On the new Blue Dogs

As I wrote earlier this week 2008 did not change my politics. However, 2009 is pushing me around a bit. I figure the best way to deal with this is to post my evolution/devolution (call it what you will.) and let the internal contradictions play in the sun for a bit and see what happens.

On the basics I remain a liberal. For Single Payer, for choice (though now think Roe v Wade should go.) for equal rights for gay Americans, think Krugman was/is right all along on the economy. For an independent Palestinian state. For most drug legalization.

Further - when all is said and done I am not a true libertarian - However, I do think libertarian blow back against Obama's overreach is healthy. And, frankly, American. My hope is that the coming libertarian movement (and I think one is coming) will not be usurped by the Newt's Conservatives.

On the economy it is time to realize that Krugman is not in charge. What we have is Obama's plans which, given how they will be paid for, should cause suspicion. The combination of pro-finance bailouts with auto sector intrusion (Obama now holds the GM bag.) is a moment to behold. The opposite should be happening under a Democratic administration.

Which brings me to the self proclaimed moderates and has left me wondering if I am one myself. Rail against Obama as I did all year - for all the right reasons in my book- I did hold out hope in January that the stimulus would make sense and help. It did not make sense and I suspect it won't help. The much more Lefty BHO budget blue print was intriguing, baffling and laughable. Mostly because through out February Obama kept repeating with a straight face that he would cut the deficit. Which made his budget bullet points surreal. Uppity's run down on the new Blue Dog caucus in the Senate signals that a real blow back is occurring.

I generally do not like excessively powerful executives and do not trust clamoring for "bipartisanship". When this comes from a unitary executive (And Obama is proving himself to be one. He has not given back much, if any, of the power Bush/Cheney seized. ) calls for bipartisanship mean "Do as I say and put a smile on your face, damn it!" We now know that BHO's version of "bipartisan" is to call out the GOP for questioning him.

The American system is designed to be messy for good reason. On a practical, but not ideological, level I was heartened by the fierce GOP resurrection 2 months ago. And, as I said Monday, if the doomers are correct and the economy is set to crash and burn vocal libertarians are needed to check all but certain impulses toward authoritarian statism. We are not immune.

What we can't tolerate is a President who is unchecked. So a caucus of moderate Democrats vetting the budget is a hopeful sign. Whether I agree with them or not (and I suspect I do more than I know.) is beside the point. I want a health care system that is moving toward single payer. But more than that I want single payer proponents to make the case. I want Cap and Trade vetted for the public. I want Senators demanding to know where the money is coming from for everything. A repeat of the stimulus fiasco in which not one legislator read the bill cannot be tolerated. This, like few other instances of D.C. nonsense, should be taken personally by citizens. It was an insult and a dereliction of duty.

Obama's vision is not mine. Chicago writ large is not the liberalism I signed up for many moons ago. I am deeply suspicious of his every move because he's earned my suspicion. This is not to say I won't find myself in agreement with BHO on some issues as things unfold. But he must be treated - as all Presidents should be - with suspicion.

So three cheers for the Blue Dogs. Question everything.