Cinco de Mayo, Torture, and Conservatives
What do these three things have in common? Most people don’t know much about any of them and there is a conservative connection. Let’s start with Cinco de Mayo. No it is not a holiday invented by Corona for partying college kids. Almost 150 years ago the Mexicans defeated a French army that had not been defeated in 50 years. It turned out to be a short lived victory as the French eventually took over Mexico City and installed Maximilian I as emperor of Mexico. What I find humorous about the whole affair is that Mexico had defaulted on some loans so the French decided to repossess the whole country. I kind of like their style. Anyway, the French finally pulled out a couple of years later under pressure from the U.S. and Maximilian was executed.
So what is the connection to conservatives? Well one has to celebrate victories, even if they are small ones and have nothing to do with the overall battle. Then, we need to look back on it as a major victory and reinvent it throughout the years. Does the name Ronald Reagan come to mind? He was their big victory way back when. But conservatives fail to note that their small government, lower taxes gig was violated by Ronnie who raised taxes (after he cut them), grew government, and ran up the largest deficit up until that time. But let’s not let reality be a party pooper. The other analogy is that they think they will eventually prevail again as the Mexicans did. But more about that later.
Next up is Condi Rice and torture. The conservative connection here is obvious, although some Democrats went along for the ride. Last week at Stanford she was asked about her role in approving torture and she basically claimed that if the President authorized it, it could not be against the law. “By definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.” Later realizing she had invoked the Nixon defense (anything the President does, by definition, cannot be against the law), she said she misspoke. But it gets better.
This week, Misha Lerner, a fourth grade student from Bethesda, Maryland asked what did Rice think about the things President Obama’s administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees? Her response was:
“Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country. After September 11, we wanted to protect the country, but he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country.”
The reasoning here is circular. The President would never authorize anything against the law and therefore anything he authorized was legal. It is still the Nixon defense with some polishing. I find it interesting that Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC senior reporter, cut her some slack by saying had she had time to prepare her remarks, she would have not made that mistake. Is that what we had in the White House for leadership and thinking on your feet? No wonder they made so many bad decisions. Now they are trying to blame the Justice Department for bad advice, much like they blamed the CIA for the bad intelligence on Iraq. This ignores the fact that they were driving the train on this legal advice much as they were cherry picking intelligence in the Iraq debacle. Isn’t it interesting that the people of the party who want to hold people accountable can’t seem to ever find fault in their own actions?
Finally, even NPR today had Republicans trying to reinvent themselves and define their way forward. David Frum is leading the pack and he is urging Republicans to loose their litmus test on abortion and gay rights, and realize that they still want small government, but it has to be effective small government. David made the point that he was proud of his Republican conservative values. There are a couple of problems with all of this and it boils down to who are the Democrats they hate so much and what are conservative solutions to our problems such as health care, energy, failing infrastructure, and a failed economy? Let’s start with who are the Democrats.
I would challenge David to tell me what are Democratic values he finds so abhorrent. What you will find is that they hate a Democratic Party that doesn’t exist anymore. It was the Democrats who invented the phase “smart government”. It was the Democrats who were against the tax cuts that doubled the deficit during the Bush years. Democrats are much more willing to try new things than to stick with failed policies. So they are hanging onto their conservative values against an enemy that in many cases doesn’t exist anymore, John Murtha excepted. The real debates about how to fix our nation are going on now in the Democratic Party (forget that monolithic thing) and the Republicans are relegated to the sidelines as irrelevant.
The problem with Republican solutions is that there aren’t any. The Party of just say no is like a pool of stagnant water, and eventually it will just evaporate. When you have to go out into the country to find new solutions because you can’t think of any that anybody will buy anymore, your philosophy is bankrupt. It was Republican ideology that got us where we are today. Relying too much on the market place, cutting taxes, and eviscerating government by removing or not enforcing regulations are what has brought us to our knees. Granted some Democrats joined in the party, but the ideas are all conservative. Even in the boom years, there was no trickle down. Health care is a disaster, the infrastructure is crumbling because we cut taxes and failed to invest in it, and we are losing our competitive edge in the world economy. If you really want to see how bankrupt they are, ask how cutting more taxes is going to help the deficit or rebuild the infrastructure, or how more competition is going to fix health care. You will here the two-step of trickle down.
So why not try new ideas? Why not try a single payer health care system along side private insurers? If socialized medicine is so bad, why would anybody choose it? No, it is a time for a new day and trying some new solutions. But with the Republicans, trying something new is just not possible because they are so sure it will fail. Or is it fear that it will succeed? I think they are doomed. Meanwhile our President continues to define for the nation what a Democrat really is. Someone who knows there are limits to any solution, but is willing to try new things in moderation to see what works, to admit when he is wrong and change course. Now that’s a refreshing idea.
Yesterday, President Obama announced a plan to cut the deductions that businesses were taking for business expenses they incurred overseas on income they did not have to pay taxes on. You heard me right. And you want to know why two-thirds of all large businesses in the United States do not pay taxes? It is estimated that the effective tax rate U.S. corporations pay on overseas income is 2.3%. How do I get this rate? What do the Republicans start screaming? “You are raising taxes on business.” Okay, maybe the Obama plan could use a little tweaking, but this is debate? They really are a bankrupt party. Any really new ideas will come from a much more diverse Democratic Party,