The media is going to try and play this as horse race politics. Governor John Kasich lost and the Democrats won.  And obviously, in some important sense – even if only in the fact the story and perspective being conventional wisdom – this is true. Kasich and Republicans passed this legislation and it has been rejected.  Fair enough.

But I personally believe there is a simpler explanation.  Voters like their local cops, firefighters, nurses and teachers.  In many ways, they idealize these type of positions even if they don’t like the state of education or public safety, etc.  Thus opponents of reform had a very easy and emotionally effective message: Senate Bill 5 is an attack on the “everyday heroes” who protect our communities.  It doesn’t really matter if this was true or not.  In a 30 second ad it is easy to say and makes an emotional connection. This is a huge advantage in a statewide ballot issue.

Combine this with the huge financial advantage the opponents had (unions could take dues from union members regardless of their political beliefs and spend it on this election) and you have an uphill battle for supporters (and of course there is a minority of voters – public sector and labor unions – who are simply voting their self-interest).  All they had to do was blanket the state with pictures of police and firefighters opposed to the issue and the lasting impression is that the bill is an attack on the people we value the most in our communities.

We can debate the wisdom of keeping fire and saftey forces in the bill (and the larger strategy & process) later. But what I want to note tonight is that this is not an ideological victory in my mind.  I don’t believe voters saw this as a smaller or larger government debate. Nor was it about lowering or raising taxes. It was about not attacking public safety. It was about a simple but effective message with overwhelming financial superiority. The nature of modern elections means this was not an upset but par for the course given the nature of popular ballot issues.

Is Kasich unpopular? Sure, the economy sucks and doesn’t look good any time soon. People tend to blame people at the top.  Kasich didn’t have any real political capital left to win on this issue. But that doesn’t mean Kasich is suddenly a defeated governor.  He is going to ultimately be judged on the success of his policies in the medium to long term. He passed a budget that puts Ohio on a path to success. He is fundamentally redefining economic development in this state and he is selling Ohio like mad. If the Ohio economy gets better and the policies he has implemented begin to bear fruit he will be just fine.

And this is not the sign of GOP over-reach either.  If this was such an ideological turning of the tide that how to explain the passage of Issue 3 – a clear repudiation of health care mandates?  If Ohio voters suddenly turned to the left that win seems to make little sense. I think it is much easier to see this as another reflection of message and popular sentiment. People saw health care mandates as threat to their care and likely to raise costs.  They rejected the idea. Exactly how is this going to help Democrats (or the president for example) in Ohio?

If Democrats think the ground has shifted significantly I think they are getting carried away.  Unions felt their backs were up against the wall and they leveraged their financial advantage to great effect. They rallied the troops and used their message, however deceptive, to great effect. This is a big win.  I get that.

But off-year ballot issues of this nature do not mean fundamental change.  As I said on twitter, “If you have an emotionally effective message, and can spend five times as much, you have a good chance of winning ballot issues.” This is not sea change in political philosophy or a rejection of the party in power (neither party are particularly popular when it comes right down to it).

So ignore the union gloating and the media stories about how independents reject extremism and over-reach.  Instead, conservatives need to find ways to better communicate their ideas and continue to build the institutions and organizations that can move their ideas and policies forward.  Fiscal reality is not going to change. The nature of what government can and can’t accomplish given its nature and this fiscal reality isn’t going to magically change because of this vote.

Conservatives took one on the chin, yes, but the larger war is far from clear.  There are even bigger battles that lie ahead. Let’s get ready.

But the point of this post is not to attack John Glenn or dissect his career – however fun and instructive that may be – but to point out the tricky nature of heroism.  And to highlight the ridiculous bait and switch happening with Ohio’s collective bargaining law ballot issue (Issue 2) debate.

Public sector unions want the public to believe that Senate Bill 5 was a dirty move by power hungry politicians that puts the public at risk. They want you to believe that the “Everyday heroes” in our communities – the public safety forces, nurses, teachers, etc. – are being robbed of the very tools they use to protect us.

As I have posted before, their entire campaign is based on a false sense of moral superiority which is in turn based on misrepresenting the facts and manipulating the public’s emotions.  And it just so happens that the latest ad is a perfect example and it stars John Glenn.

As they used to say, Read On …

Here is the video in question:

This really ticks me off. This whole campaign insists that what stands between the public and death and destruction is not skilled first responders or highly qualified teachers nor even dedicated public servants. No, what really keeps us safe, protected and educated is collective bargaining laws passed in the early 1980′s. If unions are not allowed to control the bargaining process in the exact way they want and write the minute details of staffing levels into binding multi-year contracts then the general public is not safe on the streets, in their homes, or at the hospital.  Oh, and their kid’s education will suffer too.

Let’s follow the logic on this. Police, firefighters, nurses, teachers and other public workers are “everyday heroes” who serve their community out of dedication and commitment to high standards not love of money or power. Any attempts to change the collective bargaining laws in a way that weakens union power or gives state and local governments more flexibility, however, means that citizens are at risk and these heroes will force the repeal of reform legislation onto the ballot and take to the airways to decry it.

These are heroes who just happen to insist they they, and only they, are capable of protecting the public interest and must do so under complex statutorily mandated collective bargaining laws that clearly favors public sector unions at the expense of governments and taxpayers.  These people are heroes but if you threaten their power they will cut you, man.

Now, it is particularly useful that John Glenn is the person presenting this argument because it allows us to highlight an important point that is getting lost here. You are not a hero just because you are a police officer, firefighter, nurse or teacher.  And just because your job, or some aspect of your past career, was heroic doesn’t mean you can use that as a trump card in a political argument.  You may in fact be lousy at your job and a risk to the public. Or you may be good at your job but do it for very selfish reasons. Or, like most people, you could be a complicated mix of motives and skills.  A person with lax morals and a tendency to be a jerk could very well in the course of their job rescue a child from a burning building or perform CPR. This would make them a hero in some important sense. But from that point on they don’t get everything they want – they don’t get some sort of trump card that trumps the needs and concerns of their employer and the rest of the organization – let alone the public at large.

John Glenn the astronaut is seen as a hero. Someone who risked himself in order to achieve something for the country as a whole – someone who represents an ideal of courage and service.  But you know what? John Glenn was also a politician.  Now I happen to think that this John Glenn was mediocre and wrong on just about every public policy issue of his lifetime. So which John Glenn is speaking here?  The hero obviously.

We Are Ohio wants you to think of an idealized version of this hero and pretend that this is what collective bargaining is about. That if these public servants oppose  something it must be bad. This is emotional manipulation pure and simple.

Unions are not heroes. They are self-interested organizations aimed at protecting their members and increasing their pay and benefits whenever possible. Let me repeat that, unions are by their very nature self-interested. The whole reason they exist is to protect and negotiate on behalf of their members. Their ideological, political and monetary interests are enhanced with collective bargaining laws that give them more power.

Oh, and by the way, John Glenn is a politician whose power and electability depended on union power and donations.  But now that he is a sort of grand pubah of Democratic politics he can speak as if he has no self-interest in this debate; as if it is just about protecting the public.

Issue 2 is about bringing flexibility and reform back to government. And yes, it is about weakening the power of unions. This is not nefarious or sinister. Public sector unions currently have too much power and too much leverage when it comes to state and local governments. They have increased the cost of government and they have made it less flexible and less innovative. They are an opponent of reform on almost every issue and at every level.  This has nothing to do with the heroism.  The system is not working and hasn’t been for some time. The fiscal reality simply won’t allow us to ignore this anymore.

Take it away Columbus Dispatch:

Elected officials should be in control of public expenditures. For the nearly three decades since the advent of Ohio’s extremely lopsided collective-bargaining law, elected officials have had too little control over the overwhelming majority of their budgets: salaries and benefits for public employees. That was always poor public policy, but in better economic times, it was sustainable. It isn’t anymore.

And this is the second aspect of this insulting argument about everyday heroes: elected officials are elected by who again? Yes, that’s right the public.  Who elects union leaders? Union members. In fact, unions take the money of members whether they like it or not and spend it as they see fit.

