« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Ezra Klein’s Magical Mystery Meme Machine

There’s a growing trend in the core of the Washington punditocracy. People with little real world experience beyond the confines of think tanks and ideologically driven publications are becoming standard bearers of thought for the media and ideologues who populate the Washington to New York corridor. What may be drivel and dumb is treated as high brow and serious within the small world of the beltway chattering class. Take this Ezra Klein bit at the Washington Post.

Klein is a member of the Juice Box Mafia, a group of twenty and early thirty-somethings that all think the same, have the same backgrounds devoid of much real world practical experience, and are slowly working their way into positions of influence via the appropriate left connections within the Washington punditocracy circles, whether or not they have relevant backgrounds. Juicebox Mafia members think things like this. To his credit, however, at least he is not Matt Yglesias.

When Ezra Klein writes (and to his credit he is a very good writer), his friends listen. His friends have more and more transitioned from left-wing publications into mainstream media circles, so we will start hearing more of this drivel coming out of supposedly objective newsroom sources treated as gospel when even a bull would recognize the smell and steam of it on the ground for what it is.

In the supposedly reality based community, reality is a construction of intricately woven dung huts sheltering left-wing tropes as fact. “Memes,” as the kids these days call them, get started here. They are the thoughts that affect the presuppositions people make when weighing in on the news of the day.

According to Ezra Klein, first in the New Yorker and now in the Washington Post, if the Supreme Court throws out the individual mandate it will be because “[o]ver the past two years, the Republican Party has slowly been building a permission structure for the five Republicans on the Supreme Court to feel comfortable doing something nobody thought they could do: Violate the existing understanding of the Commerce Clause and, in perhaps the most significant moment of judicial activism since the New Deal, overturn either all or part of the Affordable Care Act.”

A permission structure . . . .

That’s right, the Republican Party had seized on an idea from the Heritage Foundation to counter Hillarycare in 1993. The idea was the individual mandate.

For seventeen years they did absolutely nothing to advance the individual mandate. But all along they knew it was constitutional and only flipped their opinion when Barack Obama came out for it. Then they orchestrated a campaign to make it okay for the Supreme Court to also change their mind.

To Klein’s reading of history — which is more wishful thinking than actual reading — the GOP made it a centerpiece of reform. In fact, it was such a centerpiece of reform that when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 they did exactly nothing with it.

In his excellent Transom the other day, Ben Domenech really breaks this down for us in a way Klein couldn’t be bothered to do if only because Klein would have to actually pay attention to history instead of setting up a talking point.

[O]ne of the other bills Klein has cited as an example of Republican endorsement actually reveals what happened when conservatives were challenged on the mandate, even two decades ago. Note the second bill in this list, a proposal by Oklahoma Senator (and prominent conservative) Don Nickles introduced in 1993, one with 24 Republican co-sponsors. The bill is here, and you’ll note a bit of text at the bottom of the first page which says “Star Print”. Unless you’re a Hill staffer (or in my case, a former one), you probably don’t know that a Star Print is what a member does when there’s an error or problem with a bill and they want to retain the co-sponsors and date of introduction in the original. It’s there because Nickles swapped out his bill… to remove the mandate. Nickles explains why here – he changed his mind when confronted with opposing arguments.

And guess who was apparently behind that change of opinion? None other than David Rivkin, writing in the Wall Street Journal with Lee Casey almost two decades ago, with total prescience of the arguments the Court is tackling this week. “In the new health-care system, individuals will not be forced to belong because of their occupation, employment, or business activities — as in the case of Social Security. They will be dragooned into the system for no other reason than that they are people who are here. If the courts uphold Congress’s authority to impose this system, they must once and for all draw the curtain on the Constitution of 1787 and admit that there is nothing that Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause. The polite fiction that we live under a government of limited powers must be discarded — Leviathan must be embraced.”

What the left likes to ignore is how much diversity there actually is within the Republican Party. Just as Klein is trying his best to set up a meme through his various outlets — a meme that the GOP only recently embraced the unconstitutionality argument — the left has long embraced and inculcated within the media the meme that the GOP is a homogenous group of troglodyte conservatives.

