stay connected

FrumForum Facebook FrumForum YouTube Update Twitter FrumForum Flickr

Purge Follow-Up

September 2nd, 2010 at 4:32 pm David Frum | 24 Comments |

Share
| Print

Anybody else notice that Stuart Butler is very suddenly no longer running domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation?  His successor is David Addington, formerly counselor and then chief of staff to Vice President Cheney.

Recent Posts by David Frum



24 Comments so far ↓

  • balconesfault // Sep 2, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    Here’s Stuart Butler back in 2003:

    If we are to construct a health care system in this country that focuses resources efficiently to help those who need assistance to obtain health coverage…. The current social contract should be replaced with a more rational one. In a civilized and rich country like the United States, it is reasonable for society to accept an obligation to ensure [universal coverage,] that all residents have affordable access to at least basic health care – much as we accept the same obligation to assure a reasonable level of housing, education and nutrition. But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to [impose an individual mandate, to] expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan – one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

    The obligations on individuals does not have to be a “hard” mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a “soft” mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements….

    It is also important to de-link financial support from household work status. In other words assistance for health care coverage should not be based on employment or retirement status, and it should be available for the cost of coverage from any reasonable source…. The value of the assistance should also not differ according on the source of coverage….

    Written in 2009, Heritage would have been denouncing the above as the writings of the hardist-core leftist, if not outright Marxist. Sort of inconvenient to have it out there as the advocacy of a Heritage policy chief.

    On the other hand, this could be nothing more than finding a sinecure for Addington for his yoeman’s work defending the imperial Bush-Cheney Presidency and the right to torture. What did they expect Heritage to do, create a “Department of Defending the President’s Right to Do Whatever?”

    Not happening while Obama is in office, anyway.

  • easton // Sep 2, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    David Addington? That clown. Oh man, not too long ago the Heritage Foundation had a lot of good ideas. They were the ones who helped devise Romneycare in Mass.

  • easton // Sep 2, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    balcone, you beat me to it. (I forgot to hit submit, took a phone call for a half an hour but did not hit refresh when I came back)

  • busboy33 // Sep 2, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Let the purges continue!

    Remember Far Right . . . the way to get more people to vote for you is to drive them away with torches. Everybody wants to be part of the exclusive clique, so make sure to chase off EVERYBODY, then you’ll have tons of members!

    . . .that IS the plan, right?

  • balconesfault // Sep 2, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    busboy – actually that is kind of the plan. The lesson the Repubs have learned is that internal dissent is confusing to a lot of voters out there, and black and white “GO AMERICA, GO CHRIST!” messaging can work a lot better at times when there is a time of economic uncertainty … even if the side doing the messaging was the side that caused the uncertainty in the first place.

    The Dems will never really learn that lesson. Instead of marching to a single drummer championing the expansion of healthcare to millions while reducing the deficit projections, the conquering of Wall Street with finance reform, the stopping of the massive job losses and consecutive quarters of positive growthrate that have resulted from the Stimulus Bill … messaging from the Dem side will always be chaotic and internally contentious. (mind you, I’m not arguing that any of those were the best bills they could have been – only that they were accomplishments that the Dems could be lining up and defending and building a consensus around).

    In a way, the problem is that the Dems believe that Government can be a positive force, and so there’s a vigorous debate over what’s the best way for that to happen, and whether we’re on the right path.

    The New Republicans have just settled down on the position that Government can not be a positive force, and for at least a short time they can convince people to ignore how much Government has been critical in creating and protecting the strong middle class that America enjoys, and just rally forces against Government. Simplicity sells when people are uncertain.

  • communists-basher // Sep 2, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    Karl Marx, is this you?

  • Luke // Sep 2, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Stuart Butler is now heading the Center for Policy Innovation at Heritage. So, he hasn’t exactly been purged. But, I see David’s point.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/Butler-to-Head-Heritage-s-New-Big-Ideas-Division

  • Fairy Hardcastle // Sep 2, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    busboy, if you are so against the “far” right you ought to be happy with this approach because according to you this will end up being self-destructive.

    balconesfault, the founders answered this sometime ago with the concept of Federalism. I realize after many postings on this forum that the editor is really not a fan such an American institution being a Canadian by heritage. Limited government is a necessary and good thing. Limited Federal government is a critical thing. Can you actually prove from a historical perspective that there was not a strong middle class prior to FDR’s power grab?

  • Oldskool // Sep 2, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    Can you actually prove from a historical perspective that there was not a strong middle class prior to FDR’s power grab?The roaring 20’s weren’t so different than the roaring 2000’s. Both were built on bubbles that eventually crashed.

  • Gramps // Sep 2, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    David Addington: Where is Cheney’s Architect of Secrecy?

