Despite the flagging economy and historic unemployment rates, in Washington, D.C., it’s business as usual. Efforts to promote real economic growth may flounder, but the cronyism typified by the Wall Street bailout continues unabated, and it seems no special interest is too small or trivial. A bill currently moving through the U.S. House of Representatives provides a sobering tutorial on how money drives politics in the nation’s capital. Introduced by Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.), the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act of 2010 is a clear example of economic protectionism designed to shore up the monopoly profits of beer, wine, and spirits wholesalers, much to detriment of vintners, craft brewers, small distillers, and consumers, who will face higher prices and fewer choices.
Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing
According to the official summary, the Care Act:
Amends the Webb-Kenyon Act to: (1) state that it is the policy of Congress that each state or territory shall continue to have the primary authority to regulate alcoholic beverages; (2) prohibit unjustified discrimination against out-of-state producers of alcoholic beverages in favor of in-state producers; and (3) establish higher evidentiary standards for legal actions challenging the authority of states or territories to regulate alcoholic beverages.
Amends the Wilson Act to eliminate the requirement that a state or territory regulate the importation of all fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquors or liquids to the same extent and in the same manner as such liquors or liquids produced in such state or territory.
Taken at face value, the legislation appears innocuous; a simple clarification of existing law. However, the legislation is a direct response to the growing number of legal challenges to the monopolistic powers wielded by wholesalers and distributors in many states. The actual impact of the CARE Act would be particularly devastating to small craft brewers, independent wineries, and small distillers who are typically underrepresented by wholesalers but have made some inroads to consumers through direct shipping. For example, a medium sized winery in California, Cakebread Cellars, estimates that direct shipments make up roughly 10 percent of their business.[1]
More specifically, the CARE Act, H.R. 5034, does two things. First, it seeks to strengthen state regulation of alcohol by clarifying the primacy of the state’s authority. Second it proposes new evidentiary standards that would make it more difficult for anyone to challenge specific state regulations in the courts. And by amending the Wilson Act of 1890, the legislation makes clear that states have no obligation to treat out-of-state alcohol products in the same manner as those produced within the state.[2]
In clarifying the state’s authority, the proposed legislation makes a simple but powerful change that swings the pendulum hard toward state regulation with the requirement that states may not engage in “unjustified discrimination” of out-of-state products. While sounding like a check on discriminatory activity, the legislation actually proposes a much tougher standard than current law that would allow the state far greater leeway to claim their form of discrimination is “justified.”
This new authority is solidified by the new evidentiary standard included in the legislation, which raises the bar for anyone challenging a state law. Under the proposed legislation, the state would be “accorded a strong presumption of validity.” Moreover, the legal hurdle for anyone challenging a state regulation is much higher, putting the burden on the challenger to provide “clear and convincing evidence” that the law is discriminatory[3]. Under the CARE Act, a state would have no duty to justify its laws on alcohol sales; it is up to the individual to demonstrate that the state is wrong, and doing so requires a significant burden of proof.
In Search of Balance
The Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the lure of economic protectionism and deliberately sought to prohibit states from imposing economic restrictions or regulations on one another. James Madison sought to eliminate the "existing and injurious retaliations among the States" that economic protectionism created. A broader market, with the free flow of goods and services throughout the states, was critical to the development of the nation. To address such problems, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution placed authority over interstate commerce exclusively at the federal level.[4] Through history and precedent, a “dormant commerce clause” has emerged, which is interpreted as clarifying that if Congress has not regulated a particular issue in interstate commerce, then Congress meant that area not to be regulated and states should forbear from doing so as well.[5]
With respect to the sale of alcohol, however, there is a constitutional wrinkle. To repeal Prohibition, the Constitution was amended in 1933. The 21st Amendment allowed states to enact laws with respect to temperance—the trade, possession, or importation of alcohol was required to comply with state laws. Since that time, the states have played the dominant role in regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages, something made emphatically clear in the 21st Amendment: “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.[6] (Emphasis added.) However, this authority has always been tempered by the courts, which must balance the regulatory authority provided to states by the 21st Amendment with concerns over the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce.
Indeed, the courts have played a key role in the evolution of the marketplace, tackling tough questions that guide state policy on interstate shipments of wine, beer, or spirits. Perhaps most importantly, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Granholm v. Heald that state regulations on direct shipping must treat in-state shippers the same as out-of-state shippers. [7] The Supreme Court’s action was the culmination of the growing legal challenges to state practices with respect to interstate shipments of alcohol.
The issue was becoming increasingly important as the number of wineries expanded dramatically while the number of wholesalers and distributors dropped significantly due to consolidations within the industry. In testimony in the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) noted that there has been a 500 percent increase in the number of wineries over the last 30 years, while the number of distributors has decreased by 50 percent.[8] These trends were also accompanied by the expansion of e-commerce and the internet, which made new systems of delivery a viable option.
The Granholm decision was followed by another important legal case in 2008, Family Wine Makers of California v. Jenkins, where a federal court clarified that a law that appeared neutral on its face yet had a discriminatory effect on out-of-state producers was unconstitutional. The courts rejected an appeal of this decision by Massachusetts in 2010.[9] As acknowledged by the courts, direct shipment has become more important; today, 37 states plus the District of Columbia currently allow some form of direct shipments. The CARE Act threatens to overturn these legal precedents and limit the ability to file lawsuits challenging harsh and unfair state regulations.