In fact, the varied approaches to both conservatism and policy within the Republican Party is pretty wide spread. The big government conservative approach had been quite popular for a while. The Gingrich Revolution produced a notable increase in the size of government.

Only toward the end of the Bush Administration and his decision to kill the free market to save it did the actual small government conservatives come back in vogue. With them came the same arguments they’ve been making since the mid-90′s. Included in that list is the argument that the individual mandate was unconstitutional.

Concurrent to the resurgence of this small government philosophy came something the conservatives did not have last time — Citizens United. That decision broke the dam of money that had otherwise not flowed to challengers. In 2010, not only were small government conservatives vocal, they were well funded. Instead of just beating Democrats, they cleaned house with the Republican Party as well, including tossing out some of the old guard who had supported the individual mandate.

There was no orchestrated effort to create a “permission structure”. There was raw electoral carnage and, in something Klein and his Juice Box Mafia cohorts routinely choose to ignore, a majority of the American public standing with those small government conservatives.

Sometimes people change their minds. Sometimes those positions change over time. Sometimes events necessitate that change happen more rapidly than at other times. Sometimes correlation and causation can be confusing. If anyone on the left is shocked that a group of politicians can change their mind quickly, they need merely look at the rapid reversal of opinion about the Iraq War within the confines of the Democratic Party.

But it’s always so much more fun to create an elaborate and well orchestrated conspiracy to sell to friends in the media than actually fess up to being on the wrong side of history and the public.

“A permission structure.” Hahahahahahahaha.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://insureblog.blogspot.com/ hgstern

    “and to his credit he is a very good writer”

    No, he’s really not. He’s a *lazy* writer who doesn’t seem to be self-aware.

    For one thing, the so-called Heritage Mandate was for *catastrophic* plans (now called High Deductible Health Plans, or HDHP’s), which, oddly enough, ObamneyCare? outlaws.

    For another, in his WaPo piece, he cites a 1790 Congressional mandate requiring shipping companies to buy health insurance. 1790?! Hey, that’s over 100 years ago!

    Right, Ezra?

    (More here: http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/more-stupidity-from-ezra.html)

  • onemovoter

    The theory goes that there are political waves that fundamentally change a country, and is noted that we are on the 4th wave of change. And I’m not talking about Obama’s hope and change obviously. It’s the TEA Party change that you pointed to.

    What I do see is that people when left to their own devices within capitalism, will always overcome political authority that tries to artificially stifle them. Capitalism always has the last laugh over politics.

  • gmscan

    … the difference between state and federal powers. I don’t think anyone has ever said RomneyCare was unconstitutional — a bad idea, yes, but not unconstitutional. It gets tiresome how these folks can be so smug and so ignorant at the same time.

  • renl57

    Ezra Klein accuses the nefarious Republicans of trying to change the “existing understanding of the Commerce Clause.”

    He never defines what that understanding is.

    But we know what it is. It’s the Wickard case on steroids. Namely, that the Federal Government’s power to control (not just regulate) economic activity is total, and citizens have to obey without recourse.

    Even more than the possible overturning of ObamaCare, what’s really causing the liberals to freak out is that the case is shining a bright light on the liberals’ assumption that the Commerce Clause was America’s way into socialism.

    Repeatedly, the Supremes–even Sotomayor–pleaded with Vanilli (representing the Obama Administration) to define some limiting principle that would enable the Commerce Clause to fall short of socialism. He could offer none–because the Left doesn’t want there to be one.

    Ezra Klein and his fellow mainstream liberals aren’t yet proponents of full socialism. But they want to keep that option open for the future, just in case.

    And if the ObamaCare case goes the way I think it will, that option may well go away. From now on, liberals won’t be able to wave around the Commerce Clause to do anything they want.

  • westcoastpatriette

    made that says, “Yes, Pelosi, we are very serious!”

  • storminwgfp

    And sell them everywhere. I’d like one also.

  • blooch

    Ummm SC, I’m gonna need that TPS report by tomorrow…mmmkay?

