The Newsweek piece sneered that while Obama and John Kennedy spoke to more than 100,000 people, Reagan spoke to a much smaller audience, "only about 20,000," and they were outnumbered by leftist protesters the night before. They recalled, "Even some of Reagan's aides were embarrassed by the 'tear down this wall' line, thinking it was too provocative or grandiose." Newsweek would concede only that "Reagan understood stagecraft," and communism's fall "made his words prescient."
In other words, the Gipper was a showboat who got lucky.
This is nothing more than Newsweek's continuing campaign to rewrite history. Back in 1987, Newsweek was not prescient. They came to bury Reagan's speech as a desperate gesture of a crumbling lame-duck presidency ruined by Iran-contra. Their story on his trip began: "Ronald Reagan wasn't the only lame duck at the economic summit in Venice last week, and he wasn't the only allied leader to nod off when the proceedings turned soporific."
Newsweek chronicled Reagan's woes, then declared how only Mikhail Gorbachev could restore luster to the old man: "It is the ultimate paradox of Reagan's lifelong opposition to all things communist that a U.S.-Soviet arms agreement and a third summit with Gorbachev offer the best, and perhaps last, hope for reinvigorating his presidency." They saw Reagan with a foolish career of "opposition to all things communist" turning to Gorbachev as his savior, and painted Gorbachev as more persuasive and attractive to Europe. The magazine geniuses at the time seemed to adore Gorby as if he were ... Barack Obama.
At least Newsweek in 1987 (but not in 2008) chronicled what Reagan told the pro-Soviet protesters there at the end of his speech: "I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again."
But Reagan's rhetorical daring in his time marks why Obama's Berlin remarks sounded so phony. He declared: "People of the world -- look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope."
No adoring anchorman dared to ask: Who, precisely, Sen. Obama, is the "we" who won a battle of ideas against communism? Who was the "we" who dared to insist that liberty was the superior ideal, that "Freedom is the victor," and to demand that the walls of Soviet tyranny should fall? It was not America as a whole. It was certainly not Europe as a whole. To publicly declare such a bold wish for an end to the Soviet empire, to denounce the Berlin Wall as a "scar" across Berlin, and a "gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs and guard towers" was seen by the international left, and the Democrats, and the press corps here at home as undiplomatic saber-rattling. It was, to quote the Hillary Clintons of the world, "cowboy diplomacy."
Barack Obama is an arrogant pretender to a throne he has not earned. He wanted to stand at the Brandenburg Gate like Reagan, grasping desperately for a chance to look presidential. But he hasn't in any way demonstrated Reagan's resolve against America's enemies. Instead, this power-hungry newbie has stood in about seven different places in the last four years on the primary controversy of our time.
In 2002, he opposed the Iraq war from the pews of his America-deserved-9/11 church. In 2004, he stood staunchly and very temporarily by John Kerry's vote for war. In 2006, he calculated that the best way to win the Democratic nomination was to play kissy-kissy with Code Pink and channel MoveOn.org's demand that the president acknowledge all was lost in Iraq. Now, having defeated all those Democratic suckers who voted for war, he's developing yet another position, that the success of the surge means that he didn't have to be right about the surge or anything else, that the country is now ready for a rapid withdrawal of forces.
Ronald Reagan was willing to endure an entire career being mocked by the press and the political intelligentsia for standing firmly in one bunker of a war of ideas. Barack Obama has demonstrated only one cause, one idea he consistently believes in. Its name is Barack Obama.
Let's face it. The average individual American has little or no clout with Congress and can be safely ignored. But it's a different story with groups such as Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy. When they speak, Congress listens. Unlike the average American, they are well organized, loaded with cash and well positioned to be a disobedient congressman's worse nightmare. Their political and economic success has been a near disaster for our nation.
For several decades, environmentalists have managed to get Congress to keep most of our oil resources off-limits to exploration and drilling. They've managed to have the Congress enact onerous regulations that have made refinery construction impossible. Similarly, they've used the courts and Congress to completely stymie the construction of nuclear power plants. As a result, energy prices are at historical highs and threaten our economy and national security.
What's the political response to our energy problems? It's more congressional and White House kowtowing to environmentalists, farmers and multi-billion dollar corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland. Their "solution," rather than to solve our oil supply problem by permitting drilling for the billions upon billions of barrels of oil beneath the surface of our country, is to enact the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandates that oil companies increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have realized that diverting crops from food to fuel use would raise the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as pork, beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. Ethanol production has led to increases in other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat. Since the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter, higher grain prices have had a huge impact on food prices worldwide.