The Three-Tier System
In the wake of Prohibition’s repeal, states predominantly adopted some form of the “Three-Tier System” as a means of regulating alcohol sales. Under this system, purportedly adopted to limit the influence of organized crime in the market for alcohol, producers never sell directly to retailers. There is always a three step process of producers selling to wholesalers and distributors who then sell to retailers who sell to the final customers. Vertical integration between the tiers is typically prohibited by states; however, a number of states allow small vintners and craft brewers to self-distribute as a means of competing in a marketplace where they might otherwise be ignored by distributors.
This system has defined the market for over 75 years, creating substantial benefits for those fortunate enough to be wholesalers and distributors. Over time and through changes in state laws, the three tier system created a system of government-protected monopolists who ultimately control the market by determining which producers eventually make it into the market and which products consumers see on the shelves of retailers.
It is difficult for a small vineyard in California to convince a wholesaler across the continent to purchase its wine, because the wholesaler does not make much money carrying it. As a result, consumers enjoy fewer choices in the marketplace. As one trade publication for professional brewers noted, “First and foremost, these distributors are selling their primary brand and are therefore often unwilling to provide much attention to the smaller brands in their portfolio.”[10]
Due to franchise laws imposed in most states, it is often very difficult to terminate an agreement with the wholesaler. Franchise laws protect the wholesalers, and impose significant costs on producers seeking to terminate a contract.[11] Further, franchise laws in many states provide exclusive territory for wholesalers, reducing competition and allowing wholesalers to increase profits through their state-protected monopolies. Such practices are anti-competitive and harmful to consumers. As the Federal Trade Commission noted in its comments on a California law to implement more restrictive franchise laws, “if enacted, the Proposed Franchise Act is likely to lead to higher beer prices for California consumers, and may reduce the variety of beers from which California consumers can choose.”[12]
This is not to say that wholesalers provide no benefits to the economy. In fact, wholesalers are active in many sectors of the economy and have been a part of the American economy since the colonial era. Wholesalers are specialists with important information about local markets that provide producers an opportunity to get their products to retailers efficiently. Wholesalers also allow small retailers access to products that allow them to compete with larger competitors. Their presence on the ground provides point of sales contacts to supplement any advertising or promotions by producers as well as ensuring an adequate inventory of products is available.
Yet as Nathanael H. Engle noted back in 1933, throughout the economy there always has been a tension between wholesalers and retailers: “Long the dominant factor in the distribution of merchandise, as has been pointed out, he [the wholesaler] gradually came to accept his position as a ‘divine right,’ and has been slow to adjust himself to the irresistible changes taking place around him.”[13] With respect to alcohol, not only have wholesalers been slow to adjust, they have actively pursued legislation to protect the status quo and avoid any need for change.
Money and Politics
As in all markets, technology and innovation have altered the underlying market for alcohol sales, expanding the market for both producers and consumers. New shipping and transportation technologies, along with new internet technologies, allow producers to reach a much larger group of potential customers. At the same time, consumers can both find new wineries or craft brewers that have been ignored by local wholesalers. In response to these trends, wholesalers have turned to government to protect their bottom line.
Wholesalers are political creatures and they defend their interests vigorously. Many states have enacted franchise laws on their behalf that guarantee a stream of monopoly profits. Purportedly, this is to keep producers from switching wholesalers after the wholesaler had invested heavily in marketing the producer’s products. Yet it is not intuitively obvious why this is more problematic for alcoholic beverages than for other merchandise where wholesalers and producers are left to come to terms through contractual negotiations in an open market.
Rather than a negotiation, the debate over direct shipment bears all the markings of such a political firefight. Technology is chipping away at the cozy relationship that the wholesalers and distributors have created with their regulators and they are fighting back, turning to the government to protect their profits in a changing marketplace.
Wholesalers are working feverishly to protect their highly prized state-protected franchises. The largest, Southern Wine and Spirits, generated annual revenues of more than $8.5 billion in 2009, and the top ten wholesalers in alcohol generated revenues of more than $25 billion and controlled 56 percent of the market.[14] And alcohol wholesalers are far more profitable than the typical wholesaler, earning 66 percent to 83 percent more in profits than the typical wholesaler over a 10 year period.[15]
To ensure these impressive returns, wholesalers maintain a significant presence in state capitals and Washington, D.C. The National Beer Wholesalers Association, for example, ranks number 26 on the Center for Responsive Politics list of “Heavy Hitters,” giving a total of $21 million to politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, from 1989 to 2010.[16] An investigation by Wine Spectator found that “in the five years since the Supreme Court decided Granholm v. Heald, both the NBWA [National Beer Wholesalers Association] and the WSWA [Wine and Spirits Wholesalers Association] have dramatically increased spending on federal campaign initiatives.”[17]
Of course, when discussing H.R. 5034, the legislation is swathed in noble public goals to disguise the naked economic self-interests at play. Wholesalers cling to two arguments when supporting the legislation. Specifically, they have been quick to point out the possibility of a loss of state revenue on such direct sales, as well as the potential for illegal sales to minors. Yet state regulators already have the authority to address these issues and will continue to do so with or without the CARE Act.
