Cognitive Dissonance
Suffering
from a debilitating cognitive dissonance, Democrats often seize on exogenous factors
like inadequate funding or, as Keith has now suggested, (American Counterpoint 12/27/16) lousy campaign management to explain their
poor showings. The point seems odd given
that Mrs. Clinton had the experience, connections and money to have constructed
the most formidable campaign staff in the history Western democracy. And if her
executive skills were so poor that she squandered all this, one wonders why anyone
ever would have wanted her in charge of
the Federal Government. Democrats also drag
in rationales like voter intimidation or, more recently, the voguish trope of
the day "fake news", as though news distortion was somehow a
Republican invention suddenly making its
way past the liberal media's honest watchdogs.What many Democrats privately believe, and a few openly say, is that Americans collectively are simply too stupid to know what's good for them. Yet the more self-reflective Dems understand this flip attitude to be unsatisfactory. The politically savvy among them also realize that such arrogance is part of what put them into electoral jeopardy in the first place. Hence, in addition to all the hand-wringing among Democrats and shallow gloating among Republicans, there is an honest search currently underway in both parties to decipher the genuine signals coming out of this bizarre election.
Fear Of Cold And Distant Power
In one
of my recent postings (American Counterpoint 11/24/16) I enumerated certain of
the issues I feel hurt the Democrats. Now I'd like to approach the question
from a more macro vantage point. More than any other national election in my
lifetime, this one was dominated by
politicians openly appealing to people's fears and hostilities. On the surface
this negativity made little sense in light of the fact that conditions which
might normally give rise to it - extreme economic turbulence or active external threats - have been mostly absent
for the past few years. Yet by 2016 people of many different persuasions were
feeling angry and afraid, with Bernie Sanders channeling outrage from the left
and Trump rallying nativist factions on the right. The common denominator among
the malcontents on both sides was a fury with remote and self-serving power.
The Counterbalance Itself Becomes
Dead Weight
Historically,
popular anger has tended to work in the Democrats' favor, since they have always positioned themselves
as the humane anti-Establishment party there to protect people against
everything in their lives that was cruel.
The Democrats aren't what they used to be, however, in part because overweening
power has shifted guises too. The
original Progressive rationale for Federal Government expansion, championed by
both Roosevelts during the first half of the last century, was to build an empathetic counterbalance to the dominance of Wall Street and Big
Business. What modern-day Democrats have failed to grasp is the extent to
which Government has now itself become
the cold-blooded Establishment, dwarfing the size and power of even the largest
corporations or banks. The traditional David-vs-Goliath rhetoric always favored
by the Party's politicians has grown increasingly strained over the years and,
today, has become a political liability for them because it compounds the Party's other failings with the sin of
hypocrisy. They themselves nurtured
the creature that has grown up into such an ogre and now has a threatening life
of its own. In my 12/24 posting I mentioned health care and environmental regulation as two of the key issues that worked against Mrs. Clinton in the recent election. Both of these can be understood better now in the context of the overarching problem that Government's ability to manage complex processes inevitably reaches a point of diminishing and then negative returns.
Doomed Overreach
Healthcare
services are among the most fundamental of human needs. Medicine touches all of
us in the most intimate manner and often at times when we're feeling most
vulnerable. Government health insurance
programs were designed to reassure people that their medical needs would always
be met and at prices they could afford to pay. However, modern medicine is tortuously
complex and requires decentralized decision-making and on-the-ground engagement
by an array of skill disciplines. Medical
service thus by its nature defies top-down regulation. Yet
bureaucratic insurance programs in
general and government programs in particular have little choice but to impose
top-down rules. Insurance makes everything appear free or nearly so to
consumers, removing them from their normal role as cost-control guardians. This
dynamic both encourages people to seek more services than they need, and it
incentivizes health-care providers to accommodate and then overcharge.
Insurance programs have to impose discipline or soon face insolvency.Yet the system is too convoluted for universal rules to work effectively. Anyone who has ever laid eyes on the dictionary-size CPT manual (for Current Procedural Terminology) that has become the bible in medical billing offices everywhere in the U.S. has seen the discrete tip of the iceberg. The whole iceberg is massive, mutating and expanding relentlessly. Small medical practices are becoming a thing of the past as factory-style operations are necessary to manage billing and legal compliance. Patients, doctors, and nurses alike are feeling alienated within the system and the burnout rate is high. Providers are quitting the system at the very time increased insurance coverage is pushing up demand for their services.
Compounding the problem is the fact that frightened and angry patients often turn to lawyers to redress grievances. The legal industry, somewhat out of control today in its own right, is eager for the pricey business and happy to oblige. High legal risk incentivizes providers to order otherwise unnecessary procedures to ensure legal protection for themselves should a case, fairly or otherwise, fall under legal scrutiny. The medical system itself thus has morphed into something akin to a viral epidemic, with problems feeding on themselves and triggering new problems.
Monkey On The Democrats' Back
The term
"Obamacare" was coined derisively by critics of the 2010 Affordable
Care Act. However, driven by his trademark overconfidence and believing at the
time he had a political winner on his hands, Obama himself cheekily co-opted
the term. Soon "Obamacare" was
in universal use to characterize everything the President and his allies were
trying to do to fix the healthcare system. What this meant, of course, was that
he had now put his personal brand on the
problem, even though he didn't cause
it, and when unhappiness with the system
only deepened on his watch, the monkey naturally climbed onto his back. Everybody
struggling to get appointments with overworked doctors, or to decipher arcane insurance forms, or to figure out why premiums were rising and
coverage for needed services was being denied, could
find a ready scapegoat in Obamacare.
