the delegation of either state.  That it gave them the right to sit at the convention is nothing short of amazing.  Hillary Clinton had no right to demand that all delegates be seated and fully counted—and that she get those delegates.  Everyone knew that at the DNC and everyone knew that what the DNC did was fair, balanced and totally equitable.

One final thought here.  Hillary Clinton does have one very legitimate point to her argument:  She has won the key states necessary for the Democratic candidate to win the electoral college (e.g., Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc.).  She has won the blue collar worker vote.  She has won the Hispanic vote.  All of these constituencies are critical to victory in the Electoral College.  But she ran a poor campaign at first.  Her strategy was to lock up the nomination quickly by Super-Tuesday on 5 February.  She had no strategy beyond that!  When Barack Obama began wining primaries and caucuses, she did not know what to do at first.  Hence, her strategy on Florida and Michigan.  It was a strategy that was unethical and wrong.  She had no case when it came to Michigan and Florida!  Further, there is little question that the media for the most part is enamored by Obama.  Until very recently, he has gotten little scrutiny and only with the Rev. Wright explosion was there a real critical evaluation of Obama.  Hillary Clinton must be absolutely astonished at what has occurred.  One year ago, no one would have envisioned that she would win so many important states and still lose the nomination.  She lost it because she did not plan well past 5 February.  Plus the actual rules of the DNC worked against her in the end.  In that sense, Barack Obama played according to the rules and won.  Hillary did not and lost.  See Meyerson’s helpful editorial in the Washington Post (28 May 2008).

• Second, there is little doubt that whichever candidate wins the presidency—Obama or McCain—“big government” will return.  Whoever is president, that candidate will face huge challenges in dealing with housing, healthcare, Social Security, Iraq and other massive problems.  2009 will usher in a new push for big government—more taxes, more regulation and more spending.  Further, the US deficit will grow and perhaps become untenable.  The national debt is a staggering $9 trillion and the US government has some $44 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations.  Medicare is already cash-flow negative and Social Security will also be in less than a decade.  If any candidate is seriously talking about proposing a “new New Deal,” the reality is that such talk will be severely limited by the future costs of the old New Deal.  Unless the US Congress levies an entire series of confiscatory tax policies, the US Treasury will simply not have the funds to significantly increase new entitlement programs.  Paternalistic government that cares for its citizens from cradle to grave is an absurdity and cannot be funded.  Quite frankly, any talk of limited government today seems equally ridiculous.  As Charles Kessler recently observed, “Entitlement rights—rights created and funded by government—[have] replace[d] natural rights.  Given this new relationship of people and government, we don’t need to keep a jealous eye on government anymore, because the more power we give it, the more rights and benefits it gives us back—Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, unemployment insurance, and on and on.”  Rights today are a bargain struck with government and politicians must keep redefining what those rights are, what new entitlements government can give—and then try to fund them.  The rhetoric of the current presidential campaign is calling for an entirely new set of entitlement rights—but it is absurd to think we can afford to do this.  Contrary to current thinking, rights are God-given, not government-given, where we as citizens give our rulers power and they give us entitlement rights back.  Scripture in fact calls for limited government where the state’s primary responsibilities are to promote justice and thwart evil.  But, as everyone knows, we lost that vision a long time ago!  Whoever becomes president, we will face the future of a government that gives more entitlement rights, which could then in effect bankrupt this nation!  May God in His mercy restore a measure of sanity to the US government!!  See “The Return of Big Government” in US News and World Report (21 April 2008), pp. 45-50 and Charles Kessler in Imprimis (March 2008).

Print