Obama has been compared to FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter. He has spoken well of Ronald Reagan, and took heat for it in the primaries. Lou Cannon explains ("Obama's Reagan Transformation?" New York Times, Jan. 28, 2009) how it makes sense for him, under these conditions of economic distress, to mimic Ronald Reagan by putting off the social agenda and other domestic priorities until he has the economy back on its feet. There are signs that Reagan is indeed the model he is following.

The trouble is that whereas Reagan understood how wealth is created and thus how an economy grows, Obama's economic medicine is likely to extend and deepen our suffering. In a time of crisis, such as Reagan faced and such as Barack Obama is facing now, it is not enough simply to learn from Reagan the tactician (and Reagan, we learn, took counsel from Nixon), but to learn from Reagan the statesman in general. This necessarily includes understanding the relationship between the substance of his political and economic principles and the flourishing of the nation under his leadership.

Being Reagan is not as easy at it looks.

Barack Obama has a team of very smart people helping him address the current economic crisis. So we should be fine.

That would be true, more or less, if they were simply free to do what in their best judgment was good for the economic health of the nation. But they are not. Political considerations at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue distort the goals, and compromise the policy. The resulting legislation becomes what David Brooks in his column today calls "a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord" ("Cleaner and Faster," New York Times, January 29, 2009).

Larry Summers has the most to lose in this legislative circus. He is the President's chief economic adviser, and he made a very public case in 2008 for a disciplined and surgically targeted stimulus for the economy. His criteria, Brooks tells us, were these:

First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.” Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people. Third, it should be temporary. Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”

Departure from these strictures, Summers warned, could produce "worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured.” Read Brooks's column for the ways this proposed stimulus package despises every one of Summers' warnings.

Alice Rivlin, budget director under President Clinton, told Congress this week, “A long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package. The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away.” So Rivlin has shown that she knows what's fatally  and obviously wrong with this plan of action, and as such stands in public contrast with her former associate in the Clinton administration.

I am told that, wherever he goes, Larry Summers is viewed as the smartest man in the room. This is no doubt why Obama has brought this Harvard economist on board as Director of the National Economic Council. This bill, however, as fundamental toObama's presidency as Reagan's 1981 tax cut bill was to his, leaves Summers standing off at the side with his firm counsel ignored. It leaves him covered with shame.

This situation brings to mind the worldly wise Ahithophel in the Bible whom the handsome and ambitious young Absalom brought into his council of advisers.

Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as though one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom (2 Samuel 16:23 ESV).

From what I gather, Summers sees his own advice in those terms and expects others to do the same. Absalom's life-and-death challenge at start of his reign was not an economic crisis but his father David whom he had displaced from the throne. Of course,Ahithophel recommended precisely the right course of action that would have put an end to David, but Absalom followed the advice of others.Ahithophel, seeing that he was put to utter shame, did not wait for the miserable outcome.

When Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his donkey and went off home to his own city. He set his house in order and hanged himself... (2 Samuel 17:23).

As it stands, the bill is a self-defeating mixture of immediate economic stimulus and long-term domestic agenda funding. Larry Summers should threaten to resign if President Obama does not move right away to put an end to this legislative monster, thispushmepullyou response to our continuing economic slide into catastrophe.

Obama needs Summers more than Summers needs Obama. The President should especially wish to avoid someone of Larry Summers' stature resigning in protest, and just two weeks into the administration. If our young President hasn't the good judgment to take this step, Summers should quietly force his hand.

I have just discovered a fine new journal published by Houston Baptist University called The City. (The online version with blog is Civitate, now on the Principal Blogs list to your right.)

Barack Obama and his Congressional colleagues will certainly try to capitalize on [the remarkable confluence of events favoring the electoral prospects of Democrats] to construct a "permanent" Democratic majority. But that's much harder than winning an election against an underfunded opponent identified with an exceedingly unpopular incumbent who is said to be responsible for a very unpopular was and an even more unpopular financial crisis. They won't have Bush to kick around for another four years, and from now on, everything they break, they own. ...

Obama argues that the hallmark of a judge,

...is to look out for what were once called 'discreet and insular minorities,' to correct the political process in the name of social justice, whose precepts are to be found, above all, in the compassionate heart of the judge. Law is a tool that empowers the weak, not a framework that protects all of us or a set of principles and rules that constrain everyone. ...

College and university students who take the truth seriously,

...may or may not be Republicans. The GOP will have to earn their support. How can it do so? Perhaps by returning to its roots as the party of Lincoln, a party committed to a thoughtful and self-critical engagement with our country's principles and history. ...

And this on how the GOP should engage the new President.

Republicans can challenge [Pres. Obama] by making two assertions. First, they can insist that authentic care for our neighbors is voluntary and relational. If government takes the lead, it lets us off the hook, crowding out our own efforts. In other words, it demoralizes not only the recipient but also the potential giver. Second,...they can agree with President-elect Obama (sic.) that opportunity is the name of the game, but argue that the great engine of that opportunity is the private sector, not government. This is not a celebration of greed, but rather of contagious self-reliance. ...

