NRO: Reassessing Warren G. Harding

This article from National Review about one of the most derided presidents in American history seems particularly pertinent in the age of Obama. A “return to normalcy” and end to socialist experimentation is exactly what is needed today:

Reassessing Warren G. Harding
And a call for normalcy.

By Ryan Cole & Amity Shlaes

Change isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. That’s what most of us have come to realize in recent years, whether the change proposed came from Pres. Barack Obama or the Tea Party movement. Still, most haven’t quite reached the point where we oppose change and fight for stability.

Maybe we ought to: Maybe sometimes it is the time for no change. That, at least, was the position of Warren Harding. Warren who? On the presidential roster, Harding is POTUS 43. No, that doesn’t mean he’s replaced George W. Bush: Harding’s “43” is his aggregate rank among presidents. Since there’s a tie somewhere in there, this means Harding is the worst-ranked president in the history of our land.

Still, the most despised chief exec had something to say about the issue that’s preoccupying the country. Nowhere did Harding put the case against change, and the case for realism, better than in his inaugural address, delivered 90 years ago today.

When Harding sat down to plan that address, he was confronting a nation suffering the kind of uncertainty that is familiar to us today. After the war, unemployment hit 14 percent. Inflation raged. The economy contracted severely, and the stock market followed suit. Restless veterans and angry workers thought they might imitate the revolutions taking place overseas.

In his 1920 campaign, Harding ran as the anti-revolutionary: He sought “a return to normalcy.” His choice of Calvin Coolidge as his running mate underscored his commitment to that concept. Coolidge stood for caution and for drawing the line at extremism. It was Coolidge who had pulled a pre-PATCO and, Reaganesque, fired the Boston police force for leaving the city to looters when they went out on strike in 1919.

One of our problems today is that politicians are unwilling to concede certain truths about the economy. One is that housing prices may fall more. Another is that government intervention will inevitably force upon us a period of inflation. Yet another is that wages may not go as high as we like until the economy sorts itself out. Instead of skirting those issues, Harding spelled them all out, trusting voters to accept the truth.

While government would do all it could, there were imbalances it could not rectify, Harding allowed. “Perhaps,” he said, “we never shall know the old level of wages again.” To assume that life might be instantly reordered was also to overreach: “There is no instant step from disorder to order. We must face a condition of a grim reality, charge off our losses and start afresh.”

Next Harding turned to the topic of change. “Any wild experiment,” the new president said, “will only add to the confusion.” He went on: “Our supreme task is the resumption of our onward, normal way. Reconstruction, readjustment, restoration, all these must follow. I would like to hasten them.”

Harding went on to lay out what he thought normalcy should be like: “I speak for administrative efficiency, for lightened tax burdens, for sound commercial practices, for adequate credit facilities . . . for the omission of unnecessary interference of Government with business, for an end to Government’s experiment in business, and for more efficient business in Government administration.”

If Americans could accept all these realities, the new president argued, “We can reduce the abnormal expenditures, and we will. We can strike at war taxation, and we must.”

Harding was right. The decade began with a recession. But soon enough, and while Harding was still living, those other things he predicted did follow. After Harding’s Teapot Dome Scandal in 1923, and his death that summer, the new president, Coolidge, sought to clear his own administration of scandal. But Coolidge was careful not to abandon Harding’s theme of normalcy. Normalcy for both presidents meant keeping government out of the way, reducing what the scholar Robert Higgs today calls “regime uncertainty.” Harding and Coolidge after him honored Harding’s inaugural-speech promise to drop the nation’s high tax rates. Harding promised to create a Bureau of the Budget, and did. New presidential authority from the law he signed in 1921 aided both him and his successors in their effort to trim spending.

Normalcy gave the United States a Wunder-decade of strong growth, low unemployment, and little inflation. Americans got cars and electricity for the first time. They got healthier. The federal budget moved into surplus and stayed there. The 1920s also saw strong productivity gains, so strong that Americans began to accomplish in five days what they used to in six.

Continue

This story is Canadian in so many ways

What’s more Canadian than waiting for hours in a hospital waiting room for treatment? Being forced to wait in a Tim Horton’s instead.

Hallway medicine is hitting new highs in congested Lower Mainland hospitals, as was demonstrated Monday night when Royal Columbian Hospital was forced to use its Tim Hortons outlet as an overflow ward.

Fraser Health officials say a combination of multiple trauma case airlifts earlier in the day and heavy pressure on the emergency department led staff to put patients in the hospital coffee shop.