Congress and the environmentalists aren't through with us. If you're bothered by skyrocketing food and energy prices, wait until Congress re-introduces its environmentalist-inspired Climate Security Act, so-called "Cap and Trade." Cap and Trade is deceptively peddled as a free-market solution to the yet-to-be-settled issue of manmade climate change. Under its provisions, companies would be able to emit greenhouse gases only if they had a government allowance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 15 percent cut in emissions would raise the annual average household's energy costs by $1,300. Since energy is an input to everything we use, we can expect everything to become more costly, resulting in a reduction in economic growth.
There's a hateful side to Cap and Trade that's revealed by asking the question: How will it be decided who received how much allowance to emit greenhouse gases? Congress could sell the allowances and/or give them away to favorite constituents. You can bet the rent money that a new army of lobbyists, with special pleadings, will descend on Washington to lobby Congress. And you can be sure that campaign contributions and favoritism will play an important role in the decision of who received what amount of allowances.
Much worse than that is the massive control government would have over our economy and our lives. Congress might decide that since tobacco use is unhealthy, it might not issue allowances to tobacco companies. While many Americans might applaud that, how many would like Congress to refuse to issue allowances to companies that produce foods that some people deem unhealthy such as French fries, sodas, canned soups and potato chips. Congress might deny, or threaten to deny, allowances to companies that in their opinion didn't hire enough women and minorities. The possibilities for control over our lives would be endless and could include nuisance-type edicts such a requiring us to buy a permit to barbeque in our backyard.
The thirst to wield massive control over our economy helps explain the near religious belief in manmade global warming and the attacks on scientists and others who offer contradictory evidence.
There will be no more business as usual for housing lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if John McCain is elected president. That’s McCain’s clear message in a recent hard-hitting op-ed in the St. Petersburg Times and in various straight-talk media interviews.
Politically powerful Fannie and Freddie may be popping champagne corks in Washington, where a congressional bailout package provides full government backing for their outsized management pay packages, massive political-contribution and lobbying practices, and private portfolio hedge-fund activities. These government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) got just what they wanted, and they now have the power to pay more dividends to their shareholders without any caps on compensation.
But Big Mac is gonna put an end to this if he’s elected come November.
“Americans should be outraged at the latest sweetheart deal in Washington,” writes McCain. “Congress will put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It’s a tribute to what these two institutions -- which most Americans have never heard of -- have bought with more than $170-million worth of lobbyists in the past decade.”
Fannie and Freddie represent the worst of Washington’s bailout fever. Using government power for private profit is how Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot puts it. Privatizing gains while socializing losses is the complaint registered by former House majority leader Dick Armey. Government semi-socialism is how I see it.
The GSEs spread political vigorish in turn for more power and more privilege. Just this year alone their portfolio caps were raised twice while their capital reserve requirements were lowered. And now, with an explicit government guarantee, unlimited credit lines, and the possibility of federal stock purchases, they’ll be GSEs on steroids. All this in the name of helping housing, the most favored political sector in the American economy.
Budget assistance for homebuyers is already staggering. The Housing and Urban Development department spends $52 billion a year. The home mortgage interest deduction is worth about $80 billion yearly. A capital-gains exclusion is estimated at $29 billion. And the local property-tax deduction comes to roughly $14 billion. That’s a total of $175 billion in annual assistance to the housing sector. And that’s before we get to the Fannie-Freddie bailout.
Some people talk about a so-called Marshall Plan to spur American energy independence. But for years we’ve had a Marshall Plan for housing. It’s enough already. There are other economic sectors worthy of investment.
John McCain has taken a strong reform position here, and he’s totally right. This is McCain at his very best. He argues that Fannie and Freddie employees manipulated financial reports to line the pockets of senior executives. He calls the GSEs a danger to financial markets. And he says if one dime of taxpayer money ends up in those institutions “the management and the board should immediately be replaced, multimillion dollar salaries should be cut, and bonuses and other compensation should be eliminated. They should cease all lobbying activities and drop all payments to outside lobbyists.”
He also argues for strong regulation of Fan and Fred “that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.”
McCain economic advisor Steve Forbes wants to breakup Fannie and Freddie into 10 or 12 companies, completely severing their ties to the government. With these private companies competing in the mortgage market, Forbes says the entire housing sector will be revived, with taxpayers off the hook for a change.
