History is Happening Now

I want Republican candidates to lose elections — but I do realize that even when they are in the minority, Republicans will influence the course of our nation’s history. I also realize that many Republican voters sincerely want what’s best for this country (even if they have bad ideas about what’s best).

And so even I, a happy Democrat, was flabbergasted when I recently read a blog on Townhall.com written by Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio Secretary of State and one of the leading candidates to be the G.O.P.’s next chairman:

A week ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, mentioned Mr. Obama says his goal is for 80% of these three million jobs to be private-sector. That means, Senator McConnell continued, that 20% would be public-sector, meaning this bill would create 600,000 new federal government jobs. For comparison, Mr. McConnell noted this would be the size of the entire Postal Service workforce.

Once government creates a job, it rarely eliminates it. Government swells by nature, feeding on tax dollars taken away from private citizens and employers until it becomes a bloated, sprawling bureaucracy.

So if Mr. Obama creates 600,000 new government bureaucrats, those jobs should be expected to be kept around permanently, long after this economic crisis is resolved. After all, eliminating those jobs means laying off 600,000 people. Who wants to take responsibility for that?

But most federal employees, that are not political appointees, vote Democrat. Since Washington, DC is the seat of government, whenever new federal bureaucrats are created many live in Maryland and Virginia. In 2008, Virginia went Democrat for the first time since 1964, and Mr. Obama won it by 130,000 votes. Creating 600,000 new jobs might help cement Virginia in the Democrat column, making it harder for Republicans to retake the White House.

So this bill, as currently designed, has serious flaws, some of which convey a partisan advantage. These must be thoroughly discussed and understood, and any major legislation cannot be allowed to benefit one party in what must be a bipartisan solution.

Of course, Blackwell’s policy-based opposition to the creation of 600,000 new federal jobs isn’t surprising – the language of “a bloated, sprawling bureaucracy” and a government “feeding on tax dollars taken away from private citizens” is standard right-wing rhetoric.

(If Republicans could mobilize public support with kind of talk, they would have won the last election — but alas (for them), this attitude toward government seems so outdated and simple-minded in the context of our current financial crisis. Most Americans are willing to take a chance on Obama that he is competant enough to employ 600,000 workers to make important investments in our collective future. They don’t view Obama as “feeding” and “bloated” — they view him as “investing” in our nation’s prosperity.)

But then Blackwell takes a truly awe-inspiring turn for the cynical when he suggests that hiring 600,000 new federal employees will effectively create almost 600,000 more voting Democrats in Virginia or Maryland. In other words, Blackwell is setting aside the question of whether this plan is best for the country, and arguing that Republicans should oppose it because it’s bad for the Republican Party.

For those Americans who care more about the success of the Republican Party than they care about the success of the American economy, Blackwell’s point may be persuasive. But for the rest of us — the vast majority, I would guess — Blackwell’s point is just gross. If these proposed jobs won’t help the economy, then we should obviously oppose them because they will only inflate the federal deficit and put the government in the awkward position of having to eventually fire 600,000 federal employees. And if these jobs will help the economy (and jobs tend to be helpful), then ar argument for opposing them on partisan grounds is offensive. Blackwell might as well argue that this proposal should be criticized because it would make Democrats more popular — and that will do plenty for the Democratic Party in Virginia. 

Blackwell’s post makes the Republican Party look ridiculous (which is fine with me) — but it also degrades our political discourse, appealing to a sense of paranoia and division. Republicans can forcefully advance Republican arguments without reducing every political issue to a question of which party wins and which party loses. Blackwell’s post may be bad for Republicans, but it’s bad for the country as well.  

Just imagine what would happen if our elected leaders took Blackwell’s advice, and “thoroughly discussed,” perhaps on C-SPAN, the electoral advantage Democrats would supposedly enjoy if the federal government hired another 600,000 employees. Imagine if Republican Congressmen and Senators made floor speeches arguing that “any major legislation cannot be allowed to benefit one party in what must be a bipartisan solution.”

It would be disgusting. It would send a signal to the American people that these politicians are concerned, first and foremost, with keeping their jobs — and only secondarily concerned with doing their jobs.

It may sound cheap when politicians go on television and say things like, “this isn’t about Democrat versus Republican,” or “we have to get beyond partisanship and focus on doing what’s right for the American people.” It sounds cheap because it’s difficult sometimes to imagine a politician advocating the opposite view.

Thank you, Mr. Blackwell, for demonstrating the attitude these politicians are rejecting when they say such things.