So what is really happening here is that the unions are insisting that the majority public as represented by its popularly elected leaders must give in to the threats of the minority public sector unions or their very lives and safety will be under threat.  The people who pour millions of dollars into elections and politics are trying to turn around and say that “politicians” can’t be trusted to put public safety first (ignore for a moment trying to get re-elected after cuts to public safety resulted in lives lost) and that only they can be heroes.

Excuse me for thinking that entrenched union power at the expense of the public purse is not heroism; that public decisions should be based on open debate and republican (small R) government not statutory giveaways to a politically powerful minority who refuses to face fiscal reality.

We Are Ohio, and their union supporters who are pouring money into Ohio to run these ads, want Ohioans to fall for an emotional bait and switch. They want them to think the choice is between valuing service, and wanting safety, and government reform. This is a false choice and slander at the same time.

Heroism is not based on legal power or entrenched interests. It is based on character. True heroes should understand this.

It is easy to lose perspective these days. What with the 2012 campaign, the struggling economy, and the often miss-the-forest-for the-trees nature of social media and 24/7 news cycles. With that in mind, I have some advice:  If you feel sorry for yourself, read this book. If you find American politics depressing, read this book. If you need some inspiration for your faith, read this book. Or if you just need to see the world from a different perspective, read this book.

What book? you ask.  God Is Red: The Secret Story of How Christianity Survived and Flourished in Communist China

This rather simple book blew me away with stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things and persevering through the most brutal of circumstances. It is a story of faith and determination in the midst of poverty and persecution that makes my complaints and troubles seem laughingly small.

Here is the publisher’s description:

When journalist Liao Yiwu first stumbled upon a vibrant Christian community in the officially secular China, he knew little about Christianity. In fact, he’d been taught that religion was evil, and that those who believed in it were deluded, cultists, or imperialist spies. But as a writer whose work has been banned in China and has even landed him in jail, Liao felt a kinship with Chinese Christians in their unwavering commitment to the freedom of expression and to finding meaning in a tumultuous society.

Unwilling to let his nation lose memory of its past or deny its present, Liao set out to document the untold stories of brave believers whose totalitarian government could not break their faith in God, including:

• The over-100-year-old nun who persevered in spite of beatings, famine, and decades of physical labor, and still fights for the rightful return of church land seized by the government
• The surgeon who gave up a lucrative Communist hospital administrator position to treat villagers for free in the remote, mountainous regions of southwestern China
• The Protestant minister, now memorialized in London’s Westminster Abbey, who was executed during the Cultural Revolution as “an incorrigible counterrevolutionary”

This ultimately triumphant tale of a vibrant church thriving against all odds serves as both a powerful conversation about politics and spirituality and a moving tribute to China’s valiant shepherds of faith, who prove that a totalitarian government cannot control what is in people’s hearts.

Liao Yiwu mostly lets the people he interviews speak for themselves (but offering some rather poetic introductions and descriptions along the way) in this fascinating look at the people who gave everything they had to help grow the Christian church in China.  As a result, the book reads more like a journal or series of vignettes than a stand alone book – it really is a collection of interviews – but because the underlying stories are so powerful this style and structure is easily overcome.  And it’s simplicity and straightforward witness adds to its power.

Yiwu focuses mostly on rural areas and the villages that embraced the Christian faith in the early part of the Twentieth Century only to have the horrors of communism and the Cultural Revolution bring suffering and persecution in ways that are almost impossible for Westerners to imagine.

These amazing people held on to their faith despite decades of hardship and persecution. The state took everything they had – their homes, their churches, their freedom, their health – and yet they persevered to see the faith grow and flourish. The tragic irony is that they were punished as foreign spies and imperialist lackeys even as they sought to provide care and meaning to the poorest of poor in the rural areas.

Imagine being forced to kneel on tile and broken pottery in the freezing rain for days without food; dragged to public condemnations and beaten whenever you pray or refuse to renounce your faith; thrown in prison for thirty years for nothing more than preaching the gospel and bringing aid to the poor and helpless; having everything you have worked for taken away by capricious bureaucrats and your own neighbors.

And then as the political winds change you are forced to choose between state run churches, with at least the appearance of peace and the ability to worship freely, or continuing to fight for true freedom of religion and the ability to worship as you choose.

What a challenge to people of faith today!

Of course, even if you are just interested in the history of Christianity or human rights or China you will find this book (written by a non-Christian) fascinating – a glimpse of history from the participants.

There is no denying that we live in troubling times, and American politics doesn’t exactly seem to be rising to the occasion, but a book like this will open your eyes to the amazing freedom and blessings we enjoy in this country. It should bring into focus what really matters; at least it did for me.

Christianity Today sums it up well

If you want to read one book that sums up the glory of the Christian witness under persecution and the tragic 20th-century story of China’s Christians, read God Is Red. Brilliant and immensely moving, it will, if anything can, inject new backbone into your own Christian life.

Originally posted at Collected Miscellany.

A good example is a hot topic these days: student debt. This is a subject I have some inside knowledge about having acquired far too much student debt in order to achieve an advanced degree from a fancy Ivy League school (fine, a MA from a MAC school, but that is beside the point).

This is also a classic example of politicians blindly declaring something a universal good and then making policy that not only ignores economic reality but undermines the economy and harms people (see, housing policy).  We blithely declare that everyone should go to college and set up a system that allows anyone breathing to borrow large sums of money with no consequences or connection to reality and wonder why the system doesn’t function.  Soon we have millions of people with massive debt and very little to show for it.

The sad thing is that these people are now protesting in the streets and asking for what? More hair of the dog that bit them – more government intrusion and less economic reality.  And it appears President Obama is happy to oblige them.

You don’t have to be a economics major to understand a basic principle: if you make something cheap or easy to acquire, you will get more of it.  And if you have high demand with a limited supply prices go up. Hard to argue with these, right?

Well, these two very basic ideas explain most of what is wrong with the cost of tuition and the staggering student debt load that is being carried in America.  Through student loans and subsidies America has set a policy of pushing everyone no matter what their educational preparedness, emotional or financial stability, nor their future career prospects to go to college; and allow them to borrow money heavily to do it.

There is no need to provide any indication that you can or will pay it back. No connection to any sort of economic calculus whatsoever. You can get a PhD in “Gender Stereotypes in New England Cookbooks” and borrow $100,000 to do it. You can accumulate more debt that you could ever hope to pay back in your lifetime and the government will not blink an eye. And if you default on that loan, quite frankly there are not any catastrophic consequences.

Now, what do you think this does to college tuition? High demand thanks to a cultural assumption that college is required (and honestly a middle class bias against trade and technical schools), and some truth to the fact that post-high school education means more money, means a system where the institutions of higher learning have the upper hand. Thus rising tuition.  Demand is high and there are very few barriers to entry (notice I said entry not completion. It is easy to borrow money and start school, not easy to finish with a degree let alone a marketable one).

So what are we talking about now? How to reform the system so that it better conforms with economic reality? How to develop a system that helps students make better career choices and think about the wisdom of acquiring massive amounts of debt? Educating the public on basic economic realities so that families are forced to make choices and higher education has to serve the needs of students rather than just gobble up money handed out by the federal government?

No, we are talking about how to forgive student debt. Despite the very real burden these debts impose, again I know about this all to well, this is not going to help anyone long term nor is it going to get us out of the whole we are in (and no, it won’t stimulate the economy either). First rule of holes and all that.

Michael Turk posted today on this issue and has a great deal of wise things to offer. He proposes two changes to being to bring economic reality to bear on student loans: 1) Capping student loans and 2) restricting using student loans to actual education. This is reform that acknowledges economic reality and supply and demand, etc.  I highly recommend you read the whole post.

But I want to ask a higher level question: is universal college education really the universal good we make it out to be and is subsidization by the federal government really good policy? I would answer a no to both of those.

