Gerson’s Lament

In the WaPo today, Michael Gerson worries that conservatives have “beg[un] to question the importance or existence of moral ideals in politics and foreign policy.” But Mr. Gerson’s idealism, on display in Iraq, has been revealed as delusion. The war in Iraq has sown carnage and instability rather than “freedom” in Iraq, killed nearly 4,000 Americans, and bled more than half a trillion dollars from the pockets of American taxpayers, rather than making us more secure.

The distinction at the heart of the debate over foreign policy is different than that described by Mr. Gerson: it is not between instinctive opponents and proponents of radical change, but between the empirical and the notional—between, on the one hand, those who adhere to observable reality, drawing from history and social science, and, on the other hand, those who rely on the abstract ruminations of essayists in comfortable chairs.

Like so many proponents of the Iraq disaster, Mr. Gerson writes as if the past 5 years never happened, demonstrating himself to be a steadfast adherent to Max Weber’s ethic of ultimate ends and in opposition to Weber’s ethic of responsibility. The former, in Weber’s nomenclature, determines that “if an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor’s eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men, or God’s will who made them thus, is responsible for the evil.” The latter, by contrast, acknowledges the importance of outcomes: “he will say: these results are ascribed to my action.” Weber warned that “in the world of realities, as a rule, we encounter the ever-renewed experience that the adherent of an ethic of ultimate ends suddenly turns into a chiliastic prophet.”

There’s really a bit of irony in all this. After all, it was President Bush who once told a confab of religious writers that

The culture needs to be changed. I call it, so people can understand what I’m talking about, changing the culture from one that says, “If it feels good, do it, and if you’ve got a problem, blame somebody else,” to a culture in which each of us understands we’re responsible for the decisions we make in life. I call it the responsibility era. …

Senator Clinton’s “Savings” Plan

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has proposed new 401(k)-style savings accounts. But the proposal is not really a savings program, it is a new entitlement program. Savings is about people being frugal today in order to improve their prosperity tomorrow. Real savings helps families and benefits the broader economy. But Senator Clinton’s plan would impose $20 billion per year of damage on families paying the cost, while distorting the economy with higher taxes.

The plan would take money from people who earned it, and simply give it to other people to spend on retirement, buying a house, paying for college, and other items. Those eligible could receive $1,000 a year, but at the expense of others who would bear the burden. I see no justice in that, nor any economic benefit.

I’ve got a better idea: Let’s allow Americans to keep their own money, downsize the giveaway factory in Washington, and reduce government hurdles to individual savings.

Senator Clinton should consider supporting expanded and simplified Individual Retirement Accounts. These accounts would not rob Peter to pay Paul, while boosting real savings and spurring growth to the benefit of all families.

The Future of the GOP?

Tuesday night’s CNBC/MSNBC Republican candidate debate showed those of us who still value limited government the extent of the GOP rebuilding process to date — a preview of what Republicans would stand for in a post-Bush world.

The top-tier candidates avoided the crass populism some of the second-tier candidates favor and defended free trade instead. It also seems that the candidates have at least learned something from the electoral trouncing last year since each of them ran screaming from the wreckage that is the GOP spending record of the past six years.

Yet each candidate seemed unwilling or unable to enunciate a coherent view of what the role of government should be in a free society. The support for free trade was saddled with an incongruous quest for an unachievable and nebulous “energy independence.” The promises to “control” health care costs were mostly uninfluenced by the notion that it was government meddling that caused the problems in the first place. Even a tepid endorsement of a private-account solution to the impending bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security was nowhere to be heard.

Some limited-government conservatives might have been slightly reassured by the look of the GOP future on Tuesday, but I’m sure many were left wanting, too.

[A version of this post originally appeared in a National Review Online symposium today.]

Overtreated

My review of Shannon Brownlee’s new book says,

The point is that getting the advantages of McMedicine may not be a matter of sheer collective will, as Brownlee would have it. Instead, it might require radical deregulation of medical licensure and practice regulations.

I like the fact that her book often inverts the usual story of villains and victims in health care. For example, lawyers and doctors who fight insurance companies for approval of a desperate cancer therapy turn out to be wrong.

Tim Carney on SCHIP’s Bootleggers

Amid the debate over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, author and Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney asks the question, “Does SCHIP insure kids or subsidize savvy HMOs?”:

[W]hile Democrats are dragging children to the White House for photo ops, as if the children are the primary constituency of this bill, federal lobbying records tell a different tale.

Lobbying records from the first half of 2007 show that the health care industry spent more than $227 million lobbying Washington. Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat News reported last month: “What’s behind health care lobbyists’ spending frenzy? Most signs point to … SCHIP.”

Sure enough, the biggest lobbyists in the industry all support the Democratic bill. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the trade association for HMOs, supports the bill, as do its biggest members, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association (PhRMA), one of Washington’s most powerful lobbyists, is also behind the bill. So is the American Medical Association.

Because the details of any substantial bill or regulation will be complex, the mainstream media will always portray the debate as a battle between the interested parties. In this case, the official storyline is that it’s poor children against a president overly concerned about the boogie man “government-run health care.”

But poor children don’t have clout on Capitol Hill. They’re not the reason this bill got 68 votes in the Senate and 265 votes in the House.

It’s got to be nice [for] the Democrats now. You get to do a favor for the HMOs, and everyone’s convinced it’s “for the children.”

I include the nation’s governors – who are always in favor of more federal money – in the bootleggers category.

Kudos to Tim Carney for reporting what less-rigorous reporters will not. (Why, oh, why can’t we have a better press corps?)

CAFTA Survives U.S. Meddling

Costa Rica’s voting public wants to join CAFTA. This comes despite last-minute efforts by leading U.S. Democrats to dissuade Costa Ricans from voting to support the national referendum.

Worse, these particular lawmakers showed an alarming cynicism in attempting to convince Costa Ricans to reject CAFTA.

For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Michael Michaud recently traveled to Costa Rica for press conference with Ottón Solís, a former presidential candidate who opposes CAFTA. Their message was that Costa Ricans had nothing to fear by rejecting CAFTA, since, according to them, the country would continue to enjoy duty-free access to the American market under the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI).  However, as a congressman in 2000, Sanders voted against CBTPA, an extension of the CBI that allows duty-free access to Costa Rican textiles and tuna . This program expires next year.

More recently, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid sent a letter to Costa Rica’s ambassador in Washington reaffirming Sanders’ message: Costa Ricans can safely reject CAFTA and continue to enjoy trade preferences to the U.S market. Guess what? Reid also voted against the CBTPA in 2000.

Reid and Sanders were later joined by Sen. Sherrod Brown, who gave a highly-publicized speech in the Senate floor in solidarity with Costa Rican naysayers. Brown himself was a naysayer to the CBTPA when he was in the House of Representatives in 2000.

This is the cynicism of protectionism at its best: Profess concern for Costa Rican workers after consistently opposing previous efforts to ease trade restrictions with the country. A majority of Costa Ricans voters didn’t buy the story and supported CAFTA.

Still, with these kinds of friends, who needs enemies?