There is nothing unique or novel to the direct shipment of alcohol with respect to state revenues. Catalog and mail order sales have existed for some time, and are a major component of commerce. States face the same issue for orders from L.L. Bean, and there is no reason revenue from beer or wine sales should be addressed any differently. Internet tax questions are much broader than beer and wine sales, and they have been addressed as an issue of national tax policy. Direct shipping of wine comprised roughly 1 percent of total wine sales, which suggests the revenue question is trivial.[18] Shipping is expensive and will naturally limit the scope of the market; the vast majority of sales will be in-state and therefore subject to revenue remittance. Wine shipments are relatively insignificant in terms of e-commerce, making it odd to propose singling them out for special tax consideration.
Concern over underage sales, an issue bound to capture a regulator’s attention, is also a questionable reason to oppose the direct shipment of beer and wine. While it is unlikely that underage drinkers will order expensive wines and craft beers and wait for delivery, safeguards have been established to address such concerns. A simple signature at delivery goes a long way towards eliminating abuse. States have the authority to control underage drinking without banning direct shipments. And if underage drinking were a concern, it is hard to understand why states such as Virginia allowed in-state shipping from vineyards while banning out-of-state shipments.
That wholesalers would play the public safety card is particularly ironic. For a group whose income is a function of the volume of alcohol sales to be suddenly claiming that “unregulated” direct shipments of alcohol may promote underage drinking or other irresponsible acts lacks credibility, especially considering that direct shipments comprise such a small percentage of the market. Promoting responsibility in the vast majority of the market they control may be a better use for the millions spent on lobbying by the wholesalers.
Conclusion
Many argue that the 21st amendment provided an exemption from the Commerce Clause, which meant states were free to regulate as they saw fit—even if that meant engaging in economic protectionism. Yet the courts made clear that the 21st Amendment does not trump the Commerce Clause. States have the authority to regulate alcohol sales, but this must be balanced against constitutional protections of interstate trade.
Laws that protect local monopolies from out-of-state competition not only harm consumers, but violate the U.S. Constitution as well. As the Supreme Court noted in Granholm v. Heald: “The Twenty-first Amendment’s aim was to allow States to maintain an effective and uniform system for controlling liquor by regulating its transportation, importation, and use. It did not give States the authority to pass nonuniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods, a privilege they never enjoyed. The 21st Amendment allows states to regulate issues of temperance; it does not allow them to treat out-of-state suppliers any different from in-state suppliers.” [19]
Alcohol regulations are certainly outdated and need reforming. Unfortunately, H.R. 5034 would ensure that no meaningful reforms are even considered, leaving producers and consumers trapped in a regulatory model created in a bygone era. The CARE Act is a simple piece of economic protectionism, designed to shore up the monopoly earnings of wholesalers at the expense of everyone else. The bill already has 124 co-sponsors in the House, a tribute to the lobbying muscle displayed by the wholesalers.
Ultimately, consumers pay the price for such economic protectionism. Choice is restricted and prices are higher. The Internet provides a greater degree of economic integration that makes Prohibition-era laws on the distribution of beer and wine horribly outdated. A similar debate over clothing or CD sales would be farcical. Yet temperance laws continue to provide opportunities to wring out more profits from the regulatory system. Arguing from pure economic greed is less appealing than framing the issue in broader concerns about temperance and the welfare of the state, but the ultimate outcome of H.R. 5034 remains the same—an extension of monopoly power to a profitable and politically well-connected special interest.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Buckhead Brett
Yeah, I know it's a but and paste, but damn if this sportswriter didn't nail it:
As NFL training camps open this week with Cleveland and Dallas taking the field first, Brett Favre stands alone as the only player in the league who's happy with his contract but who may not show up for workouts.
Unlike guys who may hold out in an attempt to get more money, he seems fine with the $13 million the Vikings are offering him in 2010. And even though Favre is supposedly still deciding whether he wants to play a 20th season in the NFL, the prevailing school of thought is that he'll be back. So what's the deal with possibly skipping training camp?
The Favre apologists are quick to point out that he has earned this type of special treatment based upon his status and longevity in the league. If that's the case, didn't Jerry Rice earn it as well? Or Emmitt Smith? Not to mention offensive linemen who played into their 40s, like Bruce Matthews and Jackie Slater. I'm pretty sure they all earned the right not to attend the worst three or four weeks of the year without facing the possibility of being fined, but I don't remember them skipping out on their teammates. Sure, their reps were measured and they were given practices off here and there, but they showed up year after year, even in the twilight of their careers. And they all played positions that are much more physically demanding during training camp than quarterback.
For a present day example, I don't see Ray Lewis staying away from camp, even though he too has earned that kind of preferential treatment with the Ravens. That's because he, like the retired players I mentioned, knows that being with his teammates is the right thing to do, for so many reasons, including team-building. I mean, there's a reason it's called teamwork, Brett.
And yet, Favre isn't likely to report until mid- to late-August, shortly after the Vikings have packed up their training camp bags in Mankato, Minn., and headed back to the Twin Cities.
Is he worried about the intense practices? Sorry, but as a former offensive lineman I am not going to let a quarterback who wears a red jersey in practice attempt to get away with that excuse. That red jersey he wears means he is not allowed to even be touched, so Favre's gotta come up with something better than that.
Maybe he doesn't want to wear out his arm? Seems reasonable until you consider exactly how much clout and control Favre has in this situation. Does anyone honestly think head coach Brad Childress would ask Favre to throw one more football than he wants to? Didn't think so. Favre could easily be on a pitch count if he wanted. Heck, it could be the exact same number of throws he makes every day at Oak Grove High in Mississippi.