Instead, I think we should recognize that in a high tech and information world education is important but it is not the level of education that is important but the matching of education to the type of career you want, have the aptitude and drive to obtain, and is likely to provide the necessary income you need. In other words, we need a market drive system that allows people more choices but with the caveat that economic reality informs, and in many ways drives, those decisions. Students shouldn’t be shuffled off to State U without thinking about what they are going to do for a living. Graduate shouldn’t be allowed to just jump into grad school with no idea of getting a job or paying back their loans.

Second, I think we need the laboratory of states if you will, or at least push decision down to a more local level, to play a much bigger role in this arena. Instead of handing out blanket subsidies to students everywhere through loans, grants and tax policy at the federal level we should allow institutions and states to decide how best to  structure their systems. In perfect libertarian world their would be no subsidies just students and families making choices and the market making adjustments based on those choices. But in reality, states and localities might feel it is in their best interest to help students get the education and training they need – as economic development and as part of a larger educational system.

Fine, but let’s do this based on supply and demand. Let’s help the less fortunate, yes, but not by ignoring the job market or their ability to pay back debt.  If you are a bright student who wants to go into engineering or science education or nursing (or some other field with a clear need and a career path) but can’t afford it I am open to scholarships and incentives. But if you want to get an advanced degree with no plan or idea on what type of career you want and no plan to ever be able to pay back your gargantuan debt, then no you can’t borrow money.

We need to push back against the idea that acting as if the basic facts of economics and human nature don’t exist is good policy or in any way compassionate. Radical, I know, but worth thinking about …

People love to hate politicians and often for good reason. And in our hyper-populist mood these days there is a scrambling to be anti-politician, anti-Washington, anti-government, etc.  Conservatives in particular are enamored of businessmen and figures who can plausibly claim to free from beltway and big government thinking.

Obviously, Herman Cain benefits from this dynamic; and Mitt Romney has – awkwardly and unsuccessfully in my opinion – tried to use this to his advantage.  There is one small problem with this idea: it is naive and unrealistic and leads only to problems for candidates and their supporters.

The truth is that being a politician is a profession whether we like it or not.  Outside of local positions, and very small jurisdictions, elected office is a full time job.  The size and scope of government, and the nature of modern society, means the larger the responsibility and power attached to an office the more difficult it is both to get elected and to do the job.

In my opinion the the idea of citizen legislators is a myth; a nostalgic belief that does not match reality.  This is true at the state level.  Budgets and legislative issues require a knowledge base and skill level of a professional; you can’t just walk in off the street and be successful.

In a similar way, running for office requires a set of skills and base of knowledge that is beyond the average person. Yes, you ca surround yourself with good staff and good advice but running a good campaign is a skill and requires experience; the more you do it, generally, the better you become.

Take all of this to the presidential level and the pressures and complexity of it all is off the charts.  So why do we expect that someone with very little experience in this area can just waltz on to the stage and succeed?

Herman Cain is a talented businessman.  He obviously has experience with leadership and management.  And this background brings with it a unique ability to speak to the issues from a fresh perspective and in a way that appeals to many outside the political process.

And you can’t be involved in business at the level Cain has without being politically involved.  Cain is no stranger to politics or to government.  But running for president is in many ways sui generis; something unlike anything else.

And I hate to break it to fans of Herman Cain, but I think the last few weeks have shown that Cain is not quite ready for the pressure involved.  The media spotlight is hostile and white hot. Everything you say is scrutinized and attacked. Your history, your motives, your every decision is researched and probed for weaknesses (unless of course you happen to be Barack Obama).

Most people simply can’t handle this.  The list of people who have in important ways been ambushed by this process or who have not held up under the pressure is  long.  Michelle Bachman, whatever you think of her positions, etc., went from building momentum and gaining support to fringe pretty quickly.  Or, and again whatever you think of her choices and or style, Sarah Palin; thrust into the spotlight and forced to compete on the national level in the most hostile of circumstances.

All too often conservatives swing between a naive idealism and a harsh, almost Machiavellian, pragmatism both, and often ironically, infused with a strong element of the cult of personality.  We latch on to a rising star or a fresh face and insist they are the second coming of Ronald Reagan and George Washington combined and deny for as long as it is possible that they might not sweep into power and change Washington forever.

Or we get behind what we perceive as the most electable candidate and then insist that they have no faults or that their are no trade offs involved in politics. After a loss, or when the responsibility of governing grows tiresome, the blame game begins and we too often fail to wrestle with the blinders we put on during the campaign.

I would suggest that there is an important conservative principle in seeing politics are the art of the possible. It is important to play the ball as it lies; to take a metaphor from the game of golf. And we ignore this reality at our peril.

This doesn’t meant that we abandon principles or turn harshly cynical.  Yes, first principles and policy stands are important; as is the ability trust a candidate to follow through on promises and make the tough choices based on their ideals.

But it does recognize that there are no perfect candidates, that politics is a necessary part of our public life and that it requires skills and experience just like any other profession.

You don’t just jump from never having run for public office to becoming president of the United States.  You can’t just figure out how to act on one of the largest stages imaginable on the fly.  Running for president isn’t like running a business.

And “Lame Stream Media” or not, effective communication, management and style play a crucial role in success today.  Is it fair or ideal? No, but it is reality.

In my opinion, on a number of issues recently Cain has simply not shown the basic level of competency necessary to run for president let alone get elected.  When pushed to take his message from basic marketing to more detailed policy debate he has offered confusion and, at times, outright incoherence.  Given what is at stake this is not acceptable.

Now, before the flame wars begin let me just say that none of the candidates have exactly shone in this area.  They all have weaknesses from seemingly doing nothing else but run for president to all the baggage of a long political career; from brutal honest that quickly slips into the fevered swaps to an inability to defend and sell your very strong record of achievement.

And to be honest, I think Michelle Bachman in many ways forshadowed Cain’s problems. I also think Rick Santorum’s spectacular electoral failure the last time he ran for office, and his inability to come off as anything but angry, make him fatally flawed.

So here is my, probably equally naive, plea: lets debate and discuss this primary with an awareness that politics is a profession that requires skills and experience; and that all of the candidates have strengths and weaknesses.  We need to decide who we think has the best blend of the skills and experience necessary to get elected and succeed in office. We need to decide what policy or beliefs are non-negotiable and which tradeoffs we are willing to make in order to move our ideals forward (or at the least prevent further destruction).

In other words, we need to go into this with our eyes wide open to the actual political landscape we find ourselves in not the one we wish existed.

This isn’t easy I know, but it is the task that is set before us.

Issue 2 is a result of a union led attempt to repeal Senate Bill 5 – legislation which brought much needed reform to Ohio’s collective bargaining laws.  A yes vote allows these important reforms to go into effect which will give much needed flexibility to government at all levels and will remove barriers to merit based management.

But this will not be a detailed and technical examination of the law and its impact. Instead, what I want to do is highlight the fundamentally deceptive and anti-democratic and anti-republican (small r) nature of the opposition forces.

The fundamental problem for the unions is that the vast majority of Ohioans are not members of unions and, as taxpayers, support effective and efficient government.  In a fast paced information based world, and with budgets as tight as they have ever been, this means breaking up the stranglehold unions have had on government.

Elected leaders and managers have to have the ability to adjust to changing circumstances. Success should be determined by talent and hard work not mere seniority. Benefits should reflect economic reality and be comparable to the private sector; not gold plated rewards based on political power and the ability to hold communities hostage. Staffing should be flexible and based on what is needed to get the job done not arbitrary and locked in numbers.

When explained in clear simple language most Ohioans support these basic ideas.  They understand in their gut that even if we wanted to we simply can’t continue to act as if government is exempt from economic reality.  The fundamental question is why public sector unions believe they are so different, so special, that they should be allowed to avoid facing these facts; facts that the majority of workers have long since adjusted to (often painfully).

Obviously, the unions can’t simply ask taxpayers outright for more sacrifice so that they can continue to avoid facing reality. Instead, what they attempt to do is assume the moral high ground so that basic economic facts are ignored and this becomes a rhetorical battle of good guys versus bad guys.

