Andrew J. Bacevich ‘s article “Obama’s strategic blind spot” in The L.A. Times takes a sobering look at President Obama’s grand strategy regarding Iraq and fighting terror and calls for an approach based on adherence to key principles. Bacevich, a professor of History and International Relations at Boston University, likens Obama’s strategic myopia to that of Prime Minister Winston Churchill being “fixated with tactical and operational concerns” and unable to wage peace:

The Long War launched by George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11 has not gone well. Everyone understands that. Yet in the face of disappointment, what passes for advanced thinking recalls the Churchill who devised Gallipoli and godfathered the tank: In Washington and in the field, a preoccupation with tactics and operations have induced strategic blindness.
As President Obama shifts the main U.S. military effort from Iraq to Afghanistan, and as his commanders embrace counterinsurgency as the new American way of war, the big questions go not only unanswered but unasked. Does perpetuating the Long War make political or strategic sense? As we prepare to enter that war’s ninth year, are there no alternatives?

Bacevich urges the President to embrace a less tactical and more strategic approach to exiting Iraq and fighting terrorism:

…Pragmatism devoid of principle will perpetuate the strategic void that Obama inherited. The urgent need is for the administration to articulate a concrete set of organizing precepts — not simply cliches — to frame basic U.S. policy going forward.

He advocates the adoption of five principles of grand strategy:

First…The regime-change approach — invade and occupy to transform — hasn’t worked; simply trying harder in some other venue (Somalia? Sudan?) won’t produce different results. In short, no more Iraqs.
Second, forget the Bush Doctrine of preventive war: no more wars of choice; henceforth only wars of necessity. The United States will use force only as a last resort and even then only when genuinely vital interests are at stake.
Third, no more crusades unless the American people buy in; expecting a relative handful of soldiers to carry the load while the rest of the country binges on consumption is unconscionable. At a minimum, the generation that opts for war should pay for it through higher taxes rather than foisting a burden of debt onto their grandchildren.
Fourth, the key to keeping America safe is to defend it, not to project American muscle to obscure places around the world. It may or may not be true that a “mighty fortress is our God”; had the United States been a mighty fortress on 9/11, however, the 19 hijackers would have gotten nowhere.
Fifth, by all means let the United States promote the spread of freedom and democracy. Yet we’re more likely to enjoy success by modeling freedom rather than trying to impose it. To provide a suitable model, we’ve considerable work to do here at home. Meanwhile, let’s not deny others the prerogative of defining for themselves exactly what it means to be free.

Bacevich concludes by urging President Obama to appoint a “czar for strategy,” calling it a “most crucial portfolio.” (Nixon had Kissinger. Carter had Brzezinski. Bush had, well…Wolfowitz). Bacevich concedes that his list of strategic principles may be short or otherwise inadequate. But his challenge to President Obama to avoid “strategic drift” and think more strategically merits consideration.

Regular readers of TDS probably know that we’re not real jazzed around here about those “ideology polls” that ask people if they are “liberal,” “moderate” or “conservative.” Reassuring as they are to conservatives who want to believe this is a “center-right country,” these polls don’t define terms, don’t get deeper than labels, and have produced results that have not significantly changed for decades.
So you can imagine my reaction when Gallup came out with a new poll that showed “trends” in ideological self-definition along this L-M-C spectrum, based on this question:

Thinking about your views on political issues and how they have changed in recent years, would you say that you are now more conservative than you were a few years ago, have your views not changed, or are you more liberal than you were a few years ago?

In response to this ill-defined and double-loaded question, 39% of respondents said they were more conservative, 18% were more liberal, and 42% hadn’t changed.
In their analysis of this poll, and to their credit, the Gallup folk spend much of their time explaining why the results didn’t necessarily make any sense or mean anything:

Which way do Americans want to be led? While the new Gallup Poll finds the public reporting a heightened sense of conservatism in its political outlook, Americans’ specific policy positions have not changed much since 2004. To the extent they have, about as many of these positions have become more liberal as more conservative.