It’s an unusual example of what has become a routine problem across the region: too many patients and not enough beds.

“Last night the hallways were two and three stretchers deep with patients,” said Dr. Sheldon Glazer, an emergency physician at Royal Columbian, the region’s trauma centre.

“This is just a natural progression of what we’ve been dealing with for a long, long time,” Glazer said. “We are forced to see patients in waiting rooms, in hallways and, now, in the Tim Hortons.”

The veteran ER doctor says halls jammed with stretchers are both inefficient and dangerous – particularly if a fire broke out.

Whenever the inevitable topic of wait times comes up in a discussion about healthcare, proponents of the socialist system will say, “Well, no system is perfect.” They’re absolutely correct. So assuming that the private and public system both have their flaws, which is preferable — having to spend money on insurance or medical care instead of having it for free? Or, dying while waiting for ‘free’ medical care? Seems like a simple decision to me.

Regarding my recent hospitalization, I stated — and still maintain — that I am not going to engage in a debate about healthcare, because my opinion still holds. However, despite the extraordinary emergency care I received, follow-up wait times were unacceptable. In the internal medicine unit, patients were being admitted who had been waiting in the emergency room for upwards of three and four days. Were they dying? No, but they certainly weren’t getting any healthier.

The Tim Horton’s spin on this story makes it more amusing, but being so backed up that you can’t even have patients in the waiting room is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Even under perfect circumstances, the province of British Columbia considers it a success if patients are admitted with less than 10 hours of waiting.

Remember, I had a stroke in a waiting room. But hey, at least I didn’t have to pay anything (just ended up hobbling around like an old lady with a walker, but whatever.)

H/T KonReport

George Will: Why Liberals Love Trains

From Newsweek:

High Speed to Insolvency
Why liberals love trains.

By George Will

Generations hence, when the river of time has worn this presidency’s importance to a small, smooth pebble in the stream of history, people will still marvel that its defining trait was a mania for high-speed rail projects. This disorder illuminates the progressive mind.

Remarkably widespread derision has greeted the Obama administration’s damn-the-arithmetic-full-speed-ahead proposal to spend $53 billion more (after the $8 billion in stimulus money and $2.4 billion in enticements to 23 states) in the next six years pursuant to the president’s loopy goal of giving “80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail.” “Access” and “high-speed” to be defined later.

Criticism of this optional and irrational spending—meaning: borrowing —during a deficit crisis has been withering. Only an administration blinkered by ideology would persist.

Florida’s new Republican governor, Rick Scott, has joined Ohio’s (John Kasich) and Wisconsin’s (Scott Walker) in rejecting federal incentives—more than $2 billion in Florida’s case—to begin a high-speed rail project. Florida’s 84-mile line, which would have run parallel to Interstate 4, would have connected Tampa and Orlando. One preposterous projection was that it would attract 3 million passengers a year—almost as many as ride Amtrak’s Acela in the densely populated Boston–New York–Washington corridor.

The three governors want to spare their states from paying the much larger sums likely to be required for construction-cost overruns and operating subsidies when ridership projections prove to be delusional. Kasich and Walker, who were elected promising to stop the nonsense, asked Washington for permission to use the high-speed-rail money for more pressing transportation needs than a train running along Interstate 71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati, or a train parallel to Interstate 94 between Milwaukee and Madison. Washington, disdaining the decisions of Ohio and Wisconsin voters, replied that it will find states that will waste the money.

California will. Although prostrate from its own profligacy, it will sink tens of billions of its own taxpayers’ money in the 616-mile San Francisco–to–San Diego line. Supposedly 39 million people will eagerly pay much more than an airfare in order to travel slower. Between 2008 and 2009, the projected cost increased from $33 billion to $42.6 billion.

Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute notes that high-speed rail connects big-city downtowns, where only 7 percent of Americans work and 1 percent live. “The average intercity auto trip today uses less energy per passenger mile than the average Amtrak train.” And high speed will not displace enough cars to measurably reduce congestion. The Washington Post says China’s fast trains are priced beyond ordinary workers’ budgets, and that France, like Japan, has only one profitable line.

So why is America’s “win the future” administration so fixated on railroads, a technology that was the future two centuries ago? Because progressivism’s aim is the modification of (other people’s) behavior.

Continue

Breitbart rollerskates into Marxist Rally

And there’s even video of it!