And when Mrs. Clinton made the
decision to embrace his legacy with such enthusiasm, this unwelcome monkey was
part of the baggage that transferred itself from his back to hers.
Saving Humanity
Energy
is another fundamental human need into which the Democrats, in their mode of
chronic overreach, have chosen to insert themselves. The Environmental
Protection Agency was actually founded under the authority of a Republican president,
Richard Nixon, and it's mission was to protect the nation's vital natural resources
- land, air, water, and forests - from reckless exploitation and careless abuse.
However, in one of the more extreme manifestations of mission-creep that has
ever occurred with a Federal agency in this country, the EPA assumed increasingly ambitious
responsibilities.After Barak Obama took charge in 2009, the EPA reinvented its role and positioned itself grandly it seemed as humanity's protector against climate-induced extinction. Since no cause on Earth could be more important that this surely, the EPA felt empowered to begin issuing sweeping restrictions on utilities and fossil fuel companies in the apparent belief that that no cost was too high to help accomplish even marginal gains in the war against global warming.
If allowed to run unchecked for too long, such an approach would undermine the American economy for the sake of improvements that even the EPA's own scientists acknowledge will have little real impact any time soon. More and more would always be necessary before material progress was even a possibility, promising a grim and hopeless future rather at odds with the President's optimism. In a democracy, such disruptive measures should naturally encounter constructive opposition, but the Obama Administration resorted to apocalyptic rhetoric to justify its reliance on executive orders bypassing both debate and appeals.
Nearly all Americans today support some degree of environmental regulation, and most have an open mind on the issue of climate change. However, the majority is repelled by the dogmatism of the true-believers who have found a home for themselves on the left fringe of the Democratic Party and within the EPA itself. Certain of these people are quite open about their ambition to eliminate fossil fuels entirely and their desire furthermore to put an end to discussion. The doctrinaire refrain that "climate science is settled" rings as falsely to most people as the rightwing claim that the whole thing is a hoax.
Franz Kafka Saw It All Coming
Franz
Kafka was a German-speaking Czech writer who lived in obscurity during the
early years of the twentieth century. Professionally
he worked in the boring recesses of a German insurance company, and in his
fiction he created a surrealistic world where hell manifested itself as a kind
of humdrum cosmic bureaucracy. His characters were helpless against unseen
forces which held absolute power and ruled via irrational orders delivered by
bland functionaries. Kafka became
popular because this vision struck a chord in the growing numbers of people who
in their normal lives were coming up against bureaucracies that seemed unfeeling,
threatening and insurmountable. In Kafka's day, this was the world of early
bureaucratic capitalism, and it would soon metastasize into the Nazi and
Communist totalitarianisms that were to overwhelm his homeland.Getting back to the question of why our Democrats in this country are losing elections, I believe the most fundamental reason is that they have abandoned their legitimate mission of being empathetic champions of humanity and have instead become tagged as the party of pitiless bureaucracy. Obamacare and the climate change juggernaut are but two examples of how the Democrats identify legitimate social problems but then attack them with a crusading zeal that inevitably bogs down in high costs and endless, ineffectual mission-creep. The impulse to double-down in response to failure is generally stronger among Democrats than the willingness to re-think a problem.
Paranoia Digs Deep
One of
the most disturbing features of the recent election was the weirdness of it all
and the feeling on both sides that dark forces were at work behind the scenes.
Overwrought bloggers on the right and left alike seemed fixated on conspiracy
theories in general and, in particular, on the idea of the Deep State, which
they all believe to be a kind of hidden government behind the visible government,
controlling politicians and
functionaries like puppets. Franz Kafka would have recognized the vision. Such irrational
paranoia on both sides aggravated the partisan virulence of the campaign and is
now threatening to make the aftermath poisonous. Many left-fringe Democrats believe in the Deep State idea, and I think that in the end their party suffered from the notion more than did the Republicans. Mrs. Clinton's long experience actually worked against her here because it could be construed as prima facie evidence of her connection to the Deep State, which frightened many of her own supporters. Had Jeb Bush won the Republican nomination, his family history would have exposed him to the same suspicion among voters who might otherwise have been favorably inclined towards him.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, made much of his own virtuous independence. In the primary campaign he savaged virtually all of his Republican opponents for being in somebody's pocket, and in the general election he was merciless in his attacks on the well-connected "Crooked Hillary". He managed to make his own half-baked grasp of policy issues actually work in his favor because it positioned him so obviously outside the Washington mainstream compared to the wonkish Mrs. Clinton. He convinced many voters to see him as the political free spirit he claimed to be. Breezily waving all complexity aside and promising easy solutions to the nation's problems, Mr. Trump looked like just the guy finally to bull-charge his way through bureaucracy and make our lives simple again.
It's my judgment that, by smugly belittling any serious politician to their own right, the Democrats threw away this election and cleared the field for Trump. I'm tempted to say it serves them right now to have him as their president, except for the fact that the rest of us are stuck with him too.
Absolutely brilliant, Mark. Great read. - Ross
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ross.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBravo, Mark! Love the Franz Kaka analogy. Deep State paranoia and overzealously protective government overreach really strikes chord with me.
ReplyDelete