So we all have Gallup’s permission to pretty much ignore this poll, right? That’s probably not an option if you are a conservative politician or pundit who’s spent much of the last few months arguing that the Republican Party didn’t need to change its ideology or perhaps needed to become even more ideologically rigid. Indeed, I’m sure we’ll see some saying: “See? The Republican Party needs to move to the right to keep up with public opinion!”
Like their famous abortion poll in May, Gallup’s latest ideology poll may prove comforting to conservatives–but so comforting that they may make stupid strategic decisions on that basis.

If you follow politics somewhat impressionistically, you’d probably think that Barack Obama has had a terrible time getting anything through Congress. After all, Republicans hate him, “centrist” Democrats are perpetually off the reservation, it takes 60 votes to get anything through the Senate, and the President’s too genteel to crack heads.
That’s why it’s of interest that Rachel Bloom and John Cranford have published a study showing that Obama’s early success rate with legislative positions he has taken is the highest of any president since CQ started measuring this in 1953.
Specifically, the White House has taken a clear position on 26 votes in the House and 37 in the Senate (the higher Senate number mainly being the product of 20 confirmation votes). The House has voted with him 24 times and the Senate 36 times, for a combined success rate of 95%.
LBJ’s success rate (albeit over his first full year) was 93% in what is generally considered one of the most productive congressional sessions in history, and Eisenhower came in at 89%.
Obama’s lost one meaningless symbolic vote two days after he took office, so he’s really lost two: the famous Senate vote on Gitmo in May, and the House defense authorization vote in June.
Sure, there’s a long time to go this year, with Senate action on climate change and House-Senate action on health care still to happen. But the picture so often painted of Obama as the helpless victim of a fractious Congress is not really accurate so far.

Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, you have to hand it to her: what other politician this side of the White House could commandeer national attention on a major Holiday weekend, and even override all the Michael Jackson retrospectives? Better yet, her confusing jumble of rationales for the decision to quit her job, and her refusal to reveal her own future plans, have kept the buzz and speculation going strong, for God knows how long.
FWIW, I posted my own speculation back on Friday at The New Republic site, suggesting, with a lot of qualifiers, that her action may just mean she’s gotten too big for Alaska, in her own mind and in the minds of her avid followers around the lower 48.
But I don’t, of course, really know what’s going on, and neither does anyone else other than Herself and maybe the First Dude.
Unsurprisingly, in the absence of hard information, the speculation has largely varied along partisan and ideological lines, and the most interesting thing is that Palin fans are extremely focused on the reaction of her “enemies.” Here’s Kellyanne Conway at National Review:

It may confound old men and spinsters in the media that a mother of five would want to stop the madness and protect her brood from the relentless and vicious attacks by people who literally don’t know anyone like her, but, at some level, Governor Palin should be taken at her word: She’s had enough.
The advent of the blogosphere means there is not a single unexpressed thought left in America. And one would be challenged to find someone more singularly excoriated by people whose opinions, issued from poison keyboards, matter so little (except perhaps to their cats).

Conway has nicely exhibited, in just three sentences, all the fascinating self-contradictions of the Cult of Palin: isolated and irrelevant critics have driven poor Sarah to distraction, and perhaps to retirement. A click away at The Corner, Jim Geraghty takes the same thought a step further into martyrology:

The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician’s children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

And at RedState, Erick Erickson throws the cloak of martyrdom over all conservatives:

Unfortunately, by resigning, I think the left and national media will be emboldened to ritualistically engage in the metaphorical gang raping of conservative politicians, particularly those who are female and have children. They’ll decide savaging Palin’s family drove her from office, so the sky’s the limit on the next conservative with kids.