They do this in numerous ways. One is to make the issue about public safety and education.  You don’t win a lot of heart and minds defending overpaid janitors or  bureaucrats whose pay continues to go up simply by managing not to get fired.

No, instead they play on public sympathy by making the issue about teachers and firefighters, policeman and nurses; and imply that any reform to the system threatens the community.  We tend to think of these professions as caring and community orientated; and often as underappreciated.

This makes sense. Always put your most sympathetic face forward. But there is a subtle aspect to this argument that is actually dangerous and corrosive. The underlying argument is that elected officials acting on behalf of voters will put lives at risk in order to save money.

It is easy to demonize politicians – and sometimes for good reason – but it is also dangerous to allow the unions to undermine the basic structures of our political system.  Using a tool of direct democracy they are in fact undermining our republican and democratic structure by keeping power in the hands of unelected and unrepresentative union bosses.

In ads, testimony and public arguments the unions are constantly insinuating that the only thing preventing crime from increasing and policeman from being sent into the worst neighborhoods without protection or backup is union power.  Your child’s education, so the argument goes, is dependent on union control. And in the same way, hospitals and other public safety entities will only keep you safe if they are controlled by unions.

In this way, the unions – who are the very definition of self-interested parties – want to pretend that this is about the community. They want to assume the moral high ground over against the greedy politicians. But this is in fact the opposite of the moral landscape.

As noted above, the unions are arguing in favor of rules and policies that directly impact their pay and benefits.  They want to keep the power they have and thus increase the likelihood they will keep the pay and benefits they have traditionally been able to negotiate.  There is nothing wrong with this as long as we are honest and up front about it. They are entitled to negotiate for what they think are their best interests; to protect what they have.

But what has to be kept clear in our minds is that, in important ways, they are arguing against the public interest and common good.  Public sector unions are not taking power out of the hands of management acting on behalf of shareholders but out of the hands of duly elected representatives acting on behalf of voters and citizens.  The costs involved come not out of the profits but out of taxes.

It is this fundamental truth which the unions refuse to acknowledge: the public deserves to make decisions about public funds not union bosses. But public sector unions, and their private sector allies, insist that somehow their self-interest is directly tied to the public interest – and insist that they have the moral high ground – as a result their arguments are deceptive and often insulting.

Despite the foibles and weaknesses of individual politicians and government entities, these are the proper decision makers for questions of how to manage and spend the public’s money.  Politicians are accountable to voters and work within a system that is, however imperfectly, set up to allow voters to make their voices heard.  And when voters are unhappy that can force change; and particularly at the local level, vote with their feet if necessary.

A no vote on Issue 2 means elevating the interests of a small minority – public sector unions bosses – over the public good.  And it undermines the proper locus for decision making in our republic – with the public and their chosen representatives.

Issue 2 obviously has important ramifications for budgets at the state and local level, but we should also keep in mind that this is also a battle over fundamental principles. We can’t afford to allow the unions to deceptively claim the moral high ground.

But in his biography of founding father James Madison, Richard Brookhiser argues that politics is the working out of our ideals; that for freedom, democracy and republican government to function in the real world requires politics and all the baggage that entails.

We pay much less attention to James Madison, Father of Politics, than we do James Madison, Father of the Constitution. That is because politics embarrasses us. Politics is the spectacle on television and YouTube, the daily perp walk on the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report. Surely our founders and framers lefts us something better, more solid, more inspiring than that? They did. But they all knew - and Madison understood better than any of them – that ideals come to life in dozens of political transactions every day. Some of these transactions aren’t pretty. You can understand this and try to work with this knowledge, or you can look away. But ignoring politics will not make it stop. It will simply go on without you – and sooner or later will happen to you.

Madison is one of, if not the, smartest of the founders but he lacked the stature of Washington, or the eloquence of a Thomas Jefferson or a Patrick Henry, and so his intelligence is sometimes overlooked. Madison may not have been an eloquent speaker – he often spoke so quietly that the audience couldn’t hear him – or writer but he learned to master many of the important skills necessary to move public opinion, pass legislation and build coalitions.

In fact, he developed a conception of political action that modern readers will recognize.  At a time when most people understood the role of the public as cyclical (citizens vote, let their leaders lead and then either vote them out or return them to power based on the results) Madison began to develop a view of public opinion as a necessary part of leadership and governing.

Madison also realized that in order to succeed long-term, he needed another tool: a political party. And so with the help of Thomas Jefferson he built the Republican Party – which rather confusingly eventually changed its name and became today’s Democratic Party. Where parties, often known as factions, were once looked down upon Madison played a big role in making them a standard part of elections and governance.

And in many ways Madison’s story is the story of how that party triumphed while the party of Washington and Hamilton faded away. This led to the Virginia Dynasty; two terms each for Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. And it ended the long friendship and partnership between Madison and George Washington.

Madison also sought to use public opinion as part of coalition building and governing; while seeking to mold that opinion to his ends. This included journalism, public speaking, lobbying and more – in other words what we call politics.

As a result, Brookhiser gives a tour of the development of American politics from the battles over the Constitution to the War of 1812 and the battles that prefigured the Civil War.  This included the nature of federal power versus state’s rights; trade and economic development; international relations and military strategy; and a number of important constitutional questions.

Madison played a central role in every major debate of this period and served in government at every level; from state and local bodies and conventions to Congress, the cabinet and eventually the presidency.  His life is a great window into this time period and the issues, ideas and personalities involved.

And this is where Brookhiser shines. His writing is crisp and clear.  He is not afraid to make judgments and offer assessments. He doesn’t feel the need to drown the reader in detail, but rather offers an overview and quick sketches of important events and characters.

The story is full of one line descriptions and aphorisms; of memorable opinion and useful insights.

On John Adams:

If Adams had had to make a living as a journalist, he would have starved; he hid diamonds of psychological insight in dunghills of pedantry.

On John Randolph of Roanoke:

All his life, his voice never broke and he never used a razor. He kept the world in awe with his quick tongue and quicker temper. In his twenties and thirties, he was not as crazy as he would later become, after alcohol, opium, and disappointment had done their work. But he was always willful and domineering.

On Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson had a gift of seeing views and making leaps. He was a prophet; he was also a bluejay, snatching at every shiny idea that caught his eye. He expressed his thoughts in crystal-clear words; the words in turn brightened the thoughts.

On Madison’s relationship with Jefferson:

Madison was like a box in which Jefferson could deposit his savvy, on occasions when it conflicted with his other impulses or emotions. But Jefferson always remembered how to find it again.

Brookhiser writes popular history as it should be: learned and insightful but not exhausting; with sharp writing not afraid to offer an opinion but not polemical for the sake of scoring points; with prose that is clear and a joy to read.

If you are interested in the founders and framers, the politics of the immediate post constitution era, or just good and engaging history you should check out Richard Brookhiser’s books.

And this biography of James Madison has much to teach us today as we engage in politics:

Politics can be low, sometimes sordid. Much of that has to be endured, because that is the way men are. “If men were angels,” as Madison wrote, “no government would be necessary.”  But some of the shortcomings of politics may be capable of improvement. So say why and do better.  As Madison also wrote, “The censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.” Both of those remarks were addressed to government, but they also apply to politics.

Madison at his best, and worst, belongs not just to his family, but to every citizen. We have been working together for a long time.

Worth thinking about this primary season and heading into 2012.

Related articles

• Is James Madison an under-appreciated founding father? (collectedmiscellany.com)

Georgia farmers are suffering from the state’s new immigration law. HB 87 was partially blocked by the courts, but other parts took effect July 1. Even without fully becoming law, the legislation had a chilling effect on migrant workers essential to agriculture, according to George Hall, executive director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association.

And I know a bill has been introduced here in Ohio. And the legislation has been supported by conservatives in the past (see this Matt Mayer Op-Ed).

But as this New York Times article points out, this is a budding area of conflict between Republicans and an important part of the coalition:

Farmers across the country are rallying to fight a Republican-sponsored bill that would force them and all other employers to verify the legal immigration status of their workers, a move some say could imperil not only future harvests but also the agricultural community’s traditional support for conservative candidates.

