Instant Revisionism Meets Convenient Amnesia as Blame Game Begins

A slow and bumbling bureaucracy can kill you: that's one immediate takeaway from this wire story that jumps out at me. And hubris doesn't help -- which is something we've known since ancient Greeks themed their tragedies around the idea. The President also comes in for some criticism, in this arguably-slanted but still relevant retelling of an unfolding story, for allegedly sugarcoating the seriousness of the situation and putting a glibly optimistic spin on things, in his usual shoot-from-the-lip style.

But . . . . 

There's always a "but," or what would be the point of blogging?  

But the question remains, would Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or any other Democrat have done a better job of dealing with an unprecedented situation under identical circumstances? I seriously doubt it.  

Let's remember, Biden and other Democrats were quick to jump on the President as a xenophobe and sinophobe when he clamped down on inbound flights from China, suggesting that they would have been even slower to respond, for fear of offending Chinese sensibilities -- something Trump actually seems to relish, which was a potential strength at a time when China wasn't just spreading a contagion but was covering-up the facts and deflecting blame for it.  "Republican Xenophobia Is Going to Make the Pandemic Much Worse," warned The Nation, reflecting the left's conventional wisdom at the time. It's thus impossible to argue that liberals would have put a lid on travel from China, or taken any other containment steps, with any more speed than Trump did.  

Would any one of the Democrat contenders have overruled CDC's fateful and flawed recommendation to not use the German test, which in retrospect seems to be where good old hubris (or bureaucratic inertia and bumbling, flip a coin) came back to haunt us? That claim, too, is dubious, if not laughable, given the deference all good "progressives" pay to bureaucratic expertise and efficacy.

Let's also remember what the press and political elite were obsessing about 24/7 for critical weeks when the outbreak was gaining early momentum -- impeachment. But you won't see that latter bit of context anywhere in the AP's account either.

Another takeaway for me (which is a topic I'll only touch on today) is that a competence gap seems to be plaguing America -- something CDC's botched response highlights in such starkness. I don't mean political competence, though that's often a problem too, but technical competence, especially on the government or bureaucratic side. The rather sad state of the once-great NASA may offer the best shorthand illustrate of what I'm pointing to here. NASA was once the best of the best: today it can't out a man in space unless he or she is riding there on a Russian rocket.

Our scientific and technical prowess just may not be what it's cracked up to be anymore; that's a troubling subtext to this that hasn't gotten enough attention, in my view. Germany had a viable and reliable diagnostic test available in relatively short order, but rather than use that test, our supposedly elite CDC chose a go-it-alone, we-can-do-better approach that badly backfired in an embarrassing fashion.

Was it foolish pride, or maybe cocky overconfidence, or perhaps bureaucratic territoriality that colored that fateful decision? Was that the President's call to make, or did he simply trust in what the overconfident technocrats told him, resulting in the misfire? I suppose that will all come out in the wash eventually. Right now the priority must be saving lives and "flattening the curve."

I'm sure, once the dust settles, that there will be "Blue Ribbon Commissions" organized to fully probe (but hopefully not further politize) how our US response stumbled from the starting gate. And such a review is certainly warranted (assuming it doesn't take seven years and cost $200 million to complete, which would just underscore the problem I'm touching on). And perhaps we'll emerge from all this with our confidence shaken, which wouldn't be the worst thing if it spurs us to address the competence gap and strive to regain the technological edge we long (but mistakenly) took for granted, thanks to this reminder that maintaining that edge really can be the difference between life and death.       

Coronavirus Prompts Convenient Amnesia Outbreak Among Democrats

Democrats are scrambling to hang the Coronavirus "crisis" around Trump's neck. They'll weaponize anything in an effort to damage and destroy Trump. And given that every other coup attempt has failed, and that they may soon have a Leninist crackpot as party standard-bearer, the desperation among Democrats is palpable.