Never mind that the “savaging of Palin’s family” was limited to a stupid Letterman joke and one or two stupid blog posts. It’s all the evil, evil work of “the left and national media,” which has also arranged for the “frivolous lawsuits” and ethics claims that have entangled Palin in Alaska. (There’s a nice parallelism here to the “frivolous lawsuits” that conservatives believe to be the primary source of high health care costs, despite the brave and selfless efforts of private health insurers to compete with each other to hold costs down).
It’s not hard to figure out that some conservatives are talking themselves into attributing anything and everything bad that happens to Sarah Palin to her detractors. That plenary indulgence may well even extend to indictments or other damning events that would sink any other politician. So maybe resigning her office really was a smart move, assuming that St. Joan of the Tundra wants a political future. To her fans, she can do no wrong, and criticism from outside the Cult of Palin simply supplies fresh evidence of her martyrdom.

Despite all the hand-wringing to the contrary, political commentator Bill Press makes a well-stated argument that 60 Senate votes are more than enough for Democrats to get a progressive legislative agenda enacted. Writing in his syndicated column today, Press says:

For six months, we’ve heard nothing but complaining from Democrats: Our hands are tied, they insisted. We can’t deliver a public plan option for health care, or pass the Employee Free Choice Act, or repeal the Pentagon’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, or do anything else we promised to do if re-elected — because we don’t have 60 votes. We have to compromise with Republicans, instead.
That excuse was phony, of course. Senate rules require only 51 votes to pass legislation, not 60. Democrats should never have allowed Republicans to pretend otherwise.

Press believes the filibuster obstacle is overstated, particularly if the Dems can find the gonads to invoke a little party discipline:

As for those wayward senators like Nelson or Landrieu, there’s only one thing Democrats are lacking: discipline. This may be a whole new concept for Democrats, who are not used to marching in lockstep. But if Barack Obama and Harry Reid are willing to play hardball by withholding committee assignments, White House invitations, campaign contributions, and endorsements, they’ll be surprised how soon Democrats will get in line.

Press is dismissive of the contention that Senate Democrats need a few Republicans to join them

The truth is, Democrats don’t need Republican votes anymore. It’s time for Democrats to pull together, flex their muscle, and deliver their promised agenda: a strong climate bill; the Employee Free Choice Act; immigration reform; repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act; and, most important, universal health care — with a public plan option, but without a tax on health care benefits.

And he is equally-skeptical about the argument that there are not enough of the Dems to enact reforms like the public option:

…Democrats will never have a better opportunity. But, even before Al Franken was sworn in, some spineless Democrats were already offering a new round of excuses. The so-called “Super Majority” of 60 votes is illusory, they say, because you can’t count on Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd being healthy enough to show up and vote. Plus, there are a handful of “DINO’S” (Democrats in Name Only) — think of Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu — whose votes you can’t count on, even when they’re present. Neither excuse is valid.
It’s true that Kennedy and Byrd suffer serious health problems. But Senate passage requires 51 votes, remember, not 60. In fact, just 50 votes are good enough, with Joe Biden standing by to break a tie. Besides, no matter how sick, there’s no way Teddy Kennedy’s going to miss a vote on establishing universal health care. He’s worked hard for it all his life.

Regarding the public option for health care reform, his blog “The Bill Press Show” identifies nine Democratic senators who have “not agreed to support it.,” including: Blanche Lincoln (AR); Tom Carper (DE); Maria Cantwell (WA); Ron Wyden (OR); Bill Nelson (FL); Mary Landrieu (LA); Kent Conrad (ND); Dianne Feinstein (CA); and Max Baucus (MT).
Regardless of party discipline, most of these senators have substantial moderate/conservative constituencies to answer to. Still, opinion polls indicate that the public option has broad and deep support across much of the ideological spectrum, as Ruy Teixeira explains. Invoking some carefully-targeted party discipline can’t hurt much, and might help with some of them.
Press’s aforementioned list of the nine senators is hot-linked to their websites, for those who want to contact the wobbly nine and encourage them to support the public option. If there was ever a time for progressive activists and bloggers to launch an all-out lobbying campaign targeting a group of senators to pass legislation that can save countless lives and create a new sense of security for millions of families, that time has now arrived. Every one of these senators should be made to understand that their political futures will be sorely damaged if they fail to support the public option. More party discipline from party leaders is needed, but party discipline from voters is better yet.