    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001254.php

  • busboy33 // Sep 2, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    @ Fairy:

    I view the world and politics thru subjective and objective lenses. I can personally feel one way about an issue or topic, but understand that divorcing my personal feelings from the equation results in a different answer. For example, personally I am morally against abortion. However, for a variety of reasons, I think the best course of action for the Unites States is to continue to allow them to legally proceed. As a Red Sox fan I know that the Yankees are the embodiment of all that is Unholy, but I can respect them as a ball team.

    “Well, its better to hold onto your principles that sell out”. And that’s true. But then you are worthless as a political party. If you are a conciencious objector, then it is better that your stay true to your beliefs than regret it for the rest of your life. However, at this point you are worthless as a soldier, and need to find a new line of work. Refuse to deal with animal flesh? Fine. But you are worthless as a butcher. I’m not opposed to sticking by principles, but to mis-apply the old quote render unto Caesars what is Caesars, render unto God what is Gods. A political party based on ideological purity? Go for it . . . but as very few people believe the exact same thing on every issue its going to be a small party, lack votes, and be worthless as an avenue for influencing change.

    It is true that “The Far Right” is a group I do not respect. Not Conservatives, not Christians . . . The Far Right. Can I define the borders of the group? No. But it IS some form of organism, and I do root for its failure. Not just because I dislike it personally, but also because I think they are a toxin to America, and I am obliged to defend the country I love from that danger.

    While I do giggle to myself at how unbelievably stupid this strategy is, I am stunned from the objective viewpoint. While there are certainly insane elements of The Far Right, there are also intelligent, thoughtful strategists that either are part of it or are part of factions like the GOP that seek to manipulate TFR for its benefit. Strategy and manipulation has a goal, and in politics that goal is always fundamentally about votes.

    The entire purpose of a political party or movement is to wield political power. It exists for no other reason. If your Party is designed to embody ideological purity . . . go to church. Or the Kiwanis Club. Or any other group. You don’t form a NASCAR team to talk about your favorite books, you do it to win races. If you do it while talking about your favorite books, fine. But if you’re not trying to win races, then you are better served just having a book club. A political party or movement can obsess over ideological purity if it wants, but if its not trying to win elections as well then it serves no purpose.

    You win elections by getting votes, as far as I know. Look at The New Black Panther Party. Who do they represent? Nobody. How much power do they wield? None whatsoever. So who cares what their beliefs are? They can want to hunt cracker babies, rub blue mud into their bellybutton, dance around a fire . . . they can believe whtaever they like. But absolutely nobody cares because they dont, wont, and cant win elections.

    The GOP is, and has been, engaged in a RINO hunt for years now. Of what possible purpose could it serve? Clearly, the goal is purity. If there is another possible rationale, please somebody tell me, but all I (or anybody else I know) can figure out is purity. By definition, driving people out of your group makes your group smaller. Its basic human nature that telling someone “I don’t like you, go away” makes them less likely to want to support you. Shrinking your group, driving away support, and rejecting people means you get less votes.

    This is political suicide.

    As I said, I’m amused personally by this. But objectively, it is both mystifying and troubling. Mystifying because I can’t see any possible fact pattern that makes this a winning electoral strategy. Troubling because while the tension between the two Parties is a drain on resources and energy, it is healthy (IMO) for America. Again IMO the only reason the GOP hasn’t been utterly destroyed is because the Dems are so staggeringly incompetent. Imagine if the situation were reversed — the GOP had the Bully Pulpit, and the Dems were actively trying to discourage anybody from voting for them unless they were vegan Goddess-worshippers. The GOP would ridicule them into irrevelance before October.

    IMO the only reason feeding this fringe is going forward is the fact that Obama is black. I know most on the Right disagree with me, but can anybody tell me what is so demonstrably different (aside from skin color) between Obama and Clinton? Bill Clinton was accused of having Vince Foster murdered. While married, he stuck cigars up Lewinski’s unmentionable. He sold the Lincoln Bedroom for political cash. He was accused of shady buisness dealings. ALL of these things are far worse than anything Obama did, or has done.

    But the howls of protest wern’t a 1/10th of what they are with Obama. Did they dislike Clinton? Sure. Did they hate him? Sure. Did they talk about refreshing the tree of liberty and overthrowing our Socialist oppressors? A few, but they were wearing tinfoil hats. Just look at the hatred Obama has generated, and for what? National Healthcare? That’s been something the nation has been talking about and working for for 50 years. TARP? That’s (a) not a policy goal but rather a response to a massive disaster and (b) Obama didn’t do it. What else? I’m no fan of Obama — he’s okay (and a damn sight better than the last Administration), but he’s not anything more than a competent President. I’ll entertain any reason to think he’s the Antichrist (I love hating politicians of both stripes), but I need a reason. What has Obama done or said he would do that is radically different from any other (white) Democratic President? Hell . . .than any other President period? There will always be whackjobbers that see hidden meaning in innocent actions, but for this large number of Americans to actively FEAR Obama is mystifying.