Reflecting on what Gingrich called "the opportunity society and on what George W. Bush called an "ownership society," Knippenberg writes,

...wealth is simple an instrument for leading a good life and that a good life is not simple a matter of consuming more and more. It is, as Aristotle recognized a long time ago, about having the capacity to judge and act for oneself and in common with others, embodying and expressing virtues that include courage, moderation, and generosity, among others. It is this moral element of the economy that I would have Republicans stress.

If, in lieu of a philosopher king, we need philosopher journalists to address our rulers and those who elect them, then Knippenberg, who is not only professor of politics at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, but also a contributor on the No Left Turns blog, is one who fulfills that role.

The City is published three times a year, and subscriptions are free of charge.

• If you would like to subscribe to The City, simply fill out this form.

• If you would like to subscribe to Civitate.org’s online feed, to receive posts via RSS or email, click here.

Today, President Obama lifted the ban on providing federal funds to groups, at home and abroad, that provide abortions or information about abortions.

The BBC reports, "A spokesman for the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) earlier told the BBC that under the Bush administration, the organisation had lost more than $100m (£73m) in funding, affecting its services across 176 countries."

Fox News tells us, "The so-called Mexico City policy requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will 'neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.' It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy. The policy was first instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and continued by President George H.W. Bush. The policy was reversed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and re-instated by President George W. Bush in 2001."

Next up, the Freedom of Choice Act. According to David Freddoso in The Case Against Barack Obama (Regnery, 2008), "This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. It would even, according to the National Organization of Women, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions. If Obama becomes president and lives up to this promise, then everyone who pays income tax will be paying an abortionist to perform an abortion."

But as of January 23, 2009, this is still the land of liberty, and so the opponents of abortion have initiated a more vigorous public discussion on this subject, as we see in this video.



Perhaps abortion advocates, in their overreach, will find themselves hoist on their own petard.

For an account of Barack Obama's advocacy of even the most monstrous abortion liberties, see my post, "Obama and Abortion: Radical Again."

In the midst of our problems, it is well to reflect on the even greater problems that are overwhelming our enemies and those who are not exactly friendly toward us. Oil prices below $40 a barrel are devastating Putin's Russia, Chavez's Venezuela, and the Islamic Republic (Iran). In addition, Saudi princes have reportedly lost billions of dollars on their American investments. That has to be bad news for their al Qaeda darlings.

Russia's problems extend far beyond the current budget shortfall, however, and they could not be more fundamental. The nation is simply disappearing. Marx predicted the withering away of the state under communism. Though in fact quite the opposite happened, what has been happening since the 1960s is a withering away of the Russian population ("The Incredible Shrinking People," The Economist, Nov. 29, 2008).

Russia’s demography befits a country at war. The population of 142m is shrinking by 700,000 people a year. By 2050 it could be down to 100m. The death rate is double the average for developed countries. The life expectancy of Russian males, at just 60 years, is one of the lowest in the world. Only half of Russian boys now aged 16 can expect to live to 60, much the same as at the end of the 19th century.

Population decline has obvious implications for economic life.

Russia’s demographic crisis is one of the main constraints on the country’s economy. Although Russia’s population has been ageing, over the past decade the country has enjoyed a “demographic dividend” because the age structure was in its favour. This dividend has now been exhausted and the population of working age will decline by about 1m a year, increasing the social burden on those that remain. Over the next seven years Russia’s labour force will shrink by 8m, and by 2025 it may be 18m-19m down on the present figure of 90m.

Behind the demographic crisis is a health crisis, and behind that is moral and political ruin. During the Cold War, "whereas the West invested heavily in health-care systems and better lifestyles, Russia was putting its financial and human capital into the arms race and industrialisation."

If life expectancy in Russia had improved at the same pace as in the West, the country would have had an extra 14.2m people between 1966 and 2000, adding 10% to the population. The Soviet Union’s spending on health care was less than a quarter of the American figure. The Communist Party elite was well looked after, but ordinary people were less fortunate.

Alcoholism is a particular problem. Russians are literally drinking themselves to death at a staggering rate.

Alexander Nemtsov, a senior researcher at the Institute of Psychiatry, ...estimates that nearly 30% of all male deaths and 17% of female deaths are directly or indirectly caused by excess alcohol consumption and that over 400,000 people a year die needlessly from drink-related causes, ranging from heart disease to accidents, suicides and murders. ...The average Russian gets through 15.2 litres of pure alcohol a year, twice as much as is thought to be compatible with good health. ...Tens of thousands a year die of alcohol poisoning, against a few hundred in America.

This moral and health problem stems from a long history of tyranny and the political culture it has fostered. "Russian history, particularly in the 20th century, has encouraged the view that life is cheap. But there is also a strong self-destructive streak in the national character. Drinking yourself to death is one of the most widely used methods of suicide."

The article also mentions AIDS ("By 1997 the number of cases had grown to 7,000. Now the official figure is over 430,000, the largest in Europe. The real number could be double that, according to the World Health Organisation. ...Some two-thirds are drug-takers, but the epidemic is now spreading to the general public.") and TB ("Last year 24,000 people died of the disease, almost 40 times as many as in America.").

For more details in a previous post, see "President of a Disappearing Russia."