On the other hand, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is putting his reform hopes on new Fannie-Freddie regulator James Lockhart, who runs the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Lockhart is a reformist skeptic of Fannie and Freddie. But his term would only last until year-end. After that, his successor will be subject to Senate confirmation and a public grilling from the two banking committees, all while Fan and Fred pour money into the campaign coffers of the Democrats and Republicans serving on those committees.
Does this sound like true reform? Highly doubtful. In fact, the bailout bill should be completely rewritten to stipulate the kind of privatization program outlined by Sen. McCain.
Former Reagan Treasury official Peter Wallison has warned for years that Fannie and Freddie would blow up financial markets. Well, we just witnessed the blow-up. But now we should also blow up the Fannie-Freddie bailout. It’s not real reform.
Obama won’t do it. He says there must be an essential role for Fan and Fred. And Obama advisor Franklin Raines -- the former Fannie Mae CEO who was forced to resign over accounting scandals -- argues for the status quo. But McCain is talking real reform. Bravo for the Arizonan. He’s the real candidate of change.
"Texas authorities on Tuesday indicted the leader of a polygamous sect ... on charges of felony sexual assault on a minor, the first criminal charges to stem from a massive raid on the group's West Texas compound," The Los Angeles Times reported last week (http://tinyurl.com/6oenlz).
The Associated Press and other media used similar words: "indicted polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs ... charges of felony sexual assault of a child."
Straightforward reporting? In my "20/20" special "Sex in America", polygamy activist Mark Henkel said no, it's an ignorant distortion.
"The media kept saying, 'Polygamist leader, polygamist leader,'" Henkel told me. "But the case actually involved incest and arranged marriage of a girl with her 19-year-old cousin. There wasn't anything [that] had to do with polygamy. [Jeffs] wasn't called an incest leader. He wasn't called an underage-marriage leader. He was called a polygamist leader."
Henkel and his website, TruthBearer, (www.truthbearer.org), campaign against the media and others who lump criminals like Jeffs with all polygamy.
Henkel won't reveal his own family situation. In Maine, where he lives, even purporting to have more than one wife is against the law. Henkel complains that American laws are hypocritical.
"Someone like a Hugh Hefner will have a successful television show with three live-in girlfriends! And that's all OK, and he's making great money, and that's all fine and great entertainment. But suddenly, if that man was to marry them, then suddenly he's a criminal. That's insane!"
Many people, when they hear the word "polygamy," think of fundamentalist Mormons living in cults, but the truth is that there's lots of polygamy in America that has nothing to do with that. First of all, polygamy was banned by the mainstream Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1890 and is grounds for excommunication. For my "20/20" special, we interviewed Jewish and evangelical Christian polygamists. Henkel's website is subtitled "Organization for Christian Polygamy." He estimates that there are 100,000 polygamists in America.
Ten years ago, University of Georgia Professor Patricia Dixon thought polygamy exploited women. Then she embarked on a study of it.
"I was transformed by the experience."
She spent years living with different polygamous communities. She was surprised to find that polygamy was not about men exploiting women.
"It's female-centered. The women are the ones who are benefiting. ..."
Wouldn't most people say it's about the men getting more sex with more women?
"It's not about another notch on your belt or anything like that. It really is the women who really promote this idea."
Plural marriage is common around the world. In the United States most get married in religious ceremonies but keep quiet about it because what they do is illegal.
The families we met wonder why what they do is illegal. Clearly it's wrong if an older man arranges marriages of young kids, but when adults choose to live this kind of life, why is that evil?
"Because we need marriage for the good of society. I think if we were to see this across the range of society the effect would be negative," Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (www.frc.org) told me. He added, "Slavery and polygamy were the twin relics of barbarism. Those are barbaric societies that we've tried to move beyond."
Plenty of religious leaders agree with Sprigg, but Mark Henkel isn't buying it. "If they're saying that's immoral, they're calling the greatest heroes in the Bible ... immoral! ... Saying that Abraham, with his three wives, was immoral. Jacob had four wives. David had seven known named wives before Bathsheba."
Prince Ben-Israel, who has four wives, calls plural marriage a civil-rights issue. "Who is this government that's in somebody's bedroom? ... It was illegal for me to marry a white woman at one time. ... It was illegal for me to vote at one time. And if I had accepted somebody else's definition of what was right and wrong, I would still be riding in the back of the bus.
"We're not saying this is for everybody. Everybody don't like football and basketball or tennis. But those who do oughta be free to do this."
Change We Can Believe In?