So if he can't get hit and he can make as few throws as he wants, why exactly does he not want to be there, like the rest of his teammates? Is it sunburn? I'm sure they can find him a hat. Doesn't like the beds in Mankato? I'll bet they'd be willing to bring in a king size Tempur-Pedic for the 40-year-old grandfather. Maybe it's the food, but I always loved the myriad of culinary options available at training camp, so I find that one hard to believe too.
My point is not that Favre's desire to skip training camp will have an adverse effect on the Vikings season, because clearly, based on their success last year, that isn't the concern. My point is that Favre is not deserving of being a team leader if he misses training camp this year. There doesn't appear to be any good reason for him to not be there, other than he can get away with it. But that means it's all about him again, as, sadly, it usually is.
As NFL training camps open this week with Cleveland and Dallas taking the field first, Brett Favre stands alone as the only player in the league who's happy with his contract but who may not show up for workouts.
Unlike guys who may hold out in an attempt to get more money, he seems fine with the $13 million the Vikings are offering him in 2010. And even though Favre is supposedly still deciding whether he wants to play a 20th season in the NFL, the prevailing school of thought is that he'll be back. So what's the deal with possibly skipping training camp?
The Favre apologists are quick to point out that he has earned this type of special treatment based upon his status and longevity in the league. If that's the case, didn't Jerry Rice earn it as well? Or Emmitt Smith? Not to mention offensive linemen who played into their 40s, like Bruce Matthews and Jackie Slater. I'm pretty sure they all earned the right not to attend the worst three or four weeks of the year without facing the possibility of being fined, but I don't remember them skipping out on their teammates. Sure, their reps were measured and they were given practices off here and there, but they showed up year after year, even in the twilight of their careers. And they all played positions that are much more physically demanding during training camp than quarterback.
For a present day example, I don't see Ray Lewis staying away from camp, even though he too has earned that kind of preferential treatment with the Ravens. That's because he, like the retired players I mentioned, knows that being with his teammates is the right thing to do, for so many reasons, including team-building. I mean, there's a reason it's called teamwork, Brett.
And yet, Favre isn't likely to report until mid- to late-August, shortly after the Vikings have packed up their training camp bags in Mankato, Minn., and headed back to the Twin Cities.
Is he worried about the intense practices? Sorry, but as a former offensive lineman I am not going to let a quarterback who wears a red jersey in practice attempt to get away with that excuse. That red jersey he wears means he is not allowed to even be touched, so Favre's gotta come up with something better than that.
Maybe he doesn't want to wear out his arm? Seems reasonable until you consider exactly how much clout and control Favre has in this situation. Does anyone honestly think head coach Brad Childress would ask Favre to throw one more football than he wants to? Didn't think so. Favre could easily be on a pitch count if he wanted. Heck, it could be the exact same number of throws he makes every day at Oak Grove High in Mississippi.
So if he can't get hit and he can make as few throws as he wants, why exactly does he not want to be there, like the rest of his teammates? Is it sunburn? I'm sure they can find him a hat. Doesn't like the beds in Mankato? I'll bet they'd be willing to bring in a king size Tempur-Pedic for the 40-year-old grandfather. Maybe it's the food, but I always loved the myriad of culinary options available at training camp, so I find that one hard to believe too.
My point is not that Favre's desire to skip training camp will have an adverse effect on the Vikings season, because clearly, based on their success last year, that isn't the concern. My point is that Favre is not deserving of being a team leader if he misses training camp this year. There doesn't appear to be any good reason for him to not be there, other than he can get away with it. But that means it's all about him again, as, sadly, it usually is.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
portable a/c in the pop up
cheap solutions for a/c @ Disney's Fort Wilderness in the pop up. It was the 2nd week of July and during an East Coast heatwave....I used a portable number I already had ( about 250$), vented it out the bunk end, and put a pair of jeans around the tube..When gone, I covered it up and turned it off. By day 2, I let it run all day and fashioned a vent cover out of a styrofoam cooler. I used a 1$ 'emergency blanket' and clothespins pirchased at the Dollar General to help reflect the sun away from the bunkened over the a/c.
I didn't need to empty it until the end of our 6 day trip, and it had a good amount in the reservior...I think if I could get a tube attached to the drain and empty it in the sink, it would be better. But, it actually made this trip livable.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Ramesh Ponnuru
Ramesh Ponnuru
About | Archive | E-mail | Latest
June 2, 2010 4:00 A.M.
The Immigration Impasse
From the June 7, 2010, issue of NR.
The new Arizona law against illegal immigration has brought to the surface an intraconservative division that has not been in public view since the failure of President Bush’s push for immigration legislation in 2006–07. Most conservatives, like most of the public, have supported the law, but the initial comments of several prominent conservatives — notably Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush — were hostile. Some conservative columnists and activists have also attacked the legislation.
The Right’s division on immigration cuts across the usual lines: There are social conservatives, hawks, and economic conservatives in each camp. The division goes deep: It reflects differences about not only what policies the government should adopt but the moral convictions that should underlie them and the political strategies that should accompany them. One thing all of these camps share, however, is a lack of political realism.