Whether you love or hate Andrew Breitbart, you can’t deny that he’s an expert when it comes to getting under the skin of the leftists. A popular fixture at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Breitbart’s shenanigans (including a shouting match with Max Blumenthal in the middle of a hotel lobby) are always classic. In the above video, he takes on anti-war protesters, many from the conspiracy theorist, neo-Marxist Code Pink.

In true disorganized leftist fashion, the protest wasn’t even about war, it was an anti-capitalist rally where one creepy guy at the end proudly shouted out “We’re socialists!” (before announcing that they wanted to take from corporations to give it to the people.) Watching these pathetic creeps rally shows why the Left is able to be a loud minority at times: the people there have no clue what’s going on. Did Breitbart shut them down? No, but this 85 second video shows all that the Left is capable of…yelling.

H/T Five Feet of Fury

Strictly Right Radio episode 79 – Record Breaker

On this Strictly Right, Andrew makes his triumphant return to discuss President Obama’s socialism, property rights in Canada, the debasement of our culture with shows like MTV’s ‘Skins,’ and much more.

Listen online:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.

Strictly Right Radio episode 77

On this Strictly Right, Ari examines the Alinskyite tactics of the Left, the failure of socialized medicine in the UK, why people lie about Ronald Reagan, and much more.

Listen Online:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.

Strictly Right Radio episode 75

Strictly Right is back for a new year of cutting edge conservative analysis. On this episode, Ari takes a look at the incoming House GOP, the move to repeal Obamacare, the failures of big government, and some acts from the theater of the absurd. All that and more on the first Strictly Right of 2011.

Listen Online:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.

Jim DeMint, Human Events Conservative of the Year

A great interview with Human Events’ conservative of the year, Senator Jim DeMint:

Jim DeMint, Conservative of the Year
By: Erick Erickson

“I want to sincerely congratulate Senator DeMint on this award. Fully aware that Human Events cannot give the award to me every year, Human Events has made the only other choice they could make. Tough, courageous, rock-solid and unflinching, Jim DeMint charts the way for all of us in truly historic times.”

— Rush Limbaugh
Conservative of the Year, 2007

He did not start out a conservative fighter. He was no warrior when he first arrived on Capitol Hill in 1999. Jim DeMint had replaced Rep. Bob Inglis in South Carolina’s 4th Congressional District. Inglis had vacated the seat to run a losing race against Senator Ernest Hollins.

DeMint’s tenure started out like that of most freshmen congressmen — anonymous and committed to bringing home the bacon, much like Rep. Inglis who, when Senator DeMint moved up to the Senate, moved back into his old House seat until the tea party movement threw him out in 2010.

Something happened to DeMint though. In a National Journal article last month, Michael Hirsh fingered the fight over No Child Left Behind, which DeMint originally opposed, but then ultimately supported.

Among the conservatives who cooled on Bush was Sen. Jim DeMint. DeMint recalled that Bush told him, at a White House meeting back in 2001, when the South Carolinian was a second-term House member, that Bush would fight for “flexibility” for state charter schools as part of his new federal education program, No Child Left Behind, according to a DeMint aide, who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press. DeMint was then far from the small-government agitator and tea party champion he has become. But the Bush plan disturbed DeMint, and he decided to vote no—until the president called him in and said, “Jim, I promise to get this [state flexibility] back in conference. But I need you not to make an issue of it on the House floor,” the aide recalled. “DeMint said, ‘OK, Mr. President, I’ll trust you.’ But Bush didn’t even lift a finger to get it in conference.”

For DeMint, it was the beginning of a decade of disappointments in his president and his party, as he gradually became more alienated from the GOP leadership.

After the No Child Left Behind incident, DeMint started teaming up with other conservative fighters like Mike Pence (R-IN) to fight back. Congressman Mike Pence tells Human Events, “Senator Jim DeMint is a force of nature in the conservative movement. His steadfast and consistent stand in defense of fiscal discipline, a strong national defense and traditional moral values is unparalleled in Washington, DC and should give hope to millions of conservatives across the country as they look for conservative leadership in our nation’s capital.”

Elected as social conservatives who were fiscally responsible, the GOP under George W. Bush had largely become pro-life statists with even Fred Barnes championing the idea of “big government conservatives” in the Weekly Standard. DeMint had had enough.

In 2004, Jim DeMint ran for the United States Senate for the seat vacated by Ernest Hollings. He ran against Inez Tenenbaum, the state schools superintendent. Decisively beating her by over 9%, DeMint’s win put both of South Carolina’s Senate seats in the hands of Republicans for the first time since Reconstruction.

Continue