Politics
Dick Morris’ Political Prophecy
Dick Morris served in the Clinton administration and was the political strategist behind Clinton’s widely successful “triangulation” strategy. I do not always agree with him, but in terms of political instincts I value his wisdom and perspective. This article, written in January of this year, is a sobering look at the coming four years in American political and economic history. It’s quite troublesome and appears almost prophetic to me–not in a literal sense, but a thoughtful prediction. I share it with you because some of it has already become true, and the current healthcare debate is the linchpin for “changing America.” 
I agree with many of Morris’ concerns and want all of us to rise up in prayer and action. Let’s shape this one by our faith in God and undying love of liberty. RB.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on January 20, 2009
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.
In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)
But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.
Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.
But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.
Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.
In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.
Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).
Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.
But it is the health care system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose health care rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)
And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).
And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.
Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.
But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.
So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.
But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of health care by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.
Why the Press Hates Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin’s surprise announcement during the 4th of July weekend that she will step down as the governor of Alaska once again took the national media by storm. Her resignation, just two-and-a-half years into her first term, was greeted with the usual off-color jokes, over-the-top criticism, and elite scorn. As she had done both during and since the 2008 presidential campaign, her retreat into a “higher calling” took center stage over such notable stories as North Korea firing off seven ballistic missiles and the on-going saga of Michael Jackson’s death.
Our regional newspaper–The The Seattle Times–carried a large “Happy 4th of July” banner at the top of its masthead, and below in large letters their lead story declared “Palin Creates Political Stir with Sudden Resignation.” The article described her announcement as a “mostly rambling speech” and then went on to largely question the former vice-presidential candidate as being reckless and unconventional. The Times also “happened” to mention a recent Vanity Fair article that was critical of the governor. Their glee over the announcement and disrespect for Sarah Palin was clear.
My oh my, how perspectives can differ! My wife and I watched the entire Palin speech and were nearly in tears at the end. It was actually one of the most heart-felt political speeches we have ever heard:
- It oozed sincerity and honesty–such a missing quality in most politicians.
- She mentioned her faith numerous times, her principles, her policy perspectives, and each one brought a responding “yes” in our spirits.
- Her decision made sense. She had already decided not to seek a second term and could have easily stayed around as a lame duck for the next eighteen months and taken junkets on the public dime and reveled in the power and position. But because of the unfair and relentless liberal attacks on her governance that was costing Alaskan tax-payers millions of dollars to defend, she had decided to do the right thing for the state of Alaska. How novel. How refreshing.
A couple of days later on her blog, she again stated her future goals: “I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint.”
Yet, despite her explanations and candor, the press continued to question and ridicule her. That prompted this response from Governor Palin: “How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country.. And though it’s honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make.”
How true. Sarah Palin is the most media-brutalized politician of my life-time. Only George W. Bush is comparatively close–but still a distant second. Barack Obama left halfway through his first term as US Senator to run for president without a peep from an adoring press. No criticism–no questions. Not Sarah Palin.
The press absolutely hate Sarah Palin. Why?
Before I answer that question, let’s review with honesty the unfairness of the 2008 campaign coverage against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. How was she mistreated and mis-characterized? Just a few examples:
- She was labeled “inexperienced”– even though she was the only candidate on either presidential ticket that had executive governing experience, both as a mayor and as a governor. Not a peep was said about Barack Obama being the most inexperienced candidate in the history of the United States.
- She was labeled as lacking detailed policy knowledge — That’s true of every candidate that steps onto the national stage. She was an expert on energy policy but needed a crash course in foreign affairs. Barack Obama was experienced in nothing–and made numerous gaffes when away from his tele-prompter. Joe Biden was a gaffe-a-minute–with no outrage from the national media.
- She “blew” the interviews with Katie Couric & Charlie Gibson – They weren’t her best moments, but both were rigged to trip her up. Totally unfair. Gotcha questions. Barack Obama was given softballs for an entire year. Major media bias.
- Criticizing her looks and ward-robe – What’s wrong with being pretty? Do we criticize Hollywood stars for their beauty–and the money they spend to have it artificially created? And the $150,000 clothes? Please. How come we never got a monetary figure for Hillary’s pant-suits or Michelle’s sleeveless dresses? Totally one-sided bias.
- The tabloidization of her family – This was really low. Most families in presidential campaigns are off-limits–and for good reason. And to imply that her eighteen year old daughter’s getting pregnant out of wed-lock was a stain on her family values is to say that Jimmy Carter was responsible for Billy Carter. No–people, children, siblings, make their own choices–regardless of parental input. Everyone knows that–except the jaded national press.
Yet, despite the media machine that pummelled her daily, Sarah Plain drew bigger crowds in many cities than Barack Obama, and probably added three-to-five percentage points to John McCain’s losing campaign–an unheard of accomplishment for a VP nominee.