One group of conservatives supports “comprehensive immigration reform” of the type that Bush sought. These conservatives — allied with most libertarians and liberals, ethnic lobbies, and business groups — believe that we have so much illegal immigration because we do not allow enough legal immigration to meet the economy’s needs. Their solution is a “temporary worker program” that would allow people to participate in America’s labor markets for a while and then require them to go home.
They also think that we should bring much of our existing illegal-immigrant population “out of the shadows” by creating a “path to citizenship” for those who learn English and meet other conditions. Enforcing the laws against new illegal entrants would then, they think, become a manageable task. They believe that the growth of the Hispanic vote makes support for this three-step plan — temporary work, a path to citizenship, and enforcement — politically necessary. Opposition, by antagonizing Hispanics, would make it impossible to create an enduring conservative majority. But if Hispanics did not suspect that Republicans were hostile to them, their work ethic and social conservatism would make them natural allies.
A second group of conservatives, which includes most House Republicans, calls the proposal for a path to citizenship an amnesty and rejects it as a reward for lawbreaking and an invitation for future illegal entrants. These conservatives believe that we should reduce the illegal-immigrant population by increasing our enforcement of immigration rules in the workplace and building a fence along the southern border. “Attrition through enforcement” is their motto. Some people in this group want the government to stop automatically granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal-immigrant parents. Many in this group also say they support legal immigration.
People in this second group tend to care less about the political ramifications of these policies than people in the first group, in part because to many of them immigration policy is more important than the future of the Republican party. But those who do wish the GOP well argue forcefully that support for amnesty would not help it. They claim that amnesty would instead enrage the party’s base and alienate some swing voters (notably working-class whites) while failing to win over Hispanics. On their view Hispanics, and particularly recent Hispanic immigrants, incline to the left because of a wide range of issues beyond immigration policy: They favor a high degree of government activism in the economy, for example, because of their relatively low incomes and education levels. Besides, amnesty critics add, many Hispanics themselves oppose illegal immigration.
A third group of conservatives sides with the second against the first, but goes further than either in wanting to see legal immigration reduced and changed as well. They fear that we are taking in more newcomers than we can absorb, especially given that so many of those newcomers are from the same place and that place is right next door. From their perspective our immigration policies import social problems — and Democratic voters. This group has few elected champions, but it does have some advocacy groups and think tanks on its side, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and NumbersUSA.
It also has potentially broad popular support. Gallup’s most recent poll on the question found 50 percent of the public favoring decreased levels of immigration, compared with 32 percent who wanted to keep current levels and 14 percent who wanted more. According to Gallup, the decreasers have been the largest bloc of opinion for almost the entirety of the last 35 years, and only a small minority of Americans has ever wanted higher immigration levels.
A characteristic flaw of the first group is naïveté. Supporters of “comprehensive reform” rarely explain how a temporary work program would be kept temporary. If temporary workers have children while on their U.S. sojourn, the federal government will have the unpalatable choice of breaking up the family, deporting children who are U.S. citizens, or winking at lawbreaking.
That comprehensivists might not have the stomach to enforce their own legal regime is an implication of the ferocious reaction to Arizona’s new law against illegal immigration. Many of the comprehensivist critics of that law, on the right as well as the left, have treated the demand that people here legally produce evidence proving it as intolerably oppressive and even fascistic. This type of criticism is incompatible with enforcement of immigration laws, period.
This squeamishness, along with the federal government’s track record on enforcement, is one reason that people who might otherwise be open to a path to citizenship think it would be a fiasco in practice. Without effective enforcement, more illegal entrants would come and wait until the next amnesty/offer of a path to citizenship. In any case, the comprehensivists’ political strategy underestimates the size and intensity of the opposition to their policy agenda, at least in today’s circumstances. Republicans cannot take the lead in enacting a policy that their rank-and-file members vehemently reject; and if the policy is enacted by Democrats, they and not Republicans will get the credit with Hispanics — whose natural conservatism is overestimated by comprehensivists on the right in the first place.
Indeed, the eagerness of conservative comprehensivists to create a large temporary labor force excluded from voting suggests that they themselves have some doubts about the latent conservative proclivities of low-skilled Hispanic immigrants. Liberal comprehensivists generally favor the temporary-work program only as a sop to their conservative allies; they would prefer a straightforward increase in legal immigration.
Finally, the argument that illegal immigration is the inevitable result of an undersupply of legal-immigrant labor is far more radical in its implications than the comprehensivists admit or, perhaps, realize. The demand for labor, like the demand for almost anything else, varies inversely with the price. So long as wage levels are significantly higher in the U.S. than in Mexico, immigrants will have an incentive to come here and employers will often find it in their interest to hire them. The argument, that is, pushes in the direction not just of higher legal immigration but of an integrated North American labor market. It is unlikely that Americans would favor that goal if it were put to a vote.
Yet the political dilemma is even sharper for the second two groups. The enactment of the comprehensivists’ agenda might weaken the Right politically by giving votes to more immigrants who are predisposed against it, but at least the policy could survive this effect. Many comprehensivists — the liberals among them — would be happy about this effect. But the second and third groups are found almost entirely on the Right. If their agenda weakens conservatives politically, that agenda will quickly be repealed or, more likely, not be enacted in the first place.