But if you look back on it, and don't suffer from convenient amnesia, you'll see that the outbreak really began to escalate at a time when the President and Congress were a tad preoccupied, for critical weeks on end, with the Soviet-style show trails called "impeachment."

That was the sole focus, 24/7, not just of America's political elite but of the press. I remember posting a FB item at the time, asking, "Hello, Washington, is anyone paying attention to this?" 

Perhaps the President should have and could have acted more decisively -- although let's be frank about it, Trump's announcement of a quarantine on China would then have been used as a reason to paint him as autocratic, opportunistic, xenophobic, racist, etc. It was a damned-if-he-did, damned-if-he-didn't situation, as with everything this President says or does. 

The fact that he was trying to fend-off a partisan coup attempt might have been at least partially to blame if America wasn't fully focused on the coronavirus problem early enough. 

Okay, But Who's Next?

Once one accepts the premise that billionaires are fair game for attack on the grounds that they're greedy and immoral exploiters who didn't honestly earn their money, obliging them to surrender a "fairer share" of their wealth for "public benefit," why would the scapegoating stop with just billionaires?

If too many American billionaires is the problem, what's to be done about all our multi-millionaires and mere millionaires, who presumably also amassed their disproportionate wealth through nefarious means? Bilking just the billionaires will only get us so far, in terms of fattening government coffers and creating a truly "just" society, so millionaires and other people of means must also be called to account. Or so goes the "logic" of the levelers

So if you think the Sanderistas are just coming for the billionaires, think again. Anyone who stirs the mob's ire and envy will be fair game when socialists declare war on "the rich."

The Perry Indictment

Somebody ought to go to jail in Texas -- but it's sure as shootin' NOT Gov. Perry -- for conspiring to turn a political dispute into a criminal case, which won't hold up in court but could (as it's designed) damage the career of a man who has served his state well. Democrats now have shown that they'll resort to anything, including hijacking and misusing the criminal justice system, in order to malign, smear or destroy their enemies. 

That's a damning indictment of them, not Rick Perry. 

When All Else Fails . . . Blame The GOP

That’s right. The problems plaguing Detroit have absolutely nothing to do with more than 50 years of one party misrule, mismanagement and malfeasance by liberal Democrats. No. It’s Republicans who are to blame, for coming to the city’s rescue when total collapse made that necessary. Readers coming fresh to this story might swallow such outlandish blame-shifting. But as someone who grew up in the Detroit area and watched the debacle unfold, I know it’s complete claptrap. 

Republicans certainly deserve their share of blame for many problems plaguing the U.S.. But blaming them for Detroit is revisionism on Ritalin.

Taking Hart to Heart

When the Democrats gathered in Denver for their convention, there was a lot of heady talk, and expectations were running high, that winning the West was within the party’s reach. It still may be. But the exuberance and self-assurance waned a bit when John McCain surprised nearly everyone by shrewdly selecting a down-to-earth, small-town Westerner (yes, Alaska counts), Sarah Palin, as a running mate. Palin is perceived as someone who knows how to speak the West’s language, and as someone who connects with Western values, something neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden can claim. Now the West seems again up for grabs.

Former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart is trying to salvage his party’s Western strategy not so much by stumping for the Obama-Biden ticket, but my educating party insiders about what they need to do, issue-wise, to make lasting inroads in the region. And I think, for the most part, he offers some sound advice – if the party can take Hart to heart.

Hart’s ideas are distilled in a 10-point manifesto, which is condensed as follows by examiner.com:

-Protect the sanctity of property. The party should condemn the Supreme Court decision allowing eminent domain for commercial use.

-Protect natural resources. Except in the most rock-ribbed, pro-development areas, westerners are for balancing resource development with resource conservation. Most want minerals, timber, and other resources developed at a reasonable pace on a reasonable timetable.

-Energy and the environment. Development of coal, oil shale and other fossil fuels, uranium, nuclear power and hydro projects should be undertaken with maximum attention to the environment. Encourage renewables such as solar, wind and biomass.

