David Axelrod

Five to one, baby...one in five....

No one here gets out alive...

The late Jim Morrison wrote and sang this over 40 years ago, and it seems rather poignant now that we have passed the anniversary of the Woodstock Nation and consider the divisive national health care debate.

For one thing, it does point out the limitations of salesmanship. Medicine will never fully solve the fact life is a terminal condition. It may prolong life, and improve life, but mere mortals are not "partners with God"; and only He can grant life beyond the here and now.

And the term Five to One applies clearly to the imbalance in media spending between the unions and industries looking to pass the government health care takeover, and the relatively impoverished opposition.

The lyrics of "Five to One" depict rebellion against a distant establishment :"they got the guns, but we got the numbers" which sure seems like the attitude of angry citizens screaming at smug incumbent officeholders eager to label their own constituents a mob. 

One of the major problems I think that the Obama team and the Hill Democrats have is they fundamentally don't understand the mentality of most of the 1960's protesters, who are now today the 60-somethings opposing Obamacare with fervor reminscent of that era.

Perhaps Bill Ayres wanted a "revolution"; but most Americans agreed with John Lennon that if you were carrying pictures of Chairman Mao you weren;t gonna make it.  The rebelliouness of the 1960's was largely spurred by opposition to a "mandatory government program"--to wit--the Draft. 

Sure ,some people of that era wanted communes and socialism--but a huge number--especially bikers and druggies--wanted the government to "leave them alone".

Don't send then to Vietnam. Don't bust them for pot. Don't tell them how to live their lives.

So when the military draft ended in 1973  much of the fuel of the counterculture was taken away. Free from government coercion, young people were then accused of becoming part of  a "me decade"

True, there was a huge cadre of earnest lefties who entered government as a result of the "Watergate election". But the relentless expansion of government demanded by the likes of Chris Dodd. Henry Waxman, David Obey, and Tom Daschle  was dealt a huge setback by the decisive 1980 election.

Some observers have noted that while voters under 30 in 1972 were slightly inclined towards McGovern (as he lost nationally by 21 points)   the same age cohort of voters (i.e. voters DOB 1942-1954) were inclined towards McCain as he lost to Obama by 7 points.  Clearly in the interim these voters became less entralled with "change" candidates.

I would suspect a substantial part of this has to do with the fact these Americans rebelled against statism and much as they may support "their" entitlement programs, they will never sign on to new forms of big government without profound skepticism.  Remember, they saw with their own eyes the extravagant promises and expensive failure of the Great Society. Those eyes are jaundiced now.  

If the government told you 40 years ago you had to go fight in Vietnam, you might not be too keen on having your kid told by the government what kind of health insurance he is required to have. We are taking people open to the "leave us alone" coalition.

Remember, Dennis Hopper was the prototypical hippie in "Easy Rider". He is a Republican now.

So, it appears the Obama team has started an era of divisive national unrest over a program which it cannot sell, promises to bankrupt the nation, and where there is no definition of victory. Sounds, hmmm like a quagmire.   

Back to "No one here gets out alive". I think this will end in one of only two ways. 

The Obamacare fiasco will collapse in a heap, and then next phase will be investigations into the sleazefest employed to try and sell the debacle, including a "pay to play'"scheme between Billy Drugbucks and David Axelrod.  and Axelrod's improper e-mail spamming. 

Note to Mr. Axelrod. Transactions your firm performed in northern Illinois are within this gentleman's legal jurisdiction.   Perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with this law   .   or this law.  Some politicians around here  found out it's not good to mix business and politics. Don't worry. These laws run a lot less than a thousand pages to read. You'll have plenty of time to call white collar counsel.

The alternative will be Obama and his allies win an absolutely  Pyyrhic victory  decimating the ranks of Democratic moderates in 2010 elections and creating a huge radicalized political movement even more and more ardent to fight the socialization of American culture. Perhaps the Greater Great Society is enacted; only to rip  to shreds the nation it was meant to heal. Or maybe we become France, except with more debt.. Which might be worse.

I've had my differences with Peggy Noonan, but now she's spot on.  A prudent leader would pull the plug   and stop sinking deeper into the health care quagmire

But our President is insistent on making the worst mistakes of 1960's Democrats, accusing critics of merely being  irresolute . History lesson, folks.  No one there got out alive, either. 

I never imagined that I would feature the thoughts of David Axelrod in a neutral to positive light, but that's exactly what I'm going to do here. Axelrod spoke about his time at the Chicago Tribune Monday night at The Week magazine's "Sixth Annual Opinion Awards Dinner":

"When I began reporting, the news cycle was 24 hours, not 30 minutes. There was no cable or Internet. The pacing was different, as were the competitive pressures. Reporters were not asked to file five and six times a day; on three or four platforms; to blog and tweet.