On this most hallowed civic holiday in the United States, those of us in some cities and towns will have to endure the sights and sounds of another Tea Party Event, designed, in the words proclaimed on the web site of its organizers, for “declaring independence from tax-and-spend politicians.”
As David Wiegel explains in the Washington Independent today, the whole tea party thing is “losing steam,” and the protests tomorrow won’t rival in size–or in the splendiferous presence of major Republican politicians–those back on April 15.
Maybe that’s because “the movement” isn’t visibly affecting public opinion. Maybe because some of the participants remembered that the time-honored way to “revolt” against elected officials you don’t like is at the ballot box. Maybe others looked around on April 15 and saw themselves in less than good company.
Or maybe some would-be tea party-hardies thought it about it and realized that they shouldn’t exploit our country’s National Holiday and patriotic symbols to grind partisan and ideological axes, despite the frequent tendency of conservatives in recent years to do just that.
To those who may have made the decision to lay down the Obama-bashing cudgels for this one day, I will raise a glass of sweet iced tea in tribute.

I’m not a big fan of Michael Barone after his long drift into predictable conservative punditry, but the man does still know a lot about politics. And in a column earlier this week, he conducts an interesting analysis of the strategic deficits that afflicted the entire Republican presidential field in 2008.
He concludes that all of them, including the ultimate nominee, John McCain, had flawed strategies that either defeated them or (in McCain’s case) nearly did. And he suggests that none of the currently-named Republican candidates for 2012 looks to be in any better a position.
I won’t go through the whole analysis, but Barone seems to think that Mitt Romney made the most avoidable mistakes: flip-flopping conspicuously on cultural issues to make himself the Iowa front-runner, at the expense of his image of “authenticity” and the resources he might have devoted to croaking McCain in New Hampshire and beyond.
But in mocking McCain’s “next-in-line” strategy, Barone also implicitly mocks the widespread belief that Republican nominations sort of just happen, as “disciplined” conservative voters wait to be told who has earned the nod via long and loyal service to the party. I’ve examined that myth at some length over at fivethirtyeight.com, and found it less than persuasive.
So while we are a long way from 2012, it does matter how Republican candidates prepare themselves for the contest. And right now, there’s no one with anything like a big strategic advantage.

While the basic principles of health care reform should be simple enough for progressive political leaders to frame as opposing forces gird for the battle over health care reform, American voters are being presented an ever-expanding range of complex issues and policies . As WaPo‘s Dana Milbank put it in his July 2nd column,

…Americans are passionate and confused about it — and their opinions are all over the lot.
A CNN-Opinion Research poll found that 51 percent of Americans favor Obama’s health-care plan, but a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll found that only 33 percent think it is a “good idea.” A New York Times-CBS News poll found that nearly six in 10 would be willing to pay higher taxes so that all could be insured, but a Kaiser poll found that 54 percent would not be willing to pay more to increase the number.
A Quinnipiac University poll found that a majority — 54 percent — believe that reducing health-care costs is more important than covering those who lack coverage, while the Times-CBS poll found that 65 percent thought that insuring the uninsured was a more serious issue. A Washington Post poll found that 57 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the health-care system — but 83 percent are satisfied with the quality of their own care.
In short, when it comes to health care, the state of the union is confused. The confusion won’t be cleared up by the complexity of the debate, with all the jargon about community ratings and insurance exchanges and risk adjustments and guaranteed issues…

A point made also in Mark Blumenthal’s July 1 post at Pollster.com:

Let’s start with what is hopefully obvious: Democrats in Congress are drafting multiple proposals, and the Obama administration has not specifically endorsed any of these. So a well informed respondent ought to have trouble evaluating “Obama’s plan,” since Obama has not yet committed to a specific plan. Even more important, very few Americans are following that debate with rapt attention. Last month’s CBS/New York Times poll, for example, found only 22% of Americans saying they have heard or read “a lot” about the health care reform proposals (50% said they heard or read “some,” 23% not much, 5% nothing).

