Published: May 25, 2009 03:13 pm      

STUMPTALK: Defining terms used in political discourse helps understanding

People writing about matters political tend to use loaded words, that is, words whose connotations evoke emotional responses. It is helpful, therefore, for those of us who write about things political to define our terms. I will begin by defining some of the words that I often use.

The first is the word statist. Statists look to government to solve economic and social problems. Like their favorite economist John Maynard Keynes they think the government smart, the market stupid.  We often use the term statist instead of the word liberal because it is more descriptive. Furthermore, the term does not apply just to liberals (or progressives as many prefer) but also to neoconservatives and most contemporary Republicans (often the same people). Many Republicans are rhetorically non-statist until their ox is gored. All Democrats are statists.

Another term I use is interventionist. Interventionists are global social engineers who work to remake the world in America’s image. Ignoring John Quincy Adams’ advice that Americans should not roam the world like knights errant looking for dragons to slay, interventionists go everywhere. The best known interventionist Presidents have been progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ. Both Bushes, of course, have been interventionists. Ignoring George Washington’s warnings to avoid foreign entanglements, interventionists relish them.

Barack Obama has never seen a government program he will not embrace and will begin administering the massive bailout of private businesses, which is an ultimate act of statism, the nationalization of banking and maybe also of auto manufacturing. In other areas, education, for example, he will continue Bush’s centralization. NCLB will get some tweaking and a name change but the underlying statist philosophy will not change. 

The nation will also get an expanded version of Bush’s ruinously expensive prescription drug program, probably to be nicknamed ObamaCare. Again, the name will change but not the goal, which is to expand and enlarge government.

In the area of foreign policy, Obama will continue Bushian interventionism. His campaign promise of an early troop withdrawal from Iraq has become inoperative (to use a term from Watergate). U.S. troops will not be completely out until 2011, in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement entered into with the Iraqi government. In the meantime, Obama wants to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. Incredibly, the one who has been declared officially smart by his adorers wants to make a larger commitment to that quagmire. He has apparently forgotten the experience of the British and more recently the Soviets. I wonder, does he plan to commit more troops than the Soviets? I ask the people who voted for Obama: how many of your children and grandchildren will you donate to Obama’s Afghan adventure?

“Change you can believe in,” the man said, but where is it? Obama made a prewar speech against sending U.S. troops to Iraq but then selected Iraq war supporter Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. In addition, he has asked Bush’s Secretary of Defense to remain. In the domestic area he has economic advisers Robert Rubin of the Clinton administration and Goldman Sachs – he was there overseeing derivatives, securitized mortgage loans, etc. – all of which went poof! – and former Clinton economic adviser Larry Summers, who didn’t mind that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were underwriting mortgage loans for people who couldn’t pay.

So in place of statist Bush we get the same statist Washington establishment and a polished speech maker, the statist and interventionist Prince of Platitudes loved by the wine and cheese set, but where is the substantive change?