For My Friend Rick, Because Facebook Limits My Characters

I have a friend named Rick. Rick is a real person, not a straw man. I’ve known Rick since high school and I have always admired Rick for doing one of the most impressively disgusting things I have ever seen. When we were freshmen, a bunch of us were gathered and Rick told us that he would eat whatever we put into a cup. This was not a dare and Rick did not demand any payment for this service. He only required that it not involve waste or excretia, which seemed fair. This post isn’t about that, so I won’t go into details, but suffice to say that it’s a story I still enjoy telling my seventeen year-old son and reminisce about with other people who were there.

But, as I said, this isn’t about that. Rick and I have become Facebook friends and we have had sort of an ongoing political debate. This discussion complicated by the fact that Facebook only allows you so many characters and the fact that Facebook is generally a less-than-ideal forum for one to express any type of nuance. I’m using this forum to give into my prolixity. Rick, if you get around to reading this and care to respond, use whatever format suits you. By the way, Rick, one thing I have appreciated is the way we have been able to disagree but keep it good natured. I think a lot of ugliness in the political realm exists simply because people can’t respectfully disagree. While I disagree with much (but certainly not all) of what you say, I’m grateful this hasn’t lapsed into ad hominem attacks. Anyway, on to the show.

My discussion with Rick started when I Facebooked (if that’s a word) an article that suggested the GOP’s stance on healthcare reform and insurance wasn’t exactly logical in light of the way they have been behaving when viewing certain bailouts the current administration is promulgating or carrying on from the previous administration (AIG, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were all situations where President Bush put the power of the US Government behind bailing out an entity or helping to arrange favorable buyouts by other financial concerns.). When I pointed out the disconnect, Rick pointed out that the Democrats had controlled Congress “for a few years already” (I assume by "a few" he means "two") and argued, therefore, that it wasn’t just Dubya “although Dubya did give the Democrats everything they were asking for.”

I’m going to leave aside the part about Dubya giving the Democrats everything they were asking for because it’s a bit non-specific. I know Rick doesn’t mean that President Bush gave the Democrats “everything” because we most certainly didn’t want John Roberts or Samuel Alito, but he gave them to us. I know we didn’t want him commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence but he did that too. I know we wanted him to allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify before Congress and he actively blocked that and continues to attempt to block that testimony even after he left office. I know that Congressional Democrats wanted to put oil and energy executives under oath when Republicans controlled Congress. Republicans refused to place them under oath and President Dubya stood by without urging Republican leadership to do it. But I don’t think that those are the things that Rick is referring to when he says Dubya gave us “everything.”

I also pointed out to Rick that it was Henry Paulson, President Bush’s Treasury Secretary who came to Capitol Hill urging Congress to approve massive cash layouts to bail out AIG. That was the President’s man up there, urging the bailout and inserting language into the legislation that would have killed any possibility of congressional oversight. Rick responded to that argument by stating that the AIG bailout didn’t receive any positive coverage that he knows of and that Paulson was an illogical toady. I will agree that the bailout received mixed reviews at best, but, again, this was the course chosen by President Bush. If Henry Paulson was a toady, he was President Bush’s toady. It was Paulson’s idea to prevent governmental oversight of the bailout and it was the Bush administration that needed to be persuaded to put that oversight into the bailout package in the first place.

The larger point here is the inconsistency. I don’t recall a chorus of Republican voices slamming President Bush for the bailout. Yes, there were some Republicans and Libertarians who were against it, just as there were Democrats who were against it, but Ron Paul was the only guy I recall who really took up the standard for NOT bailing out AIG. Hide from it all you want, the fact is that President Bush bailed out AIG and he did it with the help of Congressional Republicans. That is the inconsistency I am talking about here. Democrats have never really been against spending; sometimes we spend well, sometimes we spend poorly but in the end we don’t have a philosophical problem with spending money if we think the cause is right. But Bush simply crapped all over the fiscal conservative’s creed when he did this bailout and only now, when a Democrat is in office, does the Republican leadership get religion. It’s inconsistent. Rick has agreed with me on this point in the past and he has told me that he wished that Republican leadership would man up and practice what they preach. Again, while I disagree with that philosophically, I can understand the thinking and I appreciate what’s behind it. I personally don’t think I’d want to live in the world where so many businesses simply go bankrupt, but I see the reasoning.

As for Paulson being a toady, again, he was the President’s toady. He spoke for the administration. While I have some issues with Timothy Geithner, I don’t pretend that he is somehow not speaking for the administration when he goes to the Hill to ask for more whatever.

Another point Rick makes is that there is more press coverage now, which somehow makes the AIG bailout seem less acceptable. I’m sorry, Rick, but I can’t go with you on this one. President Bush, with the aid and assistance of Sec. Paulson and Congressional Republicans promulgated this bailout. Even if there was less coverage (and I seem to recall seeing plenty of coverage on t his before Obama was on the scene), so what? Isn’t it the job of the President, his Secretary of the Treasury and the legislators who vote on the legislation to fully understand what’s going on? Are you suggesting that John Beohner was okay to support the bailout when Bush was POTUS because there was less coverage but he is okay in his opposition to furthering that bailout because the newly increased press coverage makes the bailout seem less acceptable?

Rick also suggested that President Bush actually wanted to provide oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that when he did that Congressional Democrats accused him of racism because the CEO of Freddie Mac was black. Rick, where did you get that? The only thing I recall is Barney Frank making a comment about how some Congressional Republican’s criticism of Democrat’s handling of the housing crisis is racist because they aren’t bothered by the fact that many poor people are also black. Was that a stupid thing to say? Yes. Was Frank calling the President a racist or saying that it was racist to oversee a corporation because the CEO was African-American? No.

And it’s not as if President Bush had always been trying to provide federal oversight for Freddie Mac or something; on 10/21/2008 Ben Bernanke specifically called Fannie and Freddie “cases in point” and said that "The Federal Reserve had long warned about the systemic risks posed by these companies' large portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, as well as the problems arising from the conflict between shareholders' objectives and the government's goals for the two firms." In October, 2008, Bush had been POTUS for nearly eight whole years. His hand-selected Fed Chairmen had been in office for nearly three years. Democrats did not take control of the Congress until January, 2007. I’m sorry Rick, but it just doesn’t add up that Dubya had been wanting to provide oversight but was stymied all that time. Those agencies failure had been systemic for a long time and it was brought about by lack of oversight, not because President Bush WANTED to provide oversight but was stopped from doing so by a recalcitrant congress.

I apologize that it has taken me so long to get to the nut of what I really wanted to write about: The role of government. In my Facebook discussion with Rick I pointed out that we simply have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government. Rick considers himself more a Libertarian than a Republican and I’ll buy that. Libertarianism has a lot of things to recommend it, although, truth be told, I think very few people are strict Libertarians. But I do like the concept of keeping the government out of private affairs, like abortion and my own medical choices. I tend to disagree with a Libertarian’s view on what they can and cannot do with their own private property” because too often this allows people to do horrible things to the rest of us, but whatever. Rick is a Libertarian and I am a liberal.

Rick said that (and I am quoting here because I do not want to misstate his own words) “The more government interference we get, the worse problems become, so we need more government interference, and things get crazier, so we need more government. In psychology, that is the definition of insane, doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result.” This came up in a discussion about healthcare reform but it really goes much beyond that single issue. Rick wants the government out of our lives and I understand the sympathy. A Libertarian believes that the only purpose for government is to provide police powers and military. All drugs should be legal as should all guns and if someone kills someone else, then that person should be punished. I get the sentiment of treating us all like we’re grown-ups and trusting us to do the right thing (like, you know, not killing people), but it’s simply never going to happen. However, while we should not anticipate Utopia, we can never stop striving for it. But I’d like to point out a few things that governmental “interference” has brought about.

Rural electrification. Rick and I come from the same city and although it’s not a metropolis by any means, it’s hardly what you would call “rural.” I was born and my parents are both from there. My paternal grandfather, though, was from a rural area well outside of town and he told me that rural electrification was one of the best things that happened to them. I assume that Rick thinks that if private enterprise were allowed to have handled it, the whole thing would have gone much better and he may have a point, but only if there is money in it for the private enterprise in the first place. If there was no money private enterprise would not do it. Who then steps in? (I suppose now is where we dispense with the old canard about how “if the government ran itself like a business, we’d never have these deficits and these problems. This is a failure on two fronts: First, from appearances concerning businesses like AIG and American auto manufacturers, it doesn’t necessarily LOOK like private enterprise always has the best business model. Second, government isn’t IN business to be a business. Turning a profit isn’t why government exists. I am sure Rick and I agree that government exists to help those it governs. We may disagree on the extent or necessity of that help and if I believe government should provide education and healthcare and Rick only believes that it exists for military ventures, that is a disagreement about size and scope of government, not its inherent purpose.)

But I digress. Let me name another form of government “interference” that I believe has some value: Interstate Highways. Rick and I are about the same age, so neither of us recalls what life was like before I-70 was built but I am told by t hose who DO remember that travel and commerce have both been tremendously affected, for the better because of the interstate highway system. Certainly there have been some boondoggles paid for with federal highway money, like Ted Stevens’ famous “Bridge to Nowhere,” but I can’t really believe that anyone thinks that the government’s “interference” with transportation and commerce was a bad thing. What’s weird is that the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota was actually due to a LACK of government interference. Had there been some money to repair that bridge and some engineers to inspect (i.e. “interfere”), that collapse might never have happened and people wouldn’t have died.

Another area where I see governmental “interference” as a good thing is the USDA. Now, I will be honest, I had thought that Rick had kids, but I just can’t say that I am 100% certain. I have quickly looked over his Facebook profile and I didn’t find any references to them one way or another. I could have missed it, I could have been wrong in thinking he and his truly lovely wife (whom I assume married him because of some rampant case of Stockholm Syndrome) have kids, but let’s just say that I am correct. I know Rick wants his kids to eat health, nutritious foods. No one is saying that the government should dictate what parents feed their children, but is it so wrong to ask the government to inspect the meat, fruits and vegetables that go into the stream of commerce? While I can’t argue with the idea that a tapeworm might do me a lot of good, I know for a fact that I don’t want my daughter to have one and I am equally certain that Rick doesn’t want his kids to get them either. The free market is not a solution to this because the free market will simply throw tainted meat into the market and sell it with little care for who might get sick from it. If you don’t believe me, read “The Jungle” and get back to me. Before the USDA started “interfering,” our food supply was tremendously risky, now it’s one of the safest in the world.

I also have enjoyed the benefits of government interference in the form of Pell grants and federal student loans and I know a lot of people who have gotten federally backed mortgages for their homes. I don’t know enough about Rick’s financial situation, but I assume he and his parents paid cash or got entirely private funding for his college education and I think that’s great. I honestly do. I just know that for me, if it weren’t for federal student aid, I wouldn’t have been able to afford college and having gone to college and grad school has improved my lot in life to where I have a better paying job and am able to be a more productive member of society than if I were a manual laborer. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with manual labor and don’t anyone call me an elitist. All I am saying is that, for me, education was an integral part of my development as a person and had I been unable to attend college, I would not have maximized my potential. The same thing applies to people who want to go to a technical college, vocational or trade school but can’t afford it. They aren’t getting the chance to make the most of themselves. I am working hard to sock away enough money to put my kids through school and I am sure Rick is as well, but there are a lot of people out there who aren’t given the blessings Rick and I have received. I’m glad there are programs out there who can help people in the same situation I was in when I went to school.

I could go on and on (I know, I already have) about the value and role of government in people’s lives. I get that Rick doesn’t want “interference” and I think that’s laudable. Rick doesn’t think that the government should be helping people except in extreme cases and I understand that as well. The thing is where Rick sees “interference” I see beef that is safe to eat, roads that are safe to travel and homes that are up to code

I’m not saying my friend is wrong, but I am saying I disagree with him.

And this is for Rick H., not Rick Z. whom I have known almost as long.