“Softness” of responses is also a concern with analyzing polling data, particularly regarding health care reforms. As Blumenthal notes of the difficulty of overgeneralizing about polling responses:

When pollsters push as hard as CNN/ORC for an answer, a lot of the responses are going to be very soft, often formed on the spot and based on very superficial impressions. Nonetheless, if I were charged with conducting a benchmark survey for a candidate over the next few months, and I had room for only one question about health care reform, I would be tempted to ask a very general question about “President Obama’s plan to reform health care” (though I’d strongly lean to the NBC/WSJ version that explicitly prompts for “no opinion”).
Yes, public opinion on health care reform is multi-faceted. Americans come to the debate with a rich set of values and attitudes about what they like and dislike about the health care system, what they would change and what they worry about changing. Most have not yet focused on the details of the legislative debate. Many never will. So questions about specific policy proposals can produce results all over the map. As Slate’s Chris Beam puts in an excellent summary this week, “health care polling is especially variable, depending on the wording, the context, and the momentary angle of the sun.”

The Kaiser Family Foundation adds in its wrap-up of some recent public opinion polling on‘Footing the Bill’.

What the public thinks about health care reform from this point will depend on what they learn about any proposals over the course of the summer – whether it be the actual details of any plan that might emerge or the spin on such a plan that will inevitably come from ideologues on both sides, the health care industry itself, and interested advocacy groups. Our surveys have repeatedly found that opinion on most specific proposals is quite malleable and can be moved in both directions. Expect this to happen.

It’s not hard to see why framing is critical to the success of any health care reform package. President Obama has settled on a current strategy of framing the debate in terms of cost. In his article in The Atlantic on “Obama’s Inversion Of Harry And Louise,” Mark Ambinder notes of the President’s framing of the health care reform debate:

His basic message: your health coverage will be taken away if we don’t reform health care this year.
His arguments for reform have focused heavily on rising costs and the unsustainability of the current system. His public remarks on the matter are rife with figures about how much costs have risen and will rise in the future, and how soon the nation won’t be able to pay them.
“In the last nine years, premiums have risen three times faster than wages. If we don nothing, they will rise even higher. In recent years, over one third of small businesses have reduced benefits and many have dropped coverage altogether since the early ’90s,” Obama told the audience at his town hall meeting on health care in Annandale, Virginia Wednesday.
“If we do not act, more will lose coverage and more will lose their jobs. Unless we act, within a decade, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care,” Obama said.
Obama’s economic rhetoric is all about how things can’t remain the same. It’s the same point the Harry and Louise ad made, but backward, and in Obama’s version, the “naysayers” who oppose health reform are the ones who play fast and loose with the coverage Americans currently enjoy. And as polling indicates that Americans are concerned heavily with costs, the president has, in turn, stuck to telling people about the costs of not passing his plan…And so part of his rhetoric is about shaking people with fear into supporting his reforms. If Harry and Louise made people afraid of passing Clinton’s reform plan, Obama is making people afraid of not passing his.