Harold Kildow adds:

That's quite a terrible irony David lines out--Marxist theory called for the withering away of the state, but instead created the conditions for the destruction of the society it hijacked. This is a sobering thing to witness--the demise of a modern nation state within such a compressed time frame--and that too, under the aegis of Enlightenment-spawned "Reason", the supposed guarantor of life and light, peace and good will among men, called to their highest rational selves. So much for man on his own, and godless communism. Yet the gathering momentum of atheism in the West continues apace--as if the hellish outcomes of the French Revolution, the many and varied strains of attempted communism across the globe, and Hitler's anti-Jewish, anti Christian, fascist Reich had never happened. Our current crop of geniuses will no doubt succeed where these others have failed. The struggle against the principalities and powers sponsoring this attack on the true, the good , and the beautiful will not end until, as C.S. Lewis phrased it, the Author of the play walks on stage. Until then, we are all witness to tragedy.

Joe Knippenburg, professor of politics at Oglethorpe University, has these wise reflections on President Obama's fine speech at the Inauguration ("Variations on a Theme: Spare Change in Obama's Inaugural Address," Ashbrook Center editorial).

I wished also to suggest to them both the importance and limits of words. Like all his predecessors, Barack Obama faces the twin challenges of moving from words to deeds, and using his words to move us to deeds. The fact that very different presidents can sound quite similar ought to be sufficient to remind us that their words may not fully reveal their intentions and that, even if they do, those intentions have to be fulfilled on the ground, so to speak. Presidents can be sidetracked or distracted by unanticipated events. They can fall into the trap of believing that governing isn’t all that different from campaigning, that what worked to get voters to the polls will work just as well to get members of Congress to sign onto legislative initiatives. They can misread public sentiments. And, most importantly, they can come to believe that their words are “reality” or by themselves can change reality, while, as a matter of fact, their words are most effective and persuasive when they conform to reality.

Reagan was a man of his word. Clinton was a man merely of words. W was a man who struggled with words, but he did what he said he would do. We will judge this President by how true he is to his words, such as his commitment to be “faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.”

As we stand on the threshold of the Obama years, the New York Times reminds us (perhaps reminding the incoming President) of just what sort of change so many people are hoping BHO will bring--he must finally free us from our freedom, and provide a government that will hold us to its bosom and tuck us in at night.

"Dear Sir Obama: Presidential Advice" reports the humorous and (sniff) beautiful things that children are recommending Obama do once he assumes office. The article is an interesting glimpse into what children expect from government, and from life in general. But, as I think the editors of the New York Times expected their readers to be impressed by the inspiring idealism for some of agendas, it is also an insight into the infantile character of the way liberals understand government. (The tradition of liberals asking children for direction in deciding public policy goes at least as far back as Jimmy Carter. See it on YouTube.)

One nine year old girl gave this list.

1. Make everyone read books.
2. Don’t let teachers give kids hard homework.
3. Make a law where kids only get one page of homework per week.
4. Kids can go visit you whenever they want.
5. Make volunteer tutors get paid.
6. Let the tutors do all the thinking.
7. Make universities free.
8. Make students get extra credit for everything.
9. Give teachers raises.
10. If No. 4 is approved, let kids visit the Oval Office, but don’t make it boring.

She's all set for the future.

I wondered what advice my own children would give the incoming President, so I explained the exercise to my two eldest, ages nine and eight, and sat them down each with pencil and paper. Topping the list was "stop abortions." Fair enough. Protecting innocent life is a legitimate function of government. One suggested that the new President "put up a church [i.e. chapel] in the White House." Why not? Wise is the President whose God is the Lord. Also, the suggestion that he throw a party for his wife and children on the first day was a nice thought.

Many of the suggestions, however, pertained to the President making the world nice, easy, and comfortable. "Make my little brother not as grumpy." "Set up a place for homeless people." "Make things easy when you order stuff." (We recently had trouble with an online purchase.) "Help private schools." "Lower food prices." "Make toys $5." (Those last two gave opportunity for a primer in basic economics.)

It was a foolish question to ask little children. They don't understand the purpose of government, the limits to government and why it is limited, and the structure of our particular system of government. At the age of nine, they give almost no attention to government, and the thoughts they have are received from parents and teachers. Once these thoughts take form in their little minds, they're not much different from thoughts of ancient history and imaginary worlds. Children at that age answer the same way they would if you asked them, "If a genie offered you three wishes, what would you want him to do," except their wishes are more public spirited because you're talking about the President. They know that he is in charge of the government, and that the government has power to tell people what to do. They imagine that the President can clap his hands and have whatever he wants.

In other words, the way they think of the government is not much different from the way too many voting Americans think of it. In the next four to eight years, it will only get worse. Let the national conversation begin.

I posed the same question to my six year old boy this morning. He came up with three things to say:

1. I would say, "How do you do?"
2. Be a good man.
3. Tell the people smart things from the laws.

Atta boy! Not bad for six years old.

Listen to the voices behind the street thugs (see below), in Gaza the West Bank, and Lebonon:



Any questions?

-- Harold Kildow, associate blogger at Principalities and Powers.