  • westcoastpatriette

    is full of the typical hubris of the left. Never any mention of how the
    Dems forced this piece of doo-doo bill down the throats of Americans who vehemently hated it from the beginning. With the zeal of an idiot, he speaks as one who can’t read the Constitution as it stands, but believes it can be morphed to mean whatever the left wants it to mean. I doubt that he could even explain the original purpose of the Commerce Clause if he were asked. Unbelievable the way the left is able to twist the truth to accommodate their lies.

  • hunter

    That he will not follow the USSC if they go against his wishes. He will declare the rulilng improper and out of line, and ‘amend’ the law as he sees fit and dare anyone to stop him.
    This is the real issue of this election: Our first non-constitutional President. A Presidnet who decides which laws are to be enforced, which are to be ignored, which are to be violated, and which to be amended as needed.
    It is breath taking just how shallow the waters are that this President ahs run aground on.
    It would be entertaining to watch if he was not the head of state.

  • bk

    To liberals, the Commerce Clause is something a liberal Congress can use to regulate anything and everything. Determining the individual mandate to be constitutional would do to your wallets and your healthcare what the liberal Kelo decision did to your personal property.

  • bk

    a word that hasn’t been used since Bush was in office, but certainly fits here.

  • renl57

    The ObamaCare mandate sets a precedent–not on regulation, but on the Government giving us our marching orders.

    The best precedent for the ObamaCare mandate was the peacetime military draft we used to have.

    In 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan said that he opposed Carter’s peacetime military draft as representing involuntary servitude. (Which btw made it harder for the Dems to paint Reagan as a warmonger.)

    The ObamaCare mandate also represents involuntary servitude.

    But at least with the military draft, you can argue that national defense is a constitutional function of the Federal government, and that it’s a citizen’s duty to help defend the country. It’s not a citizen’s duty to help Blue Cross or Aetna make more money.

  • renl57

    Jonathan Chait: “I?m already bitter about this, as the constitutionality of the individual mandate is so obvious [!!!] that the mere fact that the controversy exists suggests a frightening will to power by the legal arm of the conservative movement….
    “Striking down the mandate would be a huge deal legally, because it would signal the Court is prepared to resume its Gilded Age function as a kind of right-wing GOP super-legislature, wantonly tossing out laws that offend laissez-faire orthodoxy. It would be, in addition to a travesty of justice, a tragedy, depriving millions of Americans access to health insurance. I want to be clear about this: If the Court strikes down the mandate, I will lose my shit.”

    http://tinyurl.com/8ypaebp

  • acat

    Chait isn’t going to be the only lib to “lose his {excrement}”…

    If it is struck down, and I believe it will be, this cat is going full-metal schadenfreude.

    Mew

  • acat

    The argument was frequently made, here on Red State, that “Obamacare must be constitutional because Romneycare was…”.

    This was occasionally followed by “But if Obamacare is unconstitutional, then so is Romneycare” ..

    The whole thing indicates, to this cat, that we need to fire every history and civics teacher currently employed and restart the whole thing.

    Mew

  • Viet71

    My antennae are giving me mixed signals.

    Ginsburg and Roberts are way too relaxed and Scalia is way too angry.

    Kennedy’s Arizona opinion struck me as correct but uptight.

    My take: either way, Repubs have a lot of work to do, espescially in educating the public.

  • SKully

    but then remembered all the states that filed lawsuits within hours.

    Think about what SCOTUS said with the Arizona decision this week. They were clear on what was within the Federal realm. They also were clear that just because the Feds HAD the power to regulate something but didn’t does not mean the states can then rclaim that power.

    Move this theory to the Obamacare and the presumed overturn of it. Then, if Obammy wants to rule by Executive Order, the states can just ignore them because THEY will still retain the power to regulate.

    Obamacare relies too heavily on State pools, and if they get 30+ states to say ‘no’, it won’t go anywhere.

  • jomo2009

    they can do if the mandate is struck down is de-fund the remaining part of that montrosity known as the Affordable Care Act. A more inaccurate title can scarcely be imagined.