    Unless its a black thing. Then it actually makes sense. Not a hand-rubbing evil-cackling, “How can we oppress the Black Man” type of racism, but the lingering minor uncomfort that older people still feel toward blacks (or Mexicans, or anything different than the nicely ethnically-divided neighborhoods they remember). Its not evil, its not intentional, its not that strong . . . but its real. And I think the manifestation is right there on the table.

    The purity purges are dangerous because, whether its in 2 years or 6, Obama ain’t gonna be there eventually. And this latent racist streak thats keeping the fires going will sputter out (I promise you the next Democratic presidental candidate will NOT be black). And once the black target isn’t there, the GOP is going to find itself without any friends. As The Tea Party loves to keep saying, they aren’t a politcal Party. Sure, Tea Party back candidates have wone seats, but how many wern’t backed by the GOP as well? How many pure TP candidates have won office? And even when one or two eventually win some seat somehwere, that’s nothing. Hell, Lyndon LaRouche occasionally gets a candidate on some district seat in a State. But to weild REAL political power, its the GOP, the Dems, or nothing. and with the GOP dead and the TP marginalized without the black straw man to fear, that leaves no real options for me.

    Politics is the art of the compromise. Purges are the embodiment of not compromising. that’s a fatal policy for the GOP, and that’s a fatal long-term plan for America.

    That’s why I care.

  • msmilack // Sep 3, 2010 at 9:48 am

    David Addington could as easily be in jail. Why are the most extreme former government employees rewarded instead of penalized for the harm they caused?

  • DFL // Sep 3, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Dick Cheney is one of the cancers of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. So the Heritage Foundation is engulfed?

  • Proud Independent // Sep 3, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Busboy -

    You can’t see or hear me, but I am giving you a standing ovation. I came to frumforum for the reasonable dialogue. Your post is a confirmation of that belief. Ideaology is not governing in such a diverse, multicultural country. Bravo for such a reasoned and articulate post.

  • GEValle // Sep 3, 2010 at 11:30 am

    SUH-WEET!

    Any protege’ of Cheney’s is good for the Heritage Foundation…And good for the USA, by proxy.

    Let the RINO/CINO purge roll-on! If any of you so-called “moderates” wanna’ vote for the Dems now (which is where you belong, anyway), go ahead.

    What goes around comes around. You “moderate” pansies have been wanting to consign real Conservatives to the wasteland for years. Well now it’s come back to bite your sizeable, doughy butts! You are either with us, or you’re against us. Period.

  • sdspringy // Sep 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Like most Libs Busboy33 misstates the argument concerning abortion. Conservative feel it’s a state issue, and that at the federal level taxpayer money should not be used to fund abortions.
    Is that so hard to understand?

    However Bus and Balc adhere to the Pete Stark approach that the Federal government actually has no limits on it’s authority.

    Auto bailouts, healthcare and insurance mandates, TARP as a never ending slush fund for the administration, we really didn’t elect a competent person to the Presidency but a high handycapper, golf pro wanna be.

    Of course criticism of Obama can’t be based on his inability to articulate without a teleprompter or his lame policies. Or his constant apologies, and fingerpointing to the previous administration. Or even the fact as President he has bowed to everyone but his own Caddy, which now places the social status of President right above that of Kim Jong-il.

    Conservatives or TeaParty members are racist, bigots, and just lowdown dirty Average racist Joes for even suggesting that these last 2 years are wacked.
    And now as the conservative majority begins to mobilize, the intellectual Republicans like David are freaked. They are more worried about losing status than winning the election.

  • Rabiner // Sep 3, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    sdspringy:

    It’s funny that you rail against an ‘insurance mandate’ when it was conservatives who proposed such a policy prescription first in 1993. Many people supporting it then are still in Congress today. TARP was also proposed by the Bush Administration, not Democrats.

    Can a high handy cap golfer be a competent President? I don’t think they’re exclusive traits.

  • sdspringy // Sep 3, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Tarp and other irrespnsible fiscal policies have caused the Republicans to lose more votes than it did for the Dems.
    The main reason is Dems have no problem what so ever to federal spending, the bigger, the better.
    Conservatives and by extension Republicans are not supportive of that kind of policy. That is a major factor for Republican loses in 06, 08, a nonexistant fiscal policy which was in any way different than a Dems/Lib.
    And a single intellectuals Republican, proposing a insurance mandate is not an encompassing policy statement for Conservative in general

    You can be a good golfer or a good President, can’t be both.

  • Rabiner // Sep 3, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    sdspringy:

    “And a single intellectuals Republican, proposing a insurance mandate is not an encompassing policy statement for Conservative in general”

    Except Conservatives developed the policy position and justified it as superior to other alternatives to get universal coverage. So it seems to be an ‘encompassing’ policy of Conservatism.