President Obama is undoubtedly right that cost-containment is a critical element of any successful health care reform pitch. But any successful pitch is also going to have to explain in simple terms how the reforms will improve health security for millions of Americans. Ruy Teixeira argues in a TNRtv clip that the public option of health care reform proposals has surprising bipartisan appeal in recent polling, which suggests it could have merit as a key messaging/framing point.
George Lakoff, along with co-authors Glen W. Smith and Eric Haas offer ten excellent messaging/framing suggestions in their HuffPo article “Health Care Reform: Some Basic Principles,” including

Principle 3. Health care is central to the moral mission of the American government.
The American government has twin moral missions: protection and empowerment of the individual – equally for everyone.
Protection includes not just the military and police, but also consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, safety nets, investor protection, and health care.
Empowerment is what enables Americans to make a living and have a good life if they work at it. It includes systems of public road and buildings, education, communication, energy, banking — and health.
No one can make a dime in America or achieve their goals in life without protection and empowerment by America’s government.

and,

Principle 7. The American Plan provides care instead of denying it.
Why do HMO’s have a high administrative cost – 15 to 20 percent or more? They spend money to justify denying you the care you need and all too often delaying care so much that you are harmed by the delay.
The American Plan is there to provide you care, not deny or delay it. Its administrative costs would be low, about 3 percent.

And, also at HuffPo, In his post “Hoping for Audacity,” Drew Westen emphasizes the need to tell the “how we got here” story as a prerequisite for good framing of reforms:

The American people would understand why we need to offer at least one health insurance plan not controlled by the insurance companies if someone would just tell them the story of how it came to be that our premiums have doubled as millions more Americans have lost their coverage.
…The President is offering the public a series of stories that are all missing half the plot and half the characters–namely, the part of the plot that says how we got where we are (e.g., 50 million without health insurance…He is trying to sell health care reform without calling out the drug and insurance industries, whose profits have soared at our expense.

We should have no doubts whatsoever, that the opponents of health care reform are now focusing with utmost intensity on which frames will be most effective in obstructing meaningful reform, as my May 6 post noted. Let’s not be caught unprepared.

In a Financial Times column that congeals a number of complaints heard in various quarters of late, Clive Crook blasted Barack Obama for “choosing to be weak” on climate change and health care legislation.
Some progressives who are upset by the watered-down contents of the House climate change bill, or worried about where the Senate’s going on health care, might scan Crook’s column and nod their heads in agreement. Actually, though, Crook seems less concerned about the precise nature of climate change and health care provisions than about Obama’s refusal to flat out defy not only Congress but public opinion:

Congress offers change without change – a green economy built on cheap coal and petrol; a healthcare transformation that asks nobody to pay more taxes or behave any differently – because that is what voters want. Is it too much to ask that Mr Obama should tell voters the truth? I think he could do it. He has everything it takes to be a strong president. He is choosing to be a weak one.

While political leadership does generally require the shaping of public opinion, few successful leaders “tell the truth” to constituents in the form of telling them they are ignorant louts who are either too stupid to understand the choices involved in big challenges, or too selfish to make sacrifices in the national interest. That seems to be what Crook would have Obama do to look “strong.”
In terms of dealing with Congress, moreover, Obama has simply learned from the lessons of past presidents (particularly Bill Clinton) that success almost never involves my-way-or-the-highway presidential edicts, and that choosing the right moment for presidential interventions is as important as how much pressure is exerted. In other words, “strength” is no substitute for “strategy.”
Like most supporters of climate change legislation, I’m not happy with the compromises that were made to get the Waxman-Markey bill out of the House. But instead of despairing like Crook, I’d listen to another unhappy camper, Bradford Plumer, who has a good column that details all the reasons that passage of a bill like this is worthwhile and perhaps crucial (one of them being the disastrous effect that a failure to enact anything might have on the international climate change negotiations this December). And I might listen to Al Gore, hardly a man adverse to telling “inconvenient truths,” who worked the phones to keep progressive Democrats on board in the House when many were tempted to bolt over their disappointment in the final product.
As for health care, it’s entirely too early to make any real judgment on Obama’s congressional and public-opinion strategy. Yes, the president will need to strongly deploy the bully pulpit, probably more than once. But Crook’s assertion that Obama is abandoning the idea of health care cost-control or major changes in the incentive system for health services because he’s not out there right now demanding big public sacrifices in the middle of a recession either an overstatement of the facts or an impolitic demand that health reform be made as unsavory as possible.
Even by Crook’s standards, Obama would obviously be “stronger” if the financial system and then the economy hadn’t melted down just before he took office. But that’s the hand he was dealt, and he should be allowed to play it.