The bill was proposed by Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. It would require farmers — who have long relied on a labor force of immigrants, a majority here without legal documents — to check all new hires through E-Verify, a federal database run by the Department of Homeland Security devised to ferret out illegal immigrants.

I don’t bring this up because I am an expert at e-verify or to start a flame war on immigration. Instead, I raise the issue to caution against making the perfect the enemy of the good; to caution against rushing to pass legislation without thinking of unintended consequences.

The economics of immigration are complex as are the politics. But I am not sure we want to be angering the farmers in key states like Ohio, Georgia, Texas and Florida heading into the 2012.  And I am also not sure we should be harming agricultural in this economy. I know in Ohio agriculture is huge and has a vast economic impact.  Food prices are high enough do we want to add to that?

I have seen figures that indicate that 30% to 50% of Georgia’s agricultural workforce didn’t show up after the passage of E-Verify. This resulted in $300 million in reduced productivity and failed crops.

Before all of you immigration hard liners (and I am not exactly an open boarder type) go crazy on me, I am simply pointing out the conflict and traps inherent in this issue and advising caution. Is this a fight we need to pick now? Are we sure we know the program works and the likely actions and reactions that are to follow?

Surely, we can take the time to make sure that we can enforce the law and provide order without significant distribution to our food chain and/or angering an important ally. 2012 is going to be a critical election in terms of getting American government back on track and the economy growing again. Focus is going to be critical. Proceed with caution.

There is of course a coalition fighting for legislation that better takes agricultural concerns into consideration. There arguments makes some sense to me, but your mileage may vary.  Food for thought at least.

I have been reading Tony Woodlief for some time and I would guess many of you have as well. First at this blog, Sand in the Gears, and then in places like the Wall Street Journal, World Magazine and National Review Online.

Tony is the kind of writer I enjoy: honest, intelligent and always interesting. I don’t always agree with him but I almost always come away appreciating his perspective. He has a sense of humor and an awareness of his own limitations that I find refreshing.

For this week’s Friday book post I wanted to take a moment to recommend you read Tony’s book Somewhere More Holy if you haven’t already.  It is a great read and would make a great gift for the holidays.

Andre Malraux wrote of Whitaker Chambers that he “had not come back from hell empty-handed.” I think the same can be said of Woodlief.

For more on why, read below.

Tony has gone through the worst nightmare of every parent: the death of a child. And he passed through this trial not in a flash of a moment type accident but rather through the slow painful process of watching her suffer and pass away in his own house as he watched helplessly.

Something like this sends waves crashing through your life and few are those who can escape the devastation. And Tony is brutally honest about this. He admits it challenged his faith to its core. He relates how it impacted his marriage and nearly – along with his own behavior – destroyed it.

Tony doesn’t offer pat answers and easy theology; nor does he sugar coat things. Instead, he offers honest descriptions and his fragile efforts to piece life back together.

But this is not simply a story of tragedy and redemption. The book wraps this element of the story into a larger theme: that our homes are holy places and that living as part of a family is both an act of worship and a reflection of our relationship with God. This is not done via theological ruminations (although there are a few moments) but rather through anecdotes and experiences.

Neither Tony nor his wife Celeste came from what you would call “stable” or well-adjusted two parent homes and they both brought the luggage of these experiences to their marriage and young family. And if that wasn’t enough of a challenge, they faced the tragedy of losing their young daughter.

The world is littered with families destroyed by much less than this. But that is the amazing thing about this story: Tony and Celeste refused to give up on God, themselves or their family.

Tony doesn’t pull any punches. He honestly relates his struggles of faith in the aftermath of his daughter’s death – and tries to both puncture the too often offered cliches and Sunday School answers. He admits to his selfish actions and the unfaithfulness that nearly destroyed his marriage. He admits to the daily struggles and failures that come with being a husband and father.

But as alluded to above, Tony didn’t come back empty handed. He brought back wisdom, humility and a sense of humor. He gives us a glimpse into how grace and faith can overcome the darkest tragedies and how love can overcome more than you can imagine.

This is not an easy way to learn about what grace and forgiveness really mean when lived out but it is a powerful illustration and reminder.

The result forces the reader to think about the choices they make in life; about the people that are important to them; about refusing pat easy answers and instead choosing to accept mystery and grace.

I don’t want to imply that the book is all tragedy and melancholy. It is not. Much of it is simply humorous exploration of what it means to be a father – to be part of a family trying to build a “home.”

And I should add this caveat: this book will be enjoyable to anyone who appreciates good writing and good stories.  But in my opinion it will be much more powerful to those who are married and have children.

So much of what Tony does is relate and highlight the incredibly rewarding and nearly impossible task of being a parent. Tony writes about the emotions – the highs and lows and everything in between – what many don’t talk about but experience every day while trying to raise their children and grow their marriages.

And if you don’t think raising three boys is always one step from the loony bin you haven’t spent enough time with children and have forgotten your own childhood.

Along the way, in both tragedy and humor, Tony sketches out some thoughts about what it means to create a home – a real place of love, freedom and faith – amongst the chaos of life.

It is not hyperbole to say that families are the foundation of society and they are under siege everyday in our culture. Tony has used his own experiences and his skill as a writer to offer encouragement to those of us trying to protect those we love and raise a family.

I am an admitted bibliophile and thought it might be interesting and useful to post some thoughts on books/authors every Friday. So here is the first post. Let me know if you think this is something worth continuing.

William F. Buckley (Christian Encounters Series) by Jeremy Lott is an excellent introduction to one of the central figures of the post-war conservative movement. But it is important to keep in mind that it is just that: an introduction.

You can’t do justice to a man like Buckley in less than 150 pages. But this book does what this type of book should do: give an interesting overview of the life and times of the subject and prompt the reader to seek out more.

Given my interest in the subject, and the relevance of the topic, I thought it would be good to do a Q&A with the author. Jeremy graciously agreed to answer a few questions via email. His answers, and a little bit more about the book are below.

Thomas Nelson’s Christian Encounters, of which this book is a part, gives the book some of its flavor. Here is a brief description of the series:

Christian Encounters, a series of biographies from Thomas Nelson Publishers, highlights important lives from all ages and areas of the Church. Some are familiar faces. Others are unexpected guests. But all, through their relationships, struggles, prayers, and desires, uniquely illuminate our shared experience.

Lott highlights how Buckley’s faith informed/influenced and in many ways inspired his politics.

And the hook Lott uses to introduce WFB is one of a “prophet.” He saw America headed in the wrong direction and committed himself to calling the country he loved back to the straight and narrow path.

This makes for an interesting story arc particularly when conservatism seems ascendant and Buckley is less the prophet and more the man trying to herd the cats of the various factions. Lott doesn’t have the space for the details of Buckley and conservatism post-Reagan but it is an interesting aspect of the Buckley as prophet perspective.

In short: Lott’s short bio doesn’t break any new ground – we are all still waiting for a more definitive biography – but it is a quick and well done introduction to this larger that life figure in American politics.

Students or those looking for a brief introduction would do well to read this and then use the further reading recommendations to dig deeper.

Ten Questions with Jeremy Lott

1. How does viewing WFB through the lens of “prophet” help us understand him better?

It helps us to see how he saw himself, at least in part. I quote from a letter that William F. Buckley wrote to Ronald Reagan recounting Buckley’s appearance on the Tonight Show. WFB told Johnny Carson “that vaticide was the act of killing a prophet, and that if he wanted to go down as guilty of that crime, all he had to do was kill me.”

Now, this was a witticism, so we shouldn’t place too much weight on it, but neither should we ignore it. I argue that it was along the lines of what Ben Stiller’s villain White Goodman said several times in the movie Dodgeball. You remember? “I’m kidding, but not really.”

2. This is a Christian Encounters series, how did WFB’s faith impact and inspire his politics?

His politics grew out of his faith and his upbringing, though the faith sometimes had to serve as a check on the upbringing. It moved him on segregation, anti-Semitism, and mutually assured destruction (the last very late in life), for instance.