And building a sustainable majority for that agenda may be impossible. Republican opposition to amnesty and support for “enforcement only” appears to have cost the party some Hispanic support, and as a result at least some congressional races. Many conservatives overestimate how hostile the public at large is to an amnesty. The conservative group Resurgent Republic recently asked likely voters if they agreed that illegal immigrants should be allowed to earn citizenship or that creating a path to citizenship would be a mistake as a “reward for illegal behavior.” A 54 percent majority favored the path to citizenship. A campaign against the children of illegal immigrants — which is what a frontal attack on the principle of birthright citizenship would involve — is unlikely to garner more support for the restrictionists.
A recent Gallup poll found 64 percent of respondents either “very” or “somewhat” sympathetic to illegal immigrants. That finding suggests that at the very least the advocates of “enforcement only” ought to adjust their rhetoric, which has not reflected this sympathy and indeed has hardly even acknowledged its existence.
Perhaps all three camps should reconsider their positions as well. Amnesty has become the most polarizing issue in the immigration debate; supporters and opponents cannot even agree what to call it. For the supporters, providing a measure of legal security to poor and desperate people whom our society has tacitly invited here is a moral imperative. For the opponents, rewarding their lawbreaking is an injustice.
Neither of these competing claims is compelling. Illegal immigrants voluntarily came here amid shadows; bringing them out cannot be obligatory for the U.S. government regardless of the consequences. And while illegal immigrants’ lawbreaking is wrong, it is not a grave wrong. To the extent they acted to help their families there is something admirable in their actions. If there are circumstances in which amnesty would otherwise serve the country’s interest, we should not forswear it for fear of rewarding lawbreaking. Imposing a fine on illegal immigrants — and perhaps, as centrist immigration scholar Peter Skerry has suggested, permanently disqualifying them from citizenship — seems proportionate to the offense.
But now is not the time for that policy. Enacting a law that puts amnesty into effect, even if implementation of the amnesty is delayed for a few years, would attract more illegal immigration. If the pro-amnesty conservatives need to accept that it would be unwise to push for amnesty now, the anti-amnesty conservatives ought to entertain the possibility that at some point it would make sense.
Some thoughtful conservative restrictionists concede that once the illegal-immigrant population is shrunk to a manageable level, some path to legality could be put in place. But even they warn that openly discussing this possibility could act as a magnet. That risk seems small enough to be worth taking — especially if the alternative is a total opposition to amnesty that proves politically self-defeating.
Stepping up enforcement while deferring the question of amnesty is not a perfect solution to the dilemmas created by current immigration policy. It does not open the door to a reform of legal immigration, for example. But it would promote the most important goal of that reform, assimilation, by reducing the total inflow from Mexico. It would not end Hispanics’ objections to a policy that subjects illegal immigrants who have been here for years to the threat of deportation for an indefinite time period; but it might slightly soften those objections and make it easier to show that the policy is not based on racial hostility. And it would do justice to the public’s conflicting impulses.
The debate over amnesty has sometimes obscured the more important question of whom, and how many, we should let in. Amnesty is itself important primarily as it bears on that question. Conservatives, like others, have dug-in positions, with a few saying we need to pass a law that includes a path to citizenship at the same time we step up enforcement and many more saying we should not do it at all. The right time for amnesty is in between now and never.
— Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor of National Review, in whose Jun 7, 2010, issue this article first appeared.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
sb
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
The Scoop: On a sunny summer evening, there’s no place we’d rather be than right here on this Oakhurst sidewalk patio, with a pint of Guinness in one hand, a plate of delicious food in front of us, and - depending on the night - a live jazz band playing in between their own beers. Of course, it’s just as nice posting up inside, chatting up the friendly Irish tender behind the bar. The only people around Steinbeck’s who don’t seem to be having the best time of their lives are those folks walking by, looking in, and wishing they could be here... having a pint with you and your friends.
Scout Notes: You know how bakeries entice passersby with the luring aroma of fresh bread out of the oven? Well, at Steinbeck’s, they use a similar tactic. Only instead of baked goods, they use the sound of cheery people out on their patio, laughing, clinking their glasses, all having a merry old time. On the night I happened to be one of those folks walking by on this cutesy Oakhurst corner, there was a quintet of musicians all literally beckoning me and my camera in for a beer and some jazz music they were about to share after they finished their beers and a few goofy poses for my camera. How could I refuse?
Inside, the atmosphere is just as friendly. It’s cozy, with exposed brick walls and tall windows, a dark wood bar that looks like it may have been imported straight from Ireland along with the Irish man behind the bar, Jimmy. He offers up a changing menu of beers on tap (though, he notes, Guinness will never ever go anywhere). His chef, Andy Gonzalez, whips up an authentic and hearty menu centered on quality fresh, seasonal ingredients. Gonzalez came to Steinbeck’s with kitchen experience as the Sous Chef at Bluepointe and Nava, the Chef de Cuisine at South City Kitchen and the Executive Sous Chef at Spice Market. So you know he’s got quite a good thing going here. Pub fare like Blue Cheese Fries with Bacon, Brisket Tacos, a Pimiento Cheese & Bacon Burger with Pickled Jalapenos and old favorites like a BLT with Duke’s mayo and a Chopped Pork Sammy with vine ripe tomatoes make this a little more upscale than your average neighborhood pub. And if you’re a fan of beer in the morning (or just of food and drink in general), you can always head to Steinbeck’s for a brunch of Brisket Hash or Creme Brulee French Toast. It all washes down so well with that draft ale. And when all the thirsty pedestrians in Oakhurst are looking in and wishing they were you, it somehow manages to make everything taste even better.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
My Country, Tis of Me
The right-wing populist Tea Party movement has politicians of both parties spooked. Democrats fear it will bring so many Republicans to the boil, and then to the voting booth, that they will lose control of Congress. Republicans fear the movement will frighten away moderates and leave their party an unelectable, ideologically extreme rump. The press, both alarmed and delighted by this political force that sprang from nowhere, is eager to prove its lack of elitism and left-wing bias by treating the Tea Party activists with respect. Journalists also sincerely appreciate having something new to write or talk about. It is in their interest to keep this story going.
