Thank God for a Constitution that limits power and checks ambition.
Obama wants to be re-elected. Accordingly, a WSJ editorial notes that Obama is dumping his campaign rhetoric about a “windfall” profits tax on the oil companies. (During the campaign, there was some discussion of one of his advisers assuring Canada that Obama’s NAFTA talk was just campaign rhetoric.)
Obama now doesn’t want to tax “windfall” profits of the oil companies. The WSJ editorial notes that his staff says the lower price of oil has made the tax a moot point. And why is that?
Obviously the “windfall” is gone. But as the editorial notes:
Left unexplained was why the oil companies suddenly decided to stop profiteering, or manipulating commodity prices, or whatever it was they were supposedly doing. But be thankful for small mercies. It is reassuring that Mr. Obama’s calls to arbitrarily soak an unpopular business were merely rooted in political expediency, not some economic philosophy.
The pressure of “political expediency” will work across issues as he thinks about re-election. The day before, Peggy Noonan noted the thinking in regard to security. She noted the bipartisan work of Democrats for in writing a report on a biological threat. She noted:
Why does Congress prepare such reports? To inform, and to win support for new plans. To show they are doing something. And to be able to say, in the event of calamity—forgive my cynicism—that they warned us. This hasn’t been the first such report. It won’t be the last. But it comes at a key moment for Mr. Obama, because it gives him a certain amount of cover to be serious about what needs to be done. What’s at stake for him is two words. When Republicans say, in coming years, “At least Bush kept us safe,” Democrats will not want tacked onto the end of that sentence, “unlike Obama.”
Similarly, Obama shouldn’t want to hear, “at least gas prices didn’t stay high under Bush.”
Maybe Obama will do something to guard against a biological or other terrorist attack and maybe do something to ensure gas prices stay down. Much can happen in four years. Terrorists may strike again. Gas prices may spike again. If he acts vigorously, at least he’ll have some evidence to support his case for re-election in four years and that he “warned us.” So the hypocrisy of political expediency is not without a constitutional connection to foresight.
But I do wonder, why did those gas prices spike before the election? I wonder, to stay in office will he rely again on insubstantial but good sound-bite ads? Is he willing to rely on real accomplishment in good governance to get re-elected?
And while I might like some of his politically expedient moves, I might not care for others. Obama spoke reassuringly to gun owners about the Second Amendment. Now TWP reports that a new “study” (the form all effective propaganda must take today) that says states with liberal gun laws, like Virginia, supply guns to criminals in other states and cause the deaths of police officers. The report appears to be pushback on Heller and “evidence” for the “reasonable” kind of gun control laws that Obama may support. (I’m skeptical about the about the study, especially given the admittedly sketchy data and John Lott’s More Guns, Less crime)
The manipulation of the ambition of hypocrites may work, but it does reflect a defect. As Madison said, ambition countering ambition is necessary because of “the defect of better motives.” If the country is to prosper and move beyond sound-bites, we’ll need real substance. Good people will have to make good choices and use good arguments to push politically-expedient politicians in the right direction.
