Skip to main content

"Think it possible you may be mistaken"

Oliver Cromwell is one of the more quotable political figures in history. From his instruction to Sir Peter Lely to

"Paint me as I am, warts and all",

to his irate dismissal of the rump Parliament:

"You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, Go!",

Cromwell is still widely quoted, even if people may not be conscious of the source.

It was this last quote that came into my head as I contemplated the self serving cant put out by the Tea Party Congressmen in the seemingly never ending debate to increase the US debt ceiling. As various of the malcontents noisily slipped away to various chapels to commune with their Creator in a hypocritical display of discount piety, I began to believe that it might be impossible for any bill to be passed by the House of Representatives. In the end, one has been, passed, albeit an unworkable one and even that only by the slimmest of margins.

I was not aware that it was any kind of morality, still less right-wing morality, to repudiate your debts, yet that is what the Tea Party is prepared to do. The bills are already in, the money has been spent, but Congress has dithered about whether it wants to pay. The minority faction in the Republican Party has held their shallow and ineffectual leader, Mr Speaker Boehner, up to ridicule and the the rest of the United States to ransom, because they think it justified, even moral, not to pay their debts.

Like many, I have watched appalled as the United States has created the largest debt in history. The irresponsibility of cutting taxation whilst still increasing expenditure on everything from the Armed Forces to welfare rolls and expecting the rest of the planet to pay the difference, was an act of astonishing economic vandalism. Ever more, I rue the day when George W. Bush entered the Oval Office, despite losing the popular vote by half a million, and embarked on an irresponsible frenzy of tax cuts- which even accelerated when it became clear that the 43rd President would now face massive expenditure to face down the threat of Al Qaida after the horrors of 9/11. Truly, if ever a President could be judged economically foolish and irresponsible: it was he. No wonder he has kept a low profile since leaving office.

So the Republican Party, having destroyed the economic stability of the Federal Government through ill judged and irresponsible decisions by George W Bush, now seems set to complete the process through total irresponsibility in the handling of the credit crisis by the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

Yet what of President Obama? As with all politicians, he too has made his compromises, his health care polices, well-intentioned as they may have been, still need major work if they are to deliver what is expected of them. US health care costs are now the highest in the world by some margin, and it is even possible that the new program will increase them. Yet in a time of American economic weakness it is hard to see that it makes sense to leave the welfare-dependent poor penniless and without health care. This, of course is what Mr. Obama accuses his critics of wanting, yet it is easy to point out that the President too is working for his constituency as much as the Congress works for theirs.

My experience of mainstream US Republicans does not reflect the accusations that the President makes. However, if we are take seriously the statements of the Tea Party leaders, then there is now a new species of economic illiteracy at large in America: the dogmatic "right".

The Tea Party takes a contemptuously Puritian view of compromise. Informed by the professed certainties of invincible faith in the autarkic dogmas of a limited number of ideologists, they refuse to countenance any truck with views at odds with their own. It is this inflexibility that lies at the root of the split in the Republican Party, which has been so damaging to the country.

As another Puritan in another time might have put it:

"I beseech ye, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that ye may be mistaken".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...