"Don't get me wrong: the Internet and the availability of the latest news when you want it has enormous value. But it has also contributed at times to sloppy journalism and a dumbed-down public debate. It's become a carnival where every day is Election Day; where we're consumed with who's up and who's down; where we book people on TV to do nothing more than argue with one another, generating more heat than light; where we allow ourselves to be caught up in the trivial tempest of the moment. And I know my profession is not blameless. Folks in our end of the business often feel compelled to play along, feed the beast, and help contribute to an atmosphere of cynicism."

If journalists are not totally blameless, who else is to blame? Has it consumed leaders, thinkers and wanna-be leaders/thinkers on the Right (as well as the Left)? There's no doubt that the Internet has shortened everybody's attention span. Specifically for the Right, I think journalism's new negative effect on public discourse has hampered the Republican Party's ability to dramatically change for the better.

As Jon Henke points out in the last post, "repackaging the status quo is not how the movement and the GOP will be renewed." One of the reasons why the GOP might be sticking to repackaging the status quo is that often times going the "easy and lazy" route seems like the only option in a "30 minute news cycle." Axelrod provides another thought on this subject:

"That's why, more than ever, we need the true public thinkers. People who take the time to ponder and reflect and examine issues in a usefully provocative way. Serious people, with serious ideas."

Unfortunately for Axelrod, he works for a President who is a pretender, someone who isn't following the advice given above. Obama's version of "bipartisanship" is giving the visual of reaching out to conservatives, and then ignoring them when it comes to substantive matters. And Obama's ideas aren't new and provocative in any way: more government spending, more government involvement in the market, more government involved in energy, education, health care, etc. For now, he has successfully duped much of the public into thinking his ideas are "new" just because he himself is "new."

So unlike Obama, can the Right successfully take Axelrod's thoughts into practice? Can we produce serious people with serious ideas and fight the "dumbing down" of public discourse? Yes ...

• First, let's look outside of Capitol Hill for serious people with serious ideas. As I mentioned yesterday, a lot of great ideas on government transparency are coming from state legislatures.
• Second, lawmakers and other leaders on the Right should use the Internet more for promoting ideas than promoting themselves. (I know that this is a long shot.) For a Congressman to get a lot of Facebook friends and Twitter followers is fine. But when will that Congressman start a Facebook group about the need for more nuclear power plants in America to reduce our dependence on foreign oil instead of a Facebook message about how Democrats are bad? When will that Congressman tweet prolifically about immigration and become the go-to-guy/gal on that issue instead of only tweeting his/her office's press releases?
• Third, the Right should let ideas lead to movement instead of the other way around. Jon also comments on the recent formation of the National Council for a New America as a group that says "let's start an organization, then figure out why later." As he says, this does not inspire confidence. The Tea Parties showed a glimmer of hope for the Right after Rick Santelli rant; I just wished that there was more public discussion on the core substance of Santelli's message: moral hazard.

An overarching theme for a good public debate, as I have mentioned several times before, is the principle of an "equal opportunity society," where it becomes a discussion about whether government's job is to guarantee certain outcomes by picking winners and losers in society or to provide everyone the equal opportunity to determine their own success. Just as liberals want an active government that promotes specific outcomes, we have to be for an active government that promotes choice and freedom instead of just relying on the "less taxes, less government" message.

Speculations abounds (espcially from lefties trolling here) on who dropped the dime to Fitzy causing Blago to get pinched this week.

The initial rumors were Rahm Emanuel. Which he now denies  http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/10/rahm/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

It does make sense, though. The question is: who in Illinois Democratic politics would benefit from having both Blago and a host of U.S. Senate aspirants nuked at the same time?

Answer: Someone who would be left standing as the last power in the state.

Think how Boston crime boss Whitey Bulger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Bulger did business---flipping on members of the New England Mafia to the FBI primarily so his competition was sent to prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Bulger#FBI_informant http://www.thebrothersbulger.com/

 Someone on the inside in Illinois Democrat politics is going to benefit from all this misfortune by taking over the ruins.  I could easily see Rahm running Illinois while serving as Obama's COS.

But if it isn't him (and he may not want to be candid, now would he?)  , then who is it?

We'd best figure this out, cause this guy is: a)sneaky,  b) smart and: c) ruthless. We're having enough trouble in Ill. already.

(hmm: maybe it's the same guy who leaked Blair Hull and Jack Ryan's divorce dirt to the papers?)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2004

One final note; Sam Zell says he will be talking to the Feds about the Wrigley Field "squeeze play" http://blogs.courant.com/stan_simpson/2008/12/sam-zell-to-talk-to-fbi.html

Methinks that if Illinois Republicans have any functioning cortexes left  they will tell Mr. Zell to pay for his own damm ballpark. No need to fire any columnists, either.