    “You can be a good golfer or a good President, can’t be both.”

    And why is that? It’s a pretty blunt and ridiculous statement on its face.

  • Oldskool // Sep 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    “make sure to chase off EVERYBODY, then you’ll have tons of members!”

    I think the plan is get membership low enough to hold their convention inside a phone booth.

  • balconesfault // Sep 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    Of course criticism of Obama can’t be based on his inability to articulate without a teleprompter

    Well yeah – that’s because anyone who’s watched any of a number of interviews Obama has conducted without teleprompters knows that’s like criticizing Albert Pujols on his inability to hit the curve ball.

  • busboy33 // Sep 3, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    @sdspringy:

    “Conservative feel it’s a state issue”

    Baloney. Many Conservatives feel it is murder. That’s not a State-vs-Federal issue. You don’t walk into a Church and shoot an abortion doctor because of your distress at overreaching Federal Legislation. You don’t call a fetus “the unborn” to highlight jurisdictional issues.

    That’s actually not that hard to understand at all.

    “However Bus and Balc adhere to the Pete Stark approach that the Federal government actually has no limits on it’s authority.”

    Oddly, I’ve never said that at all. But, like most Far Right nutjobs, you can only see things in binary. Either I agree with you, or I am advocating for an overwhelming Police State to dictate what cornflakes I can eat for breakfast.

    There’s a name for that sort of “debate” tactic — reducto ad absurdam. It usually indicates you either can’t form a coherent thought, don’t know what the hell you are talking about, or are to scared to actually address the issue on the table. Amazingly, you seem to exemplify all three.

    “Auto bailouts, healthcare and insurance mandates, TARP as a never ending slush fund for the administration, we really didn’t elect a competent person to the Presidency but a high handycapper, golf pro wanna be.”

    Really? I’m laughing at you right now, and judging from the other responses you’re getting here (and in most of the other threads) I’m not the only one.

    “Of course criticism of Obama can’t be based on his inability to articulate without a teleprompter or his lame policies.”

    Hmmmmm . . . didn’t you just get done saying that the problem was support for overreaching Federalism, bailing out the auto industry, and Obama’s deep desire to play golf? Now its his inability to speak?

    Can’t articulate without a teleprompter? Guess you never saw any of his townhall meetings . . . y’know, the ones where they actually allow citizens in to ask questions that aren’t pre-screened?

    The saddest thing is, this desperate nonsense is only convincing me that you actually have no real complaints. This is how children whine. He’s ugly! And he stinks! And he took my cookies! And he’s dead! And he’s too tall! And he’s too short! And he’s . . .

    I do want to thank you springy — you illustrate what’s wrong with the Far Right, and why I don’t want petulant children like you running my country.

    “Conservatives or TeaParty members are racist, bigots, and just lowdown dirty Average racist Joes for even suggesting that these last 2 years are wacked.”

    Oh, please. You’ve been complaining since before he was elected. You’ve whined about the end of the world every single day. You’re not complaining about how bad the last two years have been . . . you’re complaining about the fact that Obama is President. Before he did a single thing, you were angry. You hate Obama personally, not for what he’s done.

    What could that possibly be about? If the best answer is you nonsensical crap, then I’m still left with the only obvious answer. Occam’s razor is a wonderful tool for cutting thru bulls**t, you know.

  • forkboy1965 // Sep 3, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    Get on with your bad self, busboy33! That was all sorts of shades of awesome.

  • SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 4, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Like some other posters at FF, I came to this site in search of well-reasoned and intelligent ideas and arguments by conservatives. Like practically all posters here, I felt that the most prominent members of the Right and the GOP had become a gross misrepresentation of what that side of the political spectrum really had to offer.

    After nearly 2 years, I do believe that much of the best that the Right and the GOP have to offer can indeed be found here among both Frum and his contributors as well as many of the posters like SDSpringy, Sinz, WillyP, Carney, JeninCT and several others. When you compare both the opinions of these writers and the rationales they offer for their opinions with those offered by conservatives at other right-of-center sites, I think these guys are clearly superior. And, because of this, I have never been more convinced that the Right is utterly intellectually bankrupt.

    I say this not necessarily because I disagree with their positions. I say this because of their complete inability to articulate how, based on actual facts and logical consistencies, they’ve concluded their positions are the right ones.

    The above dialogue between Busboy33 and SDSpringy is about as close to a maiming that printed words can come. What’s worse is that SDSpringy almost certainly has no clue that he was the victim. If Springy had any self-awareness or self-respect, he would change his username after the intellectual beatdown that Busboy just gave him.

    I truly do not mean to insult anyone, but I’m pretty sure that the only people left who are defending the ideas and practices of the Right are people who are intellectually inferior to those who oppose the ideas and practices of the Right.

Leave a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.