-Public lands. The federal government is the dominant landlord in the West. National forests, public lands, national parks and wilderness areas put the federal government front and center in planning for the region.

-Recreation. Recreational industries are crucial to the region's economy. Their profits are tied to preservation.

-Growth and the economy. Westerners want to maximize contradictory values. Life-stylers want growth controlled and often limited. Entrepreneurs want resources developed to achieve maximum profit.

-Technology. The West is the technology base of America, and the Democratic Party should promote regional high technology education and training centers to stimulate this trend.

-Mediation and arbitration. All of this balancing requires political leadership which understands the history and culture of the region. The party has been seen almost exclusively as a captive of the environmental movement.

-National security. The West is keenly focused on national security issues, having been the base for much of the nation's Cold War military structure and defense contracts. Democrats are not seen as having a coherent outlook on America's military role in the 21st century.

-Principles and values. Westerners do not like the beliefs of others imposed on them and are people who believe in principles: integrity, honor, courage, accountability. The religious right preaches values. Democrats should espouse principles.


The problem, though, is that some of Hart’s best suggestions, like getting the Democrats on the right side of the property rights issue, are fundamentally at odd with the party’s collectivist, command and control mindset.

The Kelo decision, though abhorred in Mainstreet America, was cheered by many urban politicos -- a key party demographic -- who view intransigent property owners as an obstacle to their grand urban development plans. And the party’s incestuous relationship with green extremists, which view property rights as a major stumbling block to “saving the planet,” a hindrance to fuller implementation of all the major environmental laws, from ESA to NEPA, and a hassle for the “smart growth” and “sustainability” movements, inhibits the party’s ability to take the moderate, common sense tack on energy and public lands issues Hart proposes.

Another major challenge to winning over Westerners, which does not appear as one of Hart’s 10 points, is the party’s inconsistency and disingenuousness on the issue of federalism -- on the desire of Western states for more autonomy from Washington, and for a true partnership in managing federal lands. A party that seems all about Washington, as the Democrats still do – about amassing power and resources in, and imposing “solutions” from, the capital city – can’t also credibly reinvent itself as the party that would give the West more latitude to go its own way, on energy, on public lands and on loosening the federal regulatory controls that often fall hardest on the region. My August 22 blog post on Ken Salazar’s cowboy hat -- here -- lays out some specific inconsistencies.

Here, too, the party’s alliance with the environmental lobby is a major liability, since these groups prefer that almost complete control over Western land decisions be vested in Washington, where greens get a respectful and receptive hearing, from Eastern politicians especially, and their lobbying and legal clout is most focused. Most Westerners outside the city centers, unless they're transplants, quite rightly view The Sierra Club and similar groups as an alien enemy, not an ally, because these groups have come to see saturation litigation, endless red tape and the analysis paralysis endemic to Washington as good for their agenda. This agenda opposes active forest management, opposes realistic energy development, disregards property rights, refuses to reform Draconian laws like ESA and NEPA, and wants to evict a good portion of the public from the public lands, in a bow to what I call recreational correctness. And all these values clash with those of most common-sense Westerners.

Some Democrats have been trying to distance themselves from teachers’ unions, in a bid to move the party forward on public school reform. But until the party can do something similar with gang green, and begins to disavow the anti-property rights, anti-energy development, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, relentlessly extreme positions of this particular constituency, it will have little chance of making big gains in most of the non-urbanized West.

Reprogramming Sarah Palin

The biggest danger for Sarah Palin isn't that she'll be dismantled by Democrats, or by the so-called mainstream media. A greater fear of mine is that she'll be reprogrammed, and ruined, by her Republican handlers.

The Washington Post reports today that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman is among the people coaching Palin in preparation for her critically important debate with Senator Joe Blowhard. But I think Palin could risk looking foolish, and having a Dan Quayle moment, if she tries selling herself as the second coming of Henry Kissinger.