3. Did Buckley’s anti-communism during the Cold War hide, to a degree, his more libertarian side?

To a degree, it did. When you are concentrating on using one national security apparatus to grind down another, more threatening one, you are going to appear less libertarian.

But there’s also the fact that his libertarian side emerged from a political theory, dubbed “fusionism,” that was really developed in the 1960s. Fusionism said virtue that is coerced is not virtue, and so government should get out of the virtue-promotion business. This eventually inspired to his call to end the war on drugs, but it took awhile.

4. How is the National Review of today different from the magazine WFB created and ran for so many years?

It’s more reliably Republican. In 1956 and 1960, NR declined to endorse the GOP nominee, and Buckley regularly criticized Eisenhower and Nixon. That started changing in 1968 when the magazine threw its weight behind the Nixon-Agnew ticket. In 2008, it endorsed Mitt Romney in the primaries and John McCain in the general.

5. How important was Firing Line to making WFB a household name? How do you think the show impacted both conservatives in the media and political media in general?

It put him in people’s living rooms once a week and allowed him to mix it up with most of the great politicians and cultural figures of the time. Many conservatives, including current NR editor Rich Lowry, were inspired by this. It also proved that a regular forum for ideas on television could find a dedicated audience.

6. How significant (both short and long term) was the damage from the ill fated NR Civil Rights editorial? The almost immediate reversal seems to be forgotten.

I was shocked to learn that National Review’s stance in favor of barring blacks from the ballot lasted for only one issue. In the very next issue, NR reversed itself. And yet this is often cited as some long-standing policy of the magazine. Very odd.

It did a lot of damage, obviously. It helped defenders of the Civil Rights Act to brand all of its critics as racists. The professional anti-racists really haven’t changed their script since.

7. What was the most surprising thing you came across or learned researching this book? Was there anything that struck you as new and/or under-reported?

How about the fact that Buckley didn’t really want to found National Review? He tried to take over The Freeman, Human Events, and even the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal before he finally threw in the towel and founded NR.

8. What do you see as WFB’s legacy in terms of the conservative movement?

The fact that there is a conservative movement.

9. Is “fusionism” still possible?

I think its central insight is still valid, though it only goes so far. It doesn’t help us settle some contentious issues like abortion. Practically, it will always be applicable because any conservative coalition in this country is going to be a mix of conservatives and libertarians. They’ll have to find some way to get along.

10. Ayn Rand, and her books, have made something of a comeback. WFB tried to write Objectivism out of the conservative movement. Did he succeed?

We should distinguish between Rand-as-entertainment and Objectivism. She wanted people to swallow the philosophy and the novels as a single shot but that’s not how it usually works, in my experience. Modern Rand fans prefer cocktails. One of her biggest boosters, Glenn Beck, mixes his Atlas Shruggery with Mormonism. That should have Rand turning over in her atheist grave.

Another after the jump

Despite continuing to be relatively unknown Republican challenger John Kasich leads Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland 42-37 in his quest to be the state’s next Governor.

The numbers seem to be much more a referendum on Strickland than Kasich. 50% of voters in the state say they don’t know enough about Kasich to have an opinion, and those who do are pretty much split on him with 25% holding a favorable opinion and 24% seeing him negatively. Those usually aren’t the kinds of popularity numbers we see for someone leading an incumbent.

Strickland though is an unusually unpopular incumbent. Just 33% of voters in the state approve of the job he’s doing, with 47% disapproving. His own party is not enthusiastic about him with 53% approving, 23% disapproving, and 23% with no opinion. He has poor numbers with independents at 28/54 and with Republicans at 14/69.

The technical term for this sort of position for a sitting governor is I believe SOL:

Right now the Ohio Governor’s race is shaping up as a referendum on Ted Strickland and that’s not going to work out too well for the Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Strickland’s either going to have to change people’s minds about him or convince them that Kasich’s worse.

Um, yeah, good luck with that …

A look at the US Senate race below.

Being a statewide officeholder is supposed to be an advantage. In elections favorable name recognition is crucial. Having been on the ballot statewide and being in the news more often (you can “make” your own news) is supposed to result in a candidate being more well known which should translate into positive poll numbers (unless you are Ted Strickland). Or at least that is conventional wisdom in these things. Which is why parties tend to support candidates that have this type of experience.

This CW does not bode well for Democratic US Senate primary candidates Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner. The latest polling has the Lt. Gov. and former jobs czar and the current Secretary of State not only losing but surprisingly unknown given their offices:

Ohio voters aren’t particularly familiar with any of the candidates running to take George Voinovich’s seat in the US Senate.

66% don’t know enough about Rob Portman to have an opinion, 62% are ambivalent toward Jennifer Brunner, and 55% don’t take a stance on Lee Fisher.

Portman has the early advantage, leading Brunner 38-37 and Fisher 41-36. That is largely due to a 37-25 edge against both Democratic candidates with independents.

I know what you are thinking: Portman has bad name ID too. Sure, but that was to be expected for a candidate who hasn’t run statewide and was not well known outside of his home area (where he is quite popular).

But on the Democratic side it was assumed that being a statewide elected official would be an advantage. That turns out not to be the case and that is a problem.

You know what else is a problem? The fact that President Obama and the recently passed health care reform bill are also unpopular:

• 53% of the state disapproves of the President’s job performance
• 54%of voters say they’re opposed to the health care reform bill with only 39% in support
• 64% of independents are against it

Prominent statewide Democratic officeholders haven’t made an impression on voters, they are losing independents and the president and his policies are unpopular. The top of the ticket is in big trouble. This is not where the party thought they would be just a year ago.

Democrats in Ohio have to be worried.

P.s. As Geraghty pointed out If Ted Strickland Can’t Save Himself, He Can’t Save Any Ohio House Democrats

I am not sure there is a more devastating or more succinct political polemicist on the Right than Ramesh Ponnuru. When the foolish leftists rise up to question something he has written or a point of debate I sit back and enjoy the ruthless and yet witty way in which he counters leaving the debate settled in his favor (and me frequently wincing a bit thinking: that’s gonna leave a mark.)

All of this long winded introduction is simply to point you to another must read from Ramesh. This one is from NRODT (although it can be found in the digital version if you have a subscription). If you are looking for a calm and deadly explanation of the failures of modern liberal governance, look no further.

Since it is subscription only, allow me to point out two paragraphs that should cause you to go out and get a copy for yourselves:

Contemporary liberalism both presupposes and desires a government that is flexible, competent, energetic. It wants and needs a government that can mobilize society’s resources to accomplish a long list of difficult tasks, including the reduction of economic inequality, the education of children, the protection of the environment, the elimination of unjust discrimination, and the safeguarding of consumers — to name just a few. Yet in operation, it weighs down the government with interest groups that first make it inefficient and inflexible and then make it impossible to reform.

Another one after the break.

At the risk of being anti-climatic, allow me to quote the conclusions which is equally devastating:

“No menace of socialism threatens the United States,” conservative scholar Michael Greve has grimly written. “Socialism implies a seriousness of purpose and a willingness and ability to impose order, none of which is in evidence.” Again, the health-care overhaul has shown the pattern. What began as an effort to reorder important parts of American society became a series of bargains and shakedowns in which progressives could not tell which groups would be their clients and which their targets from week to week. The progressive project remains obnoxious to liberty, and it retains, in some sense, its ideals. But it lacks a coherent and determined purpose. More and more, liberalism has become a grift.

Yep, that is going to leave a mark …

OH-01 Steve Driehaus

• 73% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (61% strongly oppose)
• 72% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (62% strongly oppose)
• 64% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (52% strongly agree)
• 55% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Driehaus if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (45% would be much less likely)

OH-06 Charlie Wilson

• 80% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (65% strongly oppose)
• 79% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (66% strongly oppose)
• 74% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (61% strongly agree)
• 64% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Wilson if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (51% would be much less likely)

OH-09 Marcy Kaptur

• 67% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (52% strongly oppose)
• 66% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (52% strongly oppose)
• 61% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (45% strongly agree)
• 47% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congresswoman Kaptur if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (38% would be much less likely)

OH-16 John Boccieri

• 80% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (67% strongly oppose)
• 79% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (67% strongly oppose)
• 71% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (60% strongly agree)

62% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Boccieri if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (50% would be much less likely)

Want more?