A Harris poll released the last day of March reported that a third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing? The movement is not yet united on a single platform or agenda, like Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, which started as a triumph and ended as an embarrassment. The lack of specifics allows anyone who is just existentially fed up (and who isn’t, on some days?) to feel right at home. No one will demand to know what he or she is fed up with. On Web sites and in speeches, Tea Party Patriots reveal a fondness for procedural gimmicks (like a ban on congressional earmarks), constitutional amendments (term limits, balanced budget), and similar magic tricks or shortcuts to salvation. Apart from a general funk, though, the one common theme espoused by TPPs is the monstrous danger of Big Government.
The Tea Party movement has been compared (by David Brooks of The New York Times, among others) to the student protest movement of the 1960s. Even though one came from the left and the other from the right, both are/were, or at least styled themselves as, a mass challenge to an oppressive establishment. That’s a similarity, to be sure. But the differences seem more illuminating.
First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it’s less charming.
Second, although the 1960s ultimately spread their tentacles throughout the culture and around the world, politically there was just one big issue: ending the war in Vietnam. No such issue unites the Tea Party Patriots. You might guess from some of their materials on the Web that the repeal of health-care reform is the TPPs’ Vietnam, their towering cause. But even for devoted TPPs, stripping health insurance away from people who’ve just gotten it is unlikely to summon the same passions that the activists of the 1960s brought to stopping a misguided war. Not only do TPPs not have one big issue like Vietnam—they disagree about many of their smaller issues. What unites them is a more abstract resentment, an intensity of feeling rather than any concrete complaint or goal.
The antiwar movement also worked, sort of. As did the civil-rights movement that preceded it. Antiwar protests ultimately turned the establishment itself against the war, though extracting us from it still took years. By contrast, the Tea Party Patriots, I predict, are just the flavor of the month: the kind of story that the media are incapable of not exaggerating. The antiwar movement and the 1960s changed America in numerous ways forever. The Tea Party Patriots will be an answer on Jeopardy or a crossword-puzzle clue.
A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasn’t their essence. Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place. The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested. And they lack poetry: cut my taxes; don’t let the government mess with my Medicare; and so on. I say “self-interested” and not “selfish” because pursuing your own self-interest is not illegitimate in a capitalist democracy. (Nor is poetry an essential requirement.) But the Tea Party’s atmospherics, all about personal grievance and taking umbrage and feeling put-upon, are a far cry from flower power. There is a nasty, sour, vindictive tone to the Tea Party that certainly existed in the antiwar movement and its offspring, but never dominated the atmosphere created by these groups.
Some people think that what unites the Tea Party Patriots is simple racism. I doubt that. But the Tea Party movement is not the solution to what ails America. It is an illustration of what ails America. Not because it is right-wing or because it is sometimes susceptible to crazed conspiracy theories, and not because of racism, but because of the movement’s self-indulgent premise that none of our challenges and difficulties are our own fault.
“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?
This kind of talk is doubly self-indulgent. First, it’s just not true. Second, it’s obviously untrue. The government’s main function these days is writing checks to old people. These checks allow people to retire and pursue avocations such as going to Tea Party rallies. This basic fact about the government is no great secret. In fact, it’s a huge cliché, robably available more than once in an average day’s newspaper. But the Tea Party Patriots feel free to ignore it and continue serving up rhetoric about “the audaciousness and arrogance of our government,” and calling for the elimination of the Federal Reserve Board or drastic restraints on the power of the Internal Revenue Service.
“I like what they’re saying. It’s common sense,” a random man-in-the-crowd told a Los Angeles Times reporter at a big Tea Party rally. Then he added, “They’ve got to focus on issues like keeping jobs here and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.” These, of course, are projects that can be conducted only by Big Government. If the Tea Party Patriots ever developed a coherent platform or agenda, they would lose half their supporters.
Principled libertarianism is an interesting and even tempting idea. If we wanted to, we could radically reduce the scope of government—defend the country, give poor people enough money to live decently, and leave it at that. But this isn’t the TPP vision. The TPP vision is that you can keep your Medicare benefits and balance the budget by ending congressional earmarks, and perhaps the National Endowment for the Arts.
What is most irksome about the Tea Party Patriots is their expropriation of the word patriot, with the implication that if you disagree with them, you’re not a patriot, or at least you’re less patriotic than they are. Without getting all ask-notty about it, I think a movement labeling itself patriotic should have some obligation to demonstrate patriotism in a way other than demanding a tax cut. In their rhetoric, the Tea Party Patriots do not sound as if they love their country very much: they have nothing but gripes. Yes, of course, these are gripes against the government, not against the country itself. But that distinction becomes hard to maintain when you have nothing good to say about the government and nothing but whines to offer the country.
Times are tough, and some sympathy is due. Still, times have always been tough for many folks for one reason or another, and people didn’t always resort so quickly to all-purpose bellyaching, did they?