This shouldn't be Jeopardy prep, and she'll be wasting her time, and likely become a deer in the headlights on debate night, if she spends her days memorizing the name of the president of Azerbaijan, in a vain attempt to woo the Washington and media establishments.

There's no shame in Palin acknowledging that foreign policy expertise is not normally required of governors -- and in pointing to the long list of contemporary governors-turned-presidents who had none when they went to the White House. There's no shame in her noting that any president or vice president has access to the best advisers imaginable, inside and outside the executive branch. There's no shame, and she might even win points with potential voters for candor, in admitting that there will be some learning on the job, while stressing that she'll have an excellent mentor in Senator John McCain.

And that sort of humility might help draw a sharper contrast with the egomaniacs on the Democrat ticket.

A better use of Palin's time would be tutoring her on Joe Biden's abysmal misjudgments on foreign policy over the years. She might start by studying this critique of Biden's Cold War-era foreign policy positions in The Wall Street Journal.

A chimp could function reasonably well as president, in my opinion, and many have. Being an autodidact, as Jimmy Carter fashioned himself, may actually be a hindrance. What matters more than a mastery of minutia is intelligence, common sense, good instincts and composure under pressure -- qualities that this woman already has shown in spades.

She may look the part in her Marian the Librarian glasses, but Republican attempts to reprogram Palin, and turn her into some policy wonk pinhead, may dull her natural political instincts and rob her of the authenticity that makes her so appealing.

But it would be just the sort of mistake "the stupid party" would make.

Disunity over unions

Most of the images and words flowing out of Denver this week have been predictable, even boring. But one story stood out from the rest, in terms of what it potentially means for the future of American education.

The Rocky Mountain News reported Monday that a divorce may be in the offing between some Democrats and the teachers’ unions, whose marriage has been among the most stable in modern American politics. At an event at the Denver Art Museum on the day before delegates began trying to unify behind a single candidate and a coherent message, there was disunity over unions, with some in the party saying they've become a major impediment to improvement and innovation in public education.

Here’s how The Rocky reported it:

"An eclectic mix of Democratic wunderkinds, tough-talking education reformers and one elder statesman - former Gov. Roy Romer - are challenging their party to step away from teachers unions and return to fighting for the educational rights of poor and minority children.

"It is a battle for the heart of the Democratic Party," said Corey Booker, the 39-year-old rising star mayor of Newark, N.J. "We have been wrong in education," Booker said of his party and its alliances with teachers unions that put adults before children. "It's time to get right."

Booker was among those who appeared Sunday at the Denver Art Museum to challenge the Democratic Party to reconsider its course on education.

In references sometimes veiled and sometimes blunt, they tackled the party's often- cozy relationship with the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, which typically support - financially and otherwise - Democratic candidates.

"The Democratic Party is supposed to look out for poor and minority kids," said Washington, D.C., schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. "That's not the dynamic today," said Rhee, who is battling her city's union over a plan to overhaul teacher pay.

The rousing rhetoric shocked John Wilson, executive director of the NEA. "I was absolutely stunned at the level of union-bashing," Wilson said. "I think leaders who wish to provide a vision and a plan for improving our schools undermine themselves by alienating the teachers . . . who have to carry out that plan."

Those behind the "Ed Challenge for Change" aren’t proposing anything too radical, in my view. The plan, reports The Rocky, includes universal access to preschool, extended school days and school years and – here’s where they run afoul of anti-school choice teachers’ unions – more access to charter schools. But that’s the point: The unions are so reflexively opposed to almost any change or reform, and so vicious in attacking those who do support change, that they are now even alienating erstwhile allies.

Not a good sign for a party seeking unity, perhaps. But for Americans who rank better education as a top national priority, and for teachers who don’t walk in lockstep with unions on politics and policy, this rift can only be seen as a hopeful and welcome development.

Noting the oddity of seeing union-bashing at a DNC, one fellow blogger asked, "Isn't this one of the seven signs of the Apocalypse"?