The polling speaks for itself. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey indicates that a significant majority of Americans oppose the healthcare plan that the Democrat hegemony in Washington has proposed. This sentiment is clearly echoed in the latest Obama job approval poll from Gallup as well, in which the President finds himself firmly in hostile territory (47% disapprove, 46% approve).

[...]

The polls, conducted by Pulse Opinion Research and commissioned by Americans for Limited Government, asked a sample of 400 voters in each district some very simple questions. The survey gauged voters’ overall views on health care reform, whether they would likely support a candidate who votes for health care reform, and whether they would likely support their specific Congressman should he or she vote for health care reform.

The results were overwhelmingly conclusive. In nearly every congressional district surveyed, voters made it clear that they do not support ObamaCare and will not vote for the incumbent Democrat should he or she vote in favor of ObamaCare. It’s almost insultingly obvious.

[...]

Similarly, 66 percent of independent voters in Representative John Boccierri’s OH-16 district said they would not support him should he vote in favor of ObamaCare.

The full results of all 15 polls can be viewed here, including the polls’ crosstabs.

This is not some veiled threat or political bravado. I am confident that any Democrat in Ohio who votes for this monstrosity passed with such blatant disregard for the Constitution and the will of the people is going to face defeat in November.

Do you think it is going to be hard to find volunteers and donors after a vote like this? Do you think the ads are going to be hard to create?

Don’t buy into the rhetoric of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. This vote may be historic but it will mean the end of the Democratic majority and of your tenure in Congress.

First, there was some confusion over whether Brunner was or was not at the President’s visit to Strongsville yesterday. It turns out she was there but President Obama apparently snubbed her! As I noted on Twitter, Obama snubs a women but praises the men? Good thing the president doesn’t have a history of belittling women …

We do know that Lee Fisher was definitely not at the rally. Why? Well, he said he had to attend the meeting with the Plain Dealer. But obviously Secretary of State Brunner was able to attend both while the former jobs czar used it as an excuse to miss it. Interesting. What is Lee up to?

But then Fisher was supposed to be on WFIN in Findley to discuss the health care debate. But it turns out he was a no-show. Let’s go to the transcript:

Not sure exactly what happened to Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher. Of course we mentioned not only the current Lieutenant Governor and candidate for US Senate seat now being held by Sen. George Voinovich was scheduled to be with us on the program in this half hour. [HE] scheduled to be with us to talk about his campaign hand the key issues he saw in terms of the important stuff for Ohio moving forward especially in this period of economic recovery .

We were planning on talking to him about that in this half hour but nothing, not sure what happened. We did confirm yesterday that he was supposed to be with us and then this morning nothing.

So not sure exactly what’s going on there. Hopefully we can reschedule and maybe get the Lieutenant Governor on the program yet this week because one of the things I wanted to ask him about was this health care vote in Washington. He wants to go to the Senate so wanted to ask where he stood on this whole healthcare debate that seems to be coming to a head this week.

Wow, that’s embarrassing!

So Brunner looks to take advantage of this sending out an email yesterday with the subject line “A Time for Courage”

Yesterday I was at the rally in Strongsville where President Obama eloquently and passionately exhorted Congress to pass health care reform. He pointed to the hand-wringing going on among Democrats in Congress over the political consequences to them of voting for health care reform. A woman in the audience shouted out, “We need courage!” The President paused and flashed one of his fierce smiles. “That’s what we need,” he agreed, as the crowd roared its approval. “That’s why I came here today. We need more courage.”

Of course, I am not sure I would call supporting a piece of legislation that a majority of Ohioans oppose as courageous but these emails tend to be over-the-top.

But if Brunner is courageous to support the health care bill and show up to support President Obama on the issue (even if she isn’t recognized for doing it at the time) then what does that make Lee Fisher’s duck and cover routine on the issue?

To adopt a famous turn of phrase: A Profile in Cowardice?

The ODP rolled out some nonsensical attack quotes that missed the whole point. Portman has been saying since the beginning that a bill that raises costs and hurts business is the last thing we need right now. He has been calling for reform that reduces costs and allows for greater access. But Democrats insist on ramming their plan down our throats even if they have to ignore the constitution to do it.

Anyone who knows him knows that Portman is no raging populist – nor is he in the pocket of big insurance companies like the Democrats insist – but he is an intelligent politician and he knows his public policy. So he knows the public doesn’t want a government take over of health care that leads to higher costs and more bureaucracy.  And he knows that the proposal the Democrats are pushing will lead to just that. So he opposes it.

This is neither trolling for campaign donations nor mere campaign rhetoric. And you know what? He is right.

Heritage’s The Foundry blog spells it out succinctly:

Obamacare Increases Unemployment, Insurance Premiums, Deficit, and Debt

President Barack Obama and congressional leaders claim that the Senate health bill, which will likely face a vote in the House by the end of the week, will decrease the deficit and bend the cost curve related to health care spending.  However, recent analysis by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA) shows that this is far from true.  Instead, the bill’s mandates and numerous new taxes will have tumultuous effects.  Passing Obamacare will come at the expense of the American people as it would grow the federal debt, increase premiums, and stifle economic growth.

Here is the section on premiums in particular:

• Increases insurance premiums. Mandates in the Senate bill would require health plans to offer more generous coverage, increasing the cost of insurance.  Increased spending on premiums, accompanied by increased medical spending, would create upward pressure on prices.  This would further increase government spending, since offering the current levels of care covered by Medicaid and the proposed subsidies would cost significantly more.  Another choice would be to ration provider payments even more severely.

Another issue Portman has been focused on is the reckless spending and its impact on the future. Not surprisingly this is a big problem with the health care bill as well.

Chart? Chart:

As with every issue, the Democrats want to demagogue this issue and ignore the facts. We simply can’t let them get away with it.The stakes are too high.

Just another reason to support Rob Portman.

Kucinch announced that he is going to be a deciding and critical vote for a bill that “the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care.”  According to 2009 Kucinich, “the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution,” yet the 2010 version of Kucinich is going going to vote yes on a health care bill that will empower health care insurers.  Kucinich will vote in favor of a bill to provide “even greater favors for insurance companies.”

To paraprhase liberals media icon, the unhinged and a bit crazy Keith Olbermann of MSDNC - “Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) you are the worst hypocrite in the world.”

Sources below.
Kucinich is a ‘yes’ on health care – Politico – March 17, 2010

Kucinich: Why I Voted NO – November 7, 2009
“After voting against H.R. 3962 – Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care.  We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are.  But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit.  That is our system.”

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution.  They are driving up the cost of health care.  Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills.  The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%.  It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care.  Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care.  In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers.  This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal.  The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.”  Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation.  Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

“During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back.  The “robust public option” which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million.  An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration.  Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

“Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy.  The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy — in which most Americans live — the recession is not over.  Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

“This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care.   America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system.  As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

“Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.”

On a day that brought President Barack Obama to Ohio to make a final appeal for congressional approval of his health care overhaul plan, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rob Portman had a different message.

“I pray that it will not pass,” Portman said on Monday, March 15. His comments came in a meeting with members of the Dayton Daily News editorial board.

Portman said the plan that Obama is trying to get the Democratic-controlled Congress to approve would increase costs.

“It’s unbelievable,” said Portman. “…We’re going to have higher, not lower costs.”

[emphasis mine - KH]

Now, for those of you slow on the uptake Rob Portman is saying he is opposed to the current health care proposal because it will lead to the opposite of what is needed: higher not lower costs. With me so far? Good.

Enter Seth Bringman and the Ohio Democratic Party who apparently struggle with these basic concepts.

Seth Bringman, spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, lashed back at Portman in an e-mail.