  • macbookben

    …a website called “US Constitution FAQ.” Example question: “If the 2nd amendment states I have the right to keep and bear arms, then am I allowed to own, load, and shoot my 108 Howitzer? Answer: no, but you may possess and use (lawfully) any firearm that you can comfortably carry on your shoulder, or conceal on your person. So simple even a liberal leftist can understand it.

  • DaveWT4

    In this case, take out the Federal Department of Education along with the Federal student loan programs and the Progressive monopoly on education will die out.

  • westcoastpatriette

    US Constitution FAQ…I like it.

  • clintonformccain

    That was a clear rebuke, but it didn’t stop Obama.

    I expect that he will do the same thing when the mandate is struck down — just press on with the rest of it, even though it blows a staggering hole in the federal budget. I don’t think he gives one whit about that.

  • checkmate2012

    we should be very afraid of his next exective orders. Rumor has it he’s ready to bypass the Congress and SCOTUS again. Lord help us.

    Again, blowing a hole thru America is his aim and it’s working out rather nicely for him so far…..just not for the rest of us.

  • Flagstaff

    “how much diversity there actually is within the Republican Party.”

    We are the party of diversity of thought, whereas the other party is mostly interested in diversity of appearance and in varieties of “acceptable” behavior.

    What thoughts/opinions besides those of Reid, Pelosi, Obama, and Soros matter in the Democrat Party?

  • Flagstaff

    The argument was frequently made, here on Red State, that ?Obamacare must be constitutional because Romneycare was??.

    You, ‘cat? I don’t remember ever seeing that here.

  • edintexas

    Helping BC/BS and Aetna make more money was never the objective (though those two entities thought it would be). The objective was to eventually eliminate all private insurers through mandates without concomitant price increases which would force them out of business. Then the government would have achieved the ultimate objective – a single payer, European style Health “insurance” system.

  • edintexas

    Would you post that comment in English so we senior citizens can understand what you are stating?

  • edintexas

    My hope and change is that the Court does what it should do and strike the entire statute because there is no severability clause, and the law doesn’t work without the individual mandate.

    That is what they should do, and it shouldn’t be a 5-4 decision (but I believe it is most likely to be so). I also hope (or perhaps wish is a more accurate term) that more people understood how precarious the balance of the Court is, and how another term for Dear Leader will most likely tilt the Court to the far Left for decades.

  • jiminga

    from the US Constitution, Romneycare’s constitutionality doesn’t really matter unless you live in MA.

  • bk

     

  • almostalwaysright

    Well, he’s ‘good’ writer only in the sense of being able to sling words and ideas around with some finesse. But you’re right he’s lazy and, moreover, superficial, and merely clever, etc.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    The head of that particular Leviathan is Columbia’s School of Education, not the Federal Department of Education.

    We do need to eliminate the DoE, yes; that would be a positive step. But at the same time we need to initiate activism in all state legislatures to eliminate the requirement for teacher certification, liberalize truancy laws to empower home schools, and fund charter and voucher school programs. THAT would loosen the Progressive monopoly on education.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    I live in Massachusetts. RomneyCare is a disaster, constitutional or not.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    … of “judicial activism.”

    Notice how Klein calls the rejection of the “no limits” interpretation of the Commerce Clause “the most significant moment of judicial activism since the New Deal.” This is a tactic.

    The left took an enormous loss when people realized that, using the left’s pet theory of judicial activism, the courts could invent tyrannical laws out of thin air. Ever since that particular stinking pile of dung got aired, the left has been calling every conservative-leaning decision “judicial activism,” hoping to taint the conservative respect for the rule of law with the bad smell that real judicial activism earned.

    Limiting the Commerce Clause is not judicial activism of any kind. Judicial activism is a theory that says judges can adjust the meanings of laws in order to make them more responsive to changes in the mind of the people — in effect, making each judge into his own mini-legislature. Changing an understanding of an existing law to make it more conformable to the original intent of the law is not judicial activism.

    I understand that refuting every error made by a leftist writer requires as many sentences as there are words in the original statement; they really do make that many errors. But this one will turn out to be important. They will use the public’s proper disdain for judicial activism against us if we let them hijack the nomenclature.