A few questions for Barack Obama
Radley Balko
In my last column, I posed questions to GOP presidential hopeful John McCain. This week, it's Democrat Barack Obama's turn.—In February, you said you might support vouchers and charter schools if empirical data showed that they improve education (some studies show that they do, some that they don't). Admirably, your position was, "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn." After pressure from the teachers unions, you quickly backed off from that position, stating that your campaign doesn't support vouchers "in any shape or form." What prompted that change? And if it's important that we not "throw up our hands" and "walk away from the public schools," why do you send your own kids to private schools?
—Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) intends to terminate Washington, D.C.'s federal school voucher program, even though those vouchers are paid through a separate fund that takes no money at all from D.C.'s public schools (which already spend $10,000 more per pupil per year than the city's private schools). Del. Holmes Norton says the program undermines the public schools. You've signed on to the plan to eliminate the program. But given that the program takes no money from the city's already bloated public schools, isn't it only "undermining" the public schools if D.C. parents choose not to send their kids to them? And if that's the case, isn't that an indication that they aren't happy with the schools' performance?
—You've expressed support for the idea of a "no fly" zone over Darfur because of human rights abuses. What's happening in Sudan is certainly tragic and abhorrent. But what is our national security interest there? Should we send the U.S. military every time there are wide-scale human rights abuses happening anywhere on the globe? Should we send troops to Myanmar? Uzbekistan? Turkmenistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
—You not only supported the latest federal farm bill, you commended it, stating that it "will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability." Critics have called that $307 billion monstrosity an orgy of earmarks, corporate welfare, and protectionism. It actually increases subsidies to huge agribusinesses in an era of record grain prices—subsidies that are already crushing farmers in the developing world. The New York Times called it "disgraceful." The Wall Street Journal called it a "scam." How does the "change" candidate justify supporting a bill larded with sweetheart deals for big agribusiness when just about everyone not getting a check from the bill opposed it?
—You continue to support ethanol subsidies despite the fact that corn-based ethanol is inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and part of the cause of rising food prices. Even liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls ethanol "[b]ad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet." Perhaps your support stems from you representing a corn producing state. But is supporting a wasteful policy to win votes "change we can believe in," or is it a good sign that you're just another politician?
—In your autobiography, you admit to using marijuana and cocaine in high school and college. Yet you largely support the federal drug war—a change from several years ago when you said you'd be open to decriminalizing marijuana. Would Barack Obama be where he is today if he had been arrested in college for using drugs? Doesn't the fact that you and our current president (who has all but admitted to prior drug use) have risen to such high stature suggest that the worst thing about illicit drugs is not the drugs themselves, but what the government will do to you if you're caught?
—In a speech to Cuban-Americans in Miami, you called the Cuban trade embargo "an important inducement for change," a major shift from your prior position. The trade embargo has been in place for 46 years. Did denying an entire generation of Cubans access to American goods, culture, and ideas induce any actual change? Wasn't the real effect just to keep Cubans poor and isolated? In communist countries like Vietnam and China, trade with the U.S. has ushered in economic reform, and vastly improved the standard of living. Why wouldn't it be the same if we were to start trading with Cuba?
—In addition to the drugs, Cuba, and school voucher issues, you have also changed or revised your position in recent months on the war in Iraq, government eavesdropping and immunity for the telecom companies, and holding employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Under some circumstances, changing or revising one's position can show admirable introspection—the ability to revise prior conceptions with new information. Some of your new positions are more conservative. Some are more liberal. But they do seem to have one thing in common: Should we be concerned that your shifts have been to those positions that give more power and influence to government? Are there any areas where you'd actually roll back the federal government?
—In October you asked a congregation in South Carolina to help you become "an instrument of God," and to join you in building a "Kingdom, right here on Earth." Is such lofty, sanctimonious rhetoric really appropriate from a would-be president? Why shouldn't we be suspicious of a man who believes politics—indeed, his politics—are God's politics? Isn't using the political process to build a "Kingdom on earth" the sort of thing we're used to hearing from the religious right? Should we be cautious of political leaders who believe they're agents of the Divinity?
—You have called for a "civilian national security force," essentially a non-military public service corps that in your words is "just as powerful, just as strong," and "just as well-funded" as the military. Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that your proposal would cost somewhere between $100 and $500 billion—or between 10 and 50 percent of all federal income tax revenues. How do you plan to pay for this program?
—Your wife said that as president, "Barack Obama will...demand that you shed your cynicism... That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual." How is any of this remotely the responsibility of the president? Where in the Constitution does it say that the president should be our personal motivator and spiritual leader? Will you help us lose weight and eat our vegetables, too?
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario