British and German Liberals Losing Appeal

The governing coalitions in Germany and the United Kingdom are under pressure as their junior partners have failed to deliver on key election promises. Both liberal parties are currently trailing in the polls as voters flee the center.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's own christian democrats lost seats in the upper house of parliament last May in the wake of the Greek bailout effort. German voters have been skeptical of having to come to Europe's rescue time and again and many are longing for a return of the Deutsche Mark.

The junior Free Democratic Party (FDP) has bore the grunt of voter dissatisfaction however. A liberal free market party, the FDP pledged to lower tax rates ahead of federal elections last year. The liberals won nearly 15 percent of the vote in 2009. Forced to cut public spending, they have been unable to deliver on their promise. In recent polls, the party receives but 5 percent of votes, not enough to make the election threshold.

According to the socialist opposition in Germany, the government's austerity measures as socially imbalanced and some 80 percent of Germans agree. Two thirds of voters are in favor of raising the top income tax rate instead, something both the chancellor and the FDP are opposed to. Conservatives and business leaders are increasingly weary of the coalition meanwhile, predicting its demise as early as this summer.

In Britain the Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives since May of last year, have similarly lost part of their appeal, particularly among students and young urban professionals. If elections were held today, the party would receive but 11 percent of votes; half of what they won last year.

As in Germany, the government's fiscal policies are unpopular with voters on the left. The Liberal Democrats agreed to a raise in the value added tax from 17.5 to 20 percent and supported an education reform measure which they said to oppose ahead of the elections.

In other parts of Europe, liberal parties have performed well. Small government conservatives and proponents of the free market were on the rise in Central Europe last year while in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, broad alliances of liberals, conservatives and populists remain firmly in power.

A new right is emerging across Europe, spearheaded in some countries, as in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Sweden, by traditional liberals and in others, including Germany and the United Kingdom, by conservatives who have moved to the center. Like Swedish Prime Minister John Fredrik Reinfeldt, David Cameron is far from an outspoken antagonist of Britain's welfare state. The political rights favors spending cuts and smaller government but does not believe in abolishing welfare provisions altogether.

The British and German liberals could be part of that new right except their base is divided. Leftists have been disillusioned by their support for spending cuts while moderate voters are drawn to the right where they find conservatives who share their concerns about immigration and crime. There doesn't seem to be much room for social liberalism in the middle anymore.

Originally published at the Atlantic Sentinel, January 6, 2011.

Why Republicans Can't Just Be Reasonable

Riding on a powerful wave of resentment with the Obama Administration's interventionist policies, the Republicans performed exceptionally well in last month's midterm elections. They picked up scores of House and Senate seats, several governorships and many state legislatures turned red.

After two years of obstructionism, the left, including the White House, has urged the opposition to become a more "responsible" stakeholder. As they will have a majority in the House of Representatives next year, Republicans should work with Democrats, the president said on election night, not "spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two." The challenges that the country faces, he added, do not "lend themselves to simple solutions or bumper sticker slogans. Nor are the answers found in any one particular philosophy or ideology." He shouldn't expect Republicans to share that view.

Republican leaders know that the Tea Party insurrection launched against government overreach in the private sector, including health care, last year was not exclusively aimed at Democrats. Conservatives also blame Republicans who, especially during the Bush Administration, allowed a huge expansion in the size of government and a vast increase in public spending as a consequence. Federal spending nearly doubled between 2000 and 2008 in fact.

Under the Obama Administration the spending spree has continued with hundreds of billions in stimulus and an overhaul of health insurance that is projected to explode Medicaid costs. The Federal Governments has already to borrow more than a third of what it spends and that deficit will only grow in the years to come. But bumper sticker slogans and ideological divide are precisely what will prevent meaningful reform.

Ahead of November's congressional elections, Republican leaders pledged to rein in spending, somehow but they have so far refrained from championing concrete austerity measures. They know that even if the self proclaimed fiscal conservatives of the Tea Party oppose bigger government they like a lot of what government does for them.

Overwhelmingly tea partiers, like all Americans, want to keep Medicare and Social Security for the elderly and oftentimes Medicaid for low income families as well. Cuts in defense spending moreover are anathema to all wings of the Republican Party yet along with entitlements, these are the Federal Government's single largest expenditures.

Without entitlement reform and reductions in defense spending, it is nigh impossible to bring down the deficit and balance the budget, except through raising taxes---something else Republicans won't do.

Republicans' unwillingness to see tax rates go up was most dramatically exposed this month when they blocked all pending legislation in Congress before an extension of Bush era tax cuts would be enacted. They had a good case to make, arguing that during a time of recession, the government should provide certainty and stability before anything else. Democrats were suddenly concerned about the deficit on the other hand, pointing out that if they let the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans expire, it would produce several hundreds of billions in revenue.

A compromise negotiated with the White House ultimately saw Republicans agreeing to an extension of unemployment benefits in return for the tax cuts---another multibillion dollar expense, at least for the next thirteen months. The fundamental unwillingness to compromise on core principle remains however.

Democrats and the White House may claim to be open to compromise but when it comes to spending cuts, they are far from pragmatic. When the chairmen of the president's debt commission proposed to reform Social Security this month in order to ensure the system's affordability for several more decades, including a gradual raise in the retirement age, dozens of Democratic lawmakers immediately lined up to "stand firmly against" pension cuts. The president himself has pledged to preserve Social Security "forever" while Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to "do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare."