So why do the national press and political elite hate Sarah Palin?
It’s very simple. She’s a threat to their future power because:
1. She’s the wrong kind of woman – In the age of feminism, only liberal feminists are tolerated by a supportive press. Geraldine Ferraro was a media darling in 1984 and Hillary was the establishment choice in 2008. Barack Obama was embraced because he is a liberal African-American. Sarah Palin? “Why she even made the “horrific mistake” of having a Downs Syndrome baby. She didn’t abort Trig! The audacity of being pro-life!”
2. She has the wrong political philosophy. She’s a conservative on almost every issue. Gad zooks! That makes her non-enlightened, a red-neck nutcase, out of touch, terribly old-fashioned and worthy of late night TV ridicule and scorn.
3. She has the wrong kind of faith. She is a born-again Christian. “She’s one of those religious bigots.” There is a sinister move in this nation to label “all things Christian” as not only out-dated but in need of some hate speech laws. This was the number one reason for trying to damage her. The “progressives” now in control of the media and academia are trying to stamp out the Christian foundations of this nation. Sarah Palin is the type of political leader that stands in the way of their plans.
4. She’s the wrong kind of American. She’s one of us–an average person who worked hard and rose to become mayor of a city and governor of a state. But she never forgot her origins. She shares simple American values of faith, family, hard work, personal responsibility, and freedom. She wasn’t educated at an Ivy League School or born into a weathy family. She’s a “little guy” who still acts and thinks that way. That puts her at odds with the liberal elite who really don’t care too much for the Average Janes among us.
Sarah Palin is the number one target of the liberal media and elite because she is the greatest threat to their dreams since Ronald Reagan in 1980. She has to be destroyed. The devil–the Destroyer–is very much in play here. So whenever you hear Sarah Palin being called a “Caribou Barbie” or described as a “Slutty Flight Attendant” you can know you’re hearing a demonic echo.
In a few weeks she will step out of office into a new future–one she will have to craft herself. There will be no trappings of power around her, just her faith, family, principles and passion. Let’s pray for Sarah Palin that she will be is used by God to raise up many people like her in all the fifty America states. There’s great darkness on the immediate national horizon. We need, as Ronald Reagan used to say, a “new morning in America.”
Will Sarah Palin ever run for office again? I don’t know. But based on her past record, I know she’s going to do what’s right for America–regardless of what the media says.
Why Liberals Want Moral Freedoms and Business Restraints
Or “Why Conservatives Want Moral Restraints and Business Freedoms.”
Both of these statements could be the title for today’s subject. I was tempted to put both in one long sentence, but that would have only worked two hundred years ago when titles were long. This article is also about “Freedom and Form” in human societies. That also could have been the title.
So, I rolled the dice and chose the “liberal” title to catch your attention. Now, that I’ve got you thinking, let’s discuss a possible Best Explanation of this seeming contradiction. First, let’s define the terms liberal and conservative.
Two worldviews are currently fighting for supremacy in America and other nations around the world. One is the Christian worldview upon which this nation was founded that finds its roots in the teachings of biblical revelation. Generally speaking, a conservative political and social philosophy is consistent with the Christian view of life. That’s why in 2000 a high percentage of Christians voted for George E. Bush because he was generally known as a conservative politician. Christians, or traditional values people, vote conservative if they’re consistent with the Bible’s perspective.
The other worldview that has gained ascendancy in American life in the past forty years could be described as atheist, secular, or progressive (that’s what they like to call themselves). These words are all synonyms. Generally speaking, a liberal political or social philosophy is consistent with the atheist view of life. That’s also why in 2000 a high percentage of secularists voted for John Kerry–because he was known as the liberal politician. Secularists or progressives vote liberal if they’re consistent with their worldview.
Thus conservatives share a Christian view of reality. Liberals share an atheist view of life. That’s not an opinion–it’s just a fact. Not all conservatives are Christians; Not all liberals are atheists. However, Christians tend to be conservative and secularists tend to be liberal. It can be no other way.
Now back to the seeming contradiction. Have you ever wondered why liberals always want freedom, liberty or lack of constraints in moral areas (such as sex, marriage, abortion etc.), but on the other hand they strongly favor governmental controls, restraints or regulations on business and all forms of the free enterprise system? That doesn’t appear to be consistent. Why not freedom in morals and freedom in the marketplace? Or why not restraints on morality and restraints on business?
On the other side, conservatives want restraints, controls, or regulations on personal morality in society such as sexual immorality, the sanctity of life and marriage (between a man and woman), but on the other hand seek freedom, liberty, and a lack of constraints in the realm of business and commerce. We might ask again: Why don’t conservatives want either freedom or controls in both categories?