A Harris poll released the last day of March reported that a third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing? The movement is not yet united on a single platform or agenda, like Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, which started as a triumph and ended as an embarrassment. The lack of specifics allows anyone who is just existentially fed up (and who isn’t, on some days?) to feel right at home. No one will demand to know what he or she is fed up with. On Web sites and in speeches, Tea Party Patriots reveal a fondness for procedural gimmicks (like a ban on congressional earmarks), constitutional amendments (term limits, balanced budget), and similar magic tricks or shortcuts to salvation. Apart from a general funk, though, the one common theme espoused by TPPs is the monstrous danger of Big Government.
The Tea Party movement has been compared (by David Brooks of The New York Times, among others) to the student protest movement of the 1960s. Even though one came from the left and the other from the right, both are/were, or at least styled themselves as, a mass challenge to an oppressive establishment. That’s a similarity, to be sure. But the differences seem more illuminating.
First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it’s less charming.
Second, although the 1960s ultimately spread their tentacles throughout the culture and around the world, politically there was just one big issue: ending the war in Vietnam. No such issue unites the Tea Party Patriots. You might guess from some of their materials on the Web that the repeal of health-care reform is the TPPs’ Vietnam, their towering cause. But even for devoted TPPs, stripping health insurance away from people who’ve just gotten it is unlikely to summon the same passions that the activists of the 1960s brought to stopping a misguided war. Not only do TPPs not have one big issue like Vietnam—they disagree about many of their smaller issues. What unites them is a more abstract resentment, an intensity of feeling rather than any concrete complaint or goal.
The antiwar movement also worked, sort of. As did the civil-rights movement that preceded it. Antiwar protests ultimately turned the establishment itself against the war, though extracting us from it still took years. By contrast, the Tea Party Patriots, I predict, are just the flavor of the month: the kind of story that the media are incapable of not exaggerating. The antiwar movement and the 1960s changed America in numerous ways forever. The Tea Party Patriots will be an answer on Jeopardy or a crossword-puzzle clue.
A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasn’t their essence. Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place. The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested. And they lack poetry: cut my taxes; don’t let the government mess with my Medicare; and so on. I say “self-interested” and not “selfish” because pursuing your own self-interest is not illegitimate in a capitalist democracy. (Nor is poetry an essential requirement.) But the Tea Party’s atmospherics, all about personal grievance and taking umbrage and feeling put-upon, are a far cry from flower power. There is a nasty, sour, vindictive tone to the Tea Party that certainly existed in the antiwar movement and its offspring, but never dominated the atmosphere created by these groups.
Some people think that what unites the Tea Party Patriots is simple racism. I doubt that. But the Tea Party movement is not the solution to what ails America. It is an illustration of what ails America. Not because it is right-wing or because it is sometimes susceptible to crazed conspiracy theories, and not because of racism, but because of the movement’s self-indulgent premise that none of our challenges and difficulties are our own fault.
“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?
This kind of talk is doubly self-indulgent. First, it’s just not true. Second, it’s obviously untrue. The government’s main function these days is writing checks to old people. These checks allow people to retire and pursue avocations such as going to Tea Party rallies. This basic fact about the government is no great secret. In fact, it’s a huge cliché, robably available more than once in an average day’s newspaper. But the Tea Party Patriots feel free to ignore it and continue serving up rhetoric about “the audaciousness and arrogance of our government,” and calling for the elimination of the Federal Reserve Board or drastic restraints on the power of the Internal Revenue Service.
“I like what they’re saying. It’s common sense,” a random man-in-the-crowd told a Los Angeles Times reporter at a big Tea Party rally. Then he added, “They’ve got to focus on issues like keeping jobs here and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.” These, of course, are projects that can be conducted only by Big Government. If the Tea Party Patriots ever developed a coherent platform or agenda, they would lose half their supporters.
Principled libertarianism is an interesting and even tempting idea. If we wanted to, we could radically reduce the scope of government—defend the country, give poor people enough money to live decently, and leave it at that. But this isn’t the TPP vision. The TPP vision is that you can keep your Medicare benefits and balance the budget by ending congressional earmarks, and perhaps the National Endowment for the Arts.
What is most irksome about the Tea Party Patriots is their expropriation of the word patriot, with the implication that if you disagree with them, you’re not a patriot, or at least you’re less patriotic than they are. Without getting all ask-notty about it, I think a movement labeling itself patriotic should have some obligation to demonstrate patriotism in a way other than demanding a tax cut. In their rhetoric, the Tea Party Patriots do not sound as if they love their country very much: they have nothing but gripes. Yes, of course, these are gripes against the government, not against the country itself. But that distinction becomes hard to maintain when you have nothing good to say about the government and nothing but whines to offer the country.
Times are tough, and some sympathy is due. Still, times have always been tough for many folks for one reason or another, and people didn’t always resort so quickly to all-purpose bellyaching, did they?
Monday, May 10, 2010
Did I own this guitar?
"Silvertone electric guitar 21-fret, 3 way pickup, Soft carrying case, assortment of picks, replacement strings and guitar tuner.
$100 cash only."
Many years ago, I had a guitar very similar. I sawed off the headstock to make it look like a cool 'heavy metal' guitar. When anyone who knew about guitars saw it, they just shook thier heads.
Then I come across this ad on CL. Look at the headstock: it looks like the same guitar!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)