The president's health insurance reform was conspicuously absent from the commission's recommendations moreover and in all likelihood, Democrats will oppose any attempt to repeal the law or stall its implementation.

If Democrats remain averse to entitlement reform, Republicans cannot agree to tax hikes. Revenues may have dropped as a natural result of the recession but Republicans are right to point out that Washington has a spending problem before anything else.

Democrats have raised public spending as high as 25 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II. As a result of health care and financial reform, government interference in the private sector has grown substantially; a role that is only set to expand if the administration manages to advance its energy agenda. Restoring balance to the budget is not just a political cause for Republicans; it is economically imperative.

Originally published at the Atlantic Sentinel, December 14, 2010.

The Pragmatist

With his approval ratings hovering around 50 percent and the opposition likely to win significantly in November's midterm elections for Congress, Barack Obama should begin to wonder what went wrong along the way. With a message of "hope and change" the president won almost ten million more voters than his opponent in the 2008 elections but has since become divisive and controversial.

The president's mistake is to be pragmatic when he shouldn't but stand on principle when he can't afford to.

The political left, including elements in his own party, have reason to complain about the president's aloofness to legislative achievements as health care and financial reform. Though praised as monumental and far reaching, Obama failed to effectively sell both overhauls to the public. His administration never managed to counter the Republican narrative of "government takeovers" and is now suffering the consequences in the polls.

A waning approval rating may have discouraged the administration from pursuing principle on issues that were more straightforward. When a federal judge, last month, dismissed California's ban on same sex marriage as arbitrary and unconstitutional, the White House remained silent, no matter its careful attempts at repealing the military's infamous policy of "don't ask, don't tell" toward gay servicemen and -women.

When the Governor of Arizona signed a controversial immigration bill into law last April, one that many allege not only legalizes but encourages racial profiling, the president merely voiced disapproval but didn't take advantage of the situation to make the case for freer immigration to America.

Most recently, with the planned construction of a Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan, New York inspiring a newfound resentment with Islam throughout the country, Obama at first appeared to defend religious freedom only to retreat the very next day, noting that the project---which opponents have successfully dubbed the "Ground Zero mosque"---really isn't any of his business as president.

This president is perfectly adamant about reforming the US economy, favoring a greater involvement for government in regulating and overseeing industry and trade in spite of a majority of Americans opposing his policies in this regard. But whenever he has a chance to assert leadership on values---including marriage, immigration and faith---Obama refrains from spearheading the national debate but lets his popularity suffer instead.

Obama's declining appeal with voters both right and center should not be blamed entirely on unpopular legislation. What has Americans worried and confused is that their president exhibits no clear principles but prides himself on being "pragmatic" and "willing to compromise." That's fine for any lawmaker but a president should lead on ideas, not just listen to them.

Originally published at the Atlantic Sentinel, September 13, 2010.

Administration Braces for Court Challenges

With a five to four conservative majority on the bench, the Obama Administration may soon begin to sense more resistance from the justices of the Supreme Court against its progressive agenda.

The Court wrapped up its term last week with by reaffirming citizens' right to keep and bear arms as protected in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Earlier this year, in another decision frowned upon by Democrats, the highest judicial body of the United States gave corporations the same campaign finance rights as ordinary Americans. For over sixty years, Congress and states had barred corporate and union spending to sway elections. The Court's opinion struck down those laws as unconstitutional censorship.

The Democrats were appalled. They saw the ruling as a radical move aimed to tilt the political system in favor of Big Business just as they were working to reform the country's financial system. President Barack Obama publicly criticized the decision during his first State of the Union address before Congress. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is still angered by what he regarded as a partisan insult to the independent judiciary.

The divide on campaign finance regulation is likely reflective of clashes to come. The administration may be waging a war on capitalism with efforts to restrict the business freedoms of banks, insurance companies and the energy industry; the Supreme Court will have the final word on those laws. With Robert in control, that may be setting the stage for dispute.

"Presidents with active agendas for change almost always encounter resistance in the courts," said Stanford University law professor Michael W. McConnell, quoted in the Los Angeles Times. "It happened to Roosevelt and it happened to Reagan. It will likely happen to Obama too."

The administration is already under attack in the courts. Attorneys general in so much as twenty states are fighting the health care bill, claiming that its mandate to buy health insurance oversteps Congress' constitutional powers and tramples on states' rights.

The president's moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of BP's oil spill last April has met a similar fate. A federal judge in New Orleans ruled that the president exceeded his authority with the measure. Citing potential harm to businesses and workers, Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the United States District Court opined that the administration had failed to justify the need for such "a blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium" on oil and gas drilling. The White House immediately announced that it would appeal the ruling while Interior Secretary Ken Salazar promised to issue a new order imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling along with more detailed information to prove its necessity.

Lastly, the administration is feeling the heat on immigration reform since it announced its intention to block a controversial Arizona law which is due to take effect July 29. Republican Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona says she will fight the challenge all the way up to the Supreme Court if need be.

It may well take another year or two before any challenge to the Obama Administration's agenda reaches the highest court.

According to Professor McConnell, the administration's broad set of regulatory moves made a clash almost inevitable. "It does not mean the courts are being political," though. "It is the way the institutions are designed, to create checks and balances."

Originally published at the Atlantic Sentinel, July 6, 2010.