Not only are both camps inconsistent on freedom and regulation, but also choose opposite realms for liberty and control. Conservatives want morals to be regulated and enterprise to be free. Liberals want businesses to be regulated and morality to be free. Some examples will make this point clear.
In 2008, those who supported Barack Obama cast their votes for the liberal (atheist) view of life. Barack Obama is not just a liberal–he’s a radical liberal–the most liberal senator in the US Congress form 2006-2008. As a liberal president, Obama believes in freedom in morality such as abortion and lesbian, gay, bi-sexual transgender values such as the White House LGBT “Party” that was held this week.
On the other hand, he strongly believes in controlling business and free enterprise as seen by his strong arm tactics in the “Cap & Trade” legislation passed by the House. He shows this tendency in other business areas such as the take-over of various banks, government ownership of GM, his new stable of “czars” and the coming vision of government controlled health care. Obama and his followers want moral license to do anything they want; They also work hard to place mammoth controls and regulations on the American free enterprise system.
George W. Bush represented the polar opposite as president. He wanted restraints and controls on embryonic cell research, abortion, and did not support the homosexual liberation agenda. On the other side, he gave tax cuts to business, encouraging growth and creativity, and put his trust in the free enterprise system and liberation of the markets.
So WHY do liberals want moral freedom and business control–and conservatives desire moral controls and freedom for businesses?
I believe there are two best explanations for these differences.
First is the reality of form and freedom in human existence–the need for balance in life. Human beings have been designed by God to need both order and flexibility in their lives. We need “form” for stability and continuity, and we need “freedom” for creativity and expression. If all we have is “form,” our world is stable but robotic. If we are simply “free” then life becomes flighty and unsure. A balance of form and freedom are need to give wholeness to life.
In fact, true freedom cannot exist without wholesome constraint. For example, if everything in the room in which I’m writing was “free,” then chairs would be floating in the air, tables wouldn’t hold together, my computer would dissolve and there would be chaos. The “form” in the materials around me allow me as a human being to move “freely” through the room without being decked by a levitating table. My freedom is dependent on necessary form.
All of us live our lives in a balancing act of form and freedom. We have life habits such as homes in which to live, jobs to do, alarm clocks for wake up– i.e. patterns that are necessary for stability and security. But we also need the spontaneous and free side of life where we can call a friend, take a trip, do something crazy–i.e. acts of freedom and creativity that bring a zest and joy to life. If life has too much form, we get bored. If there’s too much freedom, we probably won’t live very long.
So these dual realities dictate our pursuit of both form and freedom in life. Liberals balance it out with freedom in morality and form in business. Conservatives strike the balance with order in morality and freedom in business and vocation.
And here’s the second reason why they choose what they do.
I believe it’s the truth of spiritual warfare. There’s a God and there’s a devil. That’s the Best Explanation.
Here’s how it works. God is the perfection of moral character. He is the standard of morality–what is right and what is wrong. He is righteously and justly for sexual purity, honoring marriage, respecting life, and moral self-control which is foundational to happiness and holiness. He knows that all immorality is both self-and-socially-destructive–and will separate a person from his holiness for eternity. God requires “form” in our moral relationships for our good.
He is also the Creator of the universe and all it contains. He wants man to take dominion over the earth–to steward and improve it. This can only be done through freedom, creativity, innovation, and few restraints on industry and enterprise. God’s “invisible hand” of freedom is the key to invention, prosperity and success. And God desires his creatures to be moral so that they can be productive.
So followers of God are for controls on morality and freedom in business.
It’s the equation for success.
But there is also a devil, impacting the hearts and minds of people who do not believe. This being–called Satan or Lucifer–influences non-believers in his direction. Satan wants to destroy people (John 10:10), and the easiest way to do this is to blind them to right and wrong. That’s why he’s for free sex, fornication, pornography, homosexuality, killing babies, altering marriage–and anything else that cripples the human spirit and separates them from a holy God. He also desires to bring them to poverty of life and health through government controls of commerce and industry. Satan wants people immoral and poor.
So followers of Lucifer (either consciously or unconsciously) are for freedom in morals and controls on business.
It’s the recipe for destruction.
Thus, the Best Explanation for this contradiction is that there are two primary spiritual forces in the world shaping people’s thoughts and positions. There is a God and there is a devil.
That explains it best.
Now you know what conservative and liberal mean. You know where each idea comes from. The genius of America was the power of morality producing freedom and prosperity–through faith in God. The downfall of America will be achieved through the decay of immorality that produces poverty–through faith in men (devil-inspired).
As we -approach the 4th of July–I pray that we will choose faith, morality and liberty–for our good and God’s glory.