“While Rob Portman is praying for the status quo on health care, we will be praying for the millions of Americans without health insurance and the millions more middle class families who can’t afford rising health care costs,” said Bringman.

Um, except that isn’t what he said at all. He isn’t praying for the “status quo” – whatever that is at this point – but for the current proposal to be stopped.

Notice too, how Bringman tries his typical rhetorical Jedi mind trick asserting that Portman is opposed to helping middle class families who can’t afford “rising health care costs.”

One small problem: Portman is arguing that the bill will in fact raise costs and therefor is bad for American families and businesses – which is the obvious point of his comments.

In fact, Portman has been consistently making this point for months as the health care debate has played out and has said that what is needed is not Bringman’s big bad bogeyman of the “status quo” but reform that lowers costs and provides greater access. Anyone with a elementary school ability to read and process basic logic would understand this. (And I haven’t even gotten into the false choice involved in an either the current health care “reform” or the status quo argument.)

But it again appears that Seth Bringman and the ODP lack these basic skills. Sad isn’t it? But education reform is the topic of a whole ‘nother post.

This is not based on deep study of the polls or a county-by-county analysis or anything of that sort. It is more of a gut feeling based on how I see the campaign playing out. Now, of course, a great deal could change in the intervening months: scandals, gaffes, the political environment, etc. But right now I don’t see any of that happening in such a way to change the underlying landscape.

I have begun to think that elections are determined in many ways by some pretty basic elements. What is the mood, what is the central issue or issues, how the candidates are perceived and what are their one sentence arguments for running.

On these basics Kasich is simply better situated to win than Strickland.

Details – such as they are – below.

For those of you who don’t have time for long-winded posts allow me to summarize:

Strickland: Economy sucks + lack of clear message or record + credible challenger = lose

Kasich: meets fundraising & qualifications threshold + favorable environment + strong message = win

First off, you don’t have to be a political science professor to understand that a sitting governor with double digit unemployment for the foreseeable future is in trouble. Strickland may be an experienced campaigner and proven fundraiser but the economic situation is trouble with a capital T. Remember how unpopular Bob Taft got with much better economic numbers?

In this situation the challenger must do a couple of things: pass the threshold voters have for candidates and get his message out. No matter how bad things are most voters won’t vote for a completely unknown, inexperienced or crazy candidate (state of Minnesota perhaps excepted). The challenger has to convince voters that they are serious and not a threat to make matters worse.

I think it is safe to say Kasich is going to pass this threshold. Former congressman, author, popular news personality and commentator will work. He is an engaging and passionate candidate who can connect with voters and debate the issues in the media and in person on the stump. He has already generated a great deal of excitement.

The challenge for credible candidates can then be name recognition. And this is true of Kasich. Most voters know who Governor Strickland is but many still are unclear about Kasich. This then falls to money and communication. Will he have the money to get his message out and can he do that effectively?

The answers are yes and yes. Kasich is a credible candidate and has the money and talent to get his message out to voters. He has already done a nice job with social media to get the base on board and with using events to build momentum and get favorable news coverage. I have seen nothing to indicate this won’t continue.

Let’s review: incumbent in trouble because the economy is in the tank and unemployment is in double digits. Challenger is a credible, media savvy politician without the baggage of being strongly tied to current state legislative or party leadership (he is not part of the group that put the state in this position). He has proven that he can raise money and do the work necessary to win.

This puts Kasich in a position to run on a pretty simple platform: “things suck, let’s change”. Right? “The system is broken we need someone to come in and fix things.” Not hard to see the big picture message here.

So what is Ted Strickland going to run on? “Things could have been a lot worse” is about all he has. The strategy here is twofold: we survived the worst economic downturn in a generation & John Kasich is a scary guy who will destroy all you hold dear.

I think both of these will end up being weak tea. The fundamental problem is that Strickland can’t run as what I call a “conviction politician;”a candidate who cares about a few key issues and has the drive to accomplish something. Think the opposite of Bob Taft who was office manger from head to toe.

Now, Ted Strickland is going to try and be this candidate. He is going to boast about education reform, cutting government, lowering taxes (homestead exemption) and balancing the budget. The problem for Strickland is that he can’t run as a conviction politician because he has stepped all over his lines on so many issues. He has become the politician stuck awkwardly in the middle.

His education reform is a sop to the education unions – with a few good ideas mixed in – but the funding is not there. He ruined his cutting taxes plank by raising taxes to balance the budget (yes, removing tax cuts that were on the books is a tax increase). He managed to look like a flip-flopping hypocrite by trying to sneak through gambling as a way to solve the budget. And sure he has been forced to trim state government some but he can’t very well run on slashing state government because 1) no one believes him and 2) to do so risks further irritating state unions and other leftist groups who want him to raise taxes and expand government.

The bottom line is no one really believes Strickland is a conviction politician. He was elected because voters were ticked at Taft and the GOP and didn’t trust Ken Blackwell. Strickland at the time seemed like the type who wouldn’t do too much damage – experienced, moderate, not crazy.

But when the economy tanked he seemed like a dear in headlights. He simply does not exude leadership. He is afraid acting like the liberal he really is would mean defeat so he tries to tack to the middle without fully aggravating the leftist base. Throw in a seemingly never ending series of mini-scandals and examples of poor vetting/incompetent management and you have a messaging problem.

If you ask the average voter what Ted Strickland really stands for what do you think they would say. Many might see him as a nice guy, but he has precious little political capital. Name an issue where Strickland has really shown leadership. Begging for more stimulus dollars? Pushing an unpopular rail project?

This brings us back to Kasich. You see, he can run as a conviction politician; because he is one and because the environment calls for it.

The signature issue that highlights this is his call to roll back Ohio’s income tax. It is an example of thinking boldly and brashly about what Ohio needs to do to compete. And it excites the conservative base.

The media of course hates it. Because like the green eye-shade wearers they are, they demand detailed budget scenarios and explanations of how everything will work. They simply can’t fathom how something this big might be accomplished and so they seek to nit-pick it to death.

Government is slashed to the bone! Think of the children! The Democrats and their media enablers bang the drumbeat on and on but the voters aren’t listening. If you think government is too small you are already going to vote for Strickland.

And all the while the message that is communicated is John Kasich thinks taxes are too high and is willing to take a lot of heat for it. Voters are not into the inside baseball of technical budget numbers or economic development policy. They only have time for and the ability to deal with big picture stuff.

Secondly, Kasich can and is running against both parties in a sense; against both Ted Strickland and Bob Taft. He is making the case that Ohio has been thinking to small and too narrowly for far too long. The fact that a huge chunk of the political and governmental establishment screams when the idea of eliminating the income tax is raised just shows how tied they are to the status-quo.

During normal times this would be a risky platform. Ken Blackwell ran an awkward an often off-message campaign but in many ways he had similar elements. He too was arguing for large scale changes and blaming both parties for failing to act. The problem for Blackwell – outside of the left’s constant demonization – was that the electorate wasn’t ready for big time change.

But the economic downturn, and inability of government to do anything about it in the near to medium term, means this anti-status-quo message is much more attractive. And Kasich with his history of balancing the budget and serving during economic good times is perfectly situated to campaign on this message effectively.

All of this is a longwinded way to saying: what is the election going to come down to? It is going to come down to jobs and to Ohio’s future.

John Kasich is going to campaign as a fresh face and new attitude. He is going to argue that the status-quo isn’t good enough; that is hasn’t been good enough for some time but that politicians of both parties lack the conviction and imagination to do anything about it but that he does and he will.

Ted Strickland is going to try and argue that he made the hard choices during the worst economy since the great depression and that he has the experience to lead the rapidly approaching recovery. And that John Kasich is a reckless conservative who used to work at Lehman Brothers.

Voters are going to see double digit unemployment, mounting budget deficits, stimulus dollars wasted and taxes going up – not to mention cabinet members resigning and staffers in court.

Can you honestly tell me that voters will then choose to give Ted Strickland four more years to try again?

Me neither.