Stealth Liberalism

[red-beard]

From 2008/08/29 Wall Street Journal:
POTOMAC WATCH
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Democrats Offer Stealth Liberalism
August 29, 2008; Page

The Reagan revolution is dead! Just don't expect us to bet this election on it!
If there's a theme that's emerged from this week's Democratic National Convention here, this is it. To listen to liberal pundits and party leaders (and Bill Clinton on stage Wednesday night) modern conservatism has had its run and is now kaput. Americans -- burdened by "inequality," soaring doctor bills, falling home prices -- are ready for a new Great Society. We are all progressives now.

But for a party that supposedly has history on its side, the Democrats sure aren't acting like it. Substantively, Barack Obama's agenda would indeed result in the biggest expansion of government and income redistribution since LBJ. Not that voters would have picked that up in his acceptance speech last night. Democrats are instead pitching this program to Americans in terms that would make the Gipper proud.

Mr. Obama proposes one of the steepest tax increases in modern history, raising rates on personal income, capital gains, dividends and even death. The money Mr. Obama takes from taxpaying Americans he would hand to nontaxpaying Americans in the form of "refundable" tax credits. This is called a "tax hike" and "income redistribution" -- even in the Harvard economics department. And given Mr. Obama's concern with "inequality," you'd assume he'd be proud of it.

Instead, Mr. Obama is careful to declare these new government handouts a "tax cut for the middle class." Joe Biden, in his own nomination speech, stole a favorite Republican talking point, claiming Mr. Obama's dizzying array of tax credits would in fact "reform our tax code." And the Obama team likes to reassure voters his higher capital-gains and dividend tax rates would still be less than those under (can you guess?) Ronald Reagan.

The Illinois senator would create a new "universal" health-insurance plan, which in its size and scope would be the largest government entitlement since Johnson's Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The ultimate goal (as Mr. Obama has hinted) is to pull ever more Americans under the government-health umbrella, until such time as Democrats can kill off private insurance altogether. To hurry us toward "Medicare for All," the Obama plan imposes tough new regulations on insurance companies and big new taxes on business.

And how do confident Democrats describe this bold step toward Canadian health care? Mr. Obama's Web site hastens to tell voters that they do not have to join his plan, and moreover that it is nothing more than that which is currently on offer to federal employees. Should they join, however, it will offer "choice" and "portability," as well as "affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles." It will also simplify paperwork and rein in health-care costs, and "raise quality" and "efficiency." Milton Friedman, eat your heart out.

The Obama team would slap new rules on every bank and mortgage provider in America. Publicly, this is presented as more "transparency" and "oversight." An Obama administration would micromanage the energy industry, rewarding wind and solar, punishing oil and nuclear. Publicly, they describe this as "freeing" America from foreign oil. An Obama Washington would target unpopular industries, imposing a "windfall profits" tax on the oil world. Publicly, the Obama team justifies this as "closing loopholes" to eliminate preferential tax treatment.

Trade? Big Labor is running the Democratic shop these days, which is why Congress sits on deals with vital allies like Colombia or South Korea. Mr. Obama will owe any presidential victory to the labor movement, and the price will be protectionism. Yet as recently as June, Mr. Obama insisted (in a deft impression of John McCain): "I have said before, and will say again -- I believe in free trade."

Is the Reagan revolution dead? From the courage of these Democratic convictions, it would appear not. If today's liberal storyline were correct, a proud "progressive" candidate should win voter acclaim with promises of higher taxes, government regulation, an encompassing health-care entitlement, protectionism and corporate-bashing. We can't know if that's the case, since the "progressive" Mr. Obama is doing such an excellent job of hiding those policies behind the conservative rhetoric of "choice," "tax cuts," "free trade" and "freedom."

Here's an alternate story line: Voters, in 2006, rightly rebuked a Republican Party that over 12 years had lost its commitment to reform and limited government, and decided to give Democrats a chance. That voter anger remains -- as does confusion over today's economy and a frustration with Washington's gridlock -- and it has opened the door to an Obama "change" candidacy. But the center-right country that only four years ago elected Mr. Bush and Republican Congressional majorities is still a long way from embracing a new Great Society. Which is why Democrats are attempting to slip liberal policies through the back door.

This alternate story line might also help explain why the rock star who spoke here last night has yet to sew up this race. Despite all the reassuring rhetoric and the promises of a "post-partisan" Washington, many Americans sense in Mr. Obama the ghosts of liberals past.

Write to kim@wsj.com

[Hugh R]

Obama scares the crap out of me. But what scares me more is that about 50% of voters believe in what he stands for. Then again, 1/2 the population has below average intelligence. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

[Mo_Gearhead]

The first BLACK POTUS and the first FEMALE POTUS

...will come from the Republican Party ranks.

Fear not!

[red-beard]

Seriously, why won't Powell run?

Hmmm. I just noticed he is the same age as McCain!