With a certain governor of South Carolina off the boards as a national spokesman for hard-core fiscal conservatism, not to mention a potential presidential candidate, you can expect more attention to be paid to another of the Palmetto State’s right-wing firebrands, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint. You may recognize his name from his frequent votes (sometimes with his fellow “true conservative” Tom Coburn of OK) against consensus positions in both parties, particularly on confirmations (e.g., he was one of two senators to vote against confirmation of their colleague Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State).
Though known for his partisanship and anti-government zealotry, DeMint hasn’t shirked the Cultural Right, either, winning perfect vote ratings from the National Right to Life Committee and zero vote ratings from the Human Rights Campaign. Indeed, Demint gained a lot of notoriety during his 2004 Senate race for arguing that gays and lesbians, and for that matter, unwed pregnant women, shouldn’t be allowed to teach in public schools (a position he retracted because it had become a “distraction,” not because he admitted it was wrong).
So it’s with more than passing interest that I read a recent interview of DeMint in that ancient corner of the conservative fever swamps, Human Events, in connection with his new book, modestly titled Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America’s Slide Into Socialism. Two remarks by DeMint were particularly striking. First up was this:

Define socialism as a government controlling aspects of the economy. Most members of Congress think that just about every aspect of American society and economy should be regulated, controlled, taxed in some way by the federal government and increasingly so. I think it’s very fair to say that most members of Congress lean socialist on policies.

Notice that DeMint doesn’t say “most Democrats in Congress,” but “most members of Congress.”
Further into the interview, DeMint shares his thoughts about the fundamental “threat to freedom”:

I regret to say that there are two Americas but not the kind John Edwards was talking about. It’s not so much the haves and the have-nots. It’s those who are paying for government and those who are getting government. At this point, the data I’ve seen is 52% of Americans get their income directly or indirectly from a government source. And if you think about how that works in a democracy, why would the voters be concerned about the growth of government if they weren’t paying and they were getting something from it.
Democracy cannot work when you have a majority of people dependent on the government. And this is not just the poor. The way we’ve set up Social Security and Medicare, everyone who retires are dependent, parents are dependent on the government for education of their children and now, if you look at the folks who come through my office — business people, farmers, bankers — everybody is coming to Washington to get their piece of the government because we’re running all this money through here now.

This is interesting for several reasons. It’s not often that you hear a politician come right out and say that making parents “dependent on the government for education of their children”–i.e. public schools–is a form of socialistic welfare-statism. As for Social Security and Medicare, most conservatives have learned to frame their privatization proposals in terms of “solvency” or “entitlement reform” or “letting people control their benefits.” Not since Barry Goldwater’s disastrous 1964 campaign have I heard a major Republican politician attack the wildly popular retirement programs as fundamentally illegitimate, or their beneficiaries as parasitical wards of the state.
DeMint’s “two Americas” rap is also interesting since it exhibits the underpinnings of the kind of rhetoric that even the McCain campaign deployed last year in attacking progressive taxation. Poor people or old people who don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes aren’t just getting off lightly; they are a threat to democracy.
In other words, Jim DeMint seems to be the real deal when it comes to serious “true conservatism,” or at least he is when he’s in the friendly confines of an interview with Human Events. Tuck this away in the memory banks in case the man does decide to run for national office. He’s seriously scary.
UPDATE: When I decided to write about DeMint, I didn’t realize that on this very day, he would help prove my point by coming out in favor of the military coup in Honduras. Looks like he may be determined to become the next Jesse Helms.