Excuse Me, I Am Not A Colluder. Pardon Me, Could You Say That Louder?

The president has declared that he has “complete power to pardon,” which may be almost true in a narrow legal sense (asserting power to judge his own case is dubious).  He may yet pardon his son, son-in-law, and who knows who else.  He may be able to remove Robert Mueller, and that would be a major crisis if Congress did not respond forcefully.  But the larger issue for a democratic republic in which consent of the governed is inalienable is this: what’s our next move as citizens?   We who are citizens and voters have the final power to grant reprieves and pardons in the larger sense.  Some of us, perhaps clinging to a confirmation bias, believe the president is trying to make things better, if only it weren’t for the swamp-dweller lobbyists/Democrats/leftists/snowflake slackers/deep state.  Some of us, that is, are not yet ready to let go of our pleasant fantasy of victimhood, even when our political party controls the presidency, the House and Senate, and the highest court.  Others of us, suffering from unpacified forgetting, are still fighting over the 2016 Democratic primaries.  My hope is that most of us, who are hoping above all that the government will be focused on serving, protecting, and increasing opportunities for as many Americans as possible, will bother to let our representatives know how we feel, and then vote at every opportunity to renew and refresh our government, showing no reprieve and no pardon for those who have unrepentantly abused the public trust.

No Such Thing As An Unfunded Mandate Here!

Happy 100th birthday to the Federal Reserve!  I take no position here on whether the Fed is an illegitimate usurper, or whether we ought to go back to the gold standard (abandoned by noted pinko Richard Nixon, if I remember correctly).  I just feel that any centenarian deserves a certain respect.

As interested parties around the world await news on the “tapering” of Fed bond purchasing, let me say simply that the Fed’s dual mandate–“to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates” (since 1977, per Congress’ revision of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act)–is a work-in-progress, but a project with a rosier long-term horizon than, for instance, Bitcoin.  Why so?  It helps a lot to have a mandate, or two, with 300 million reasonably productive people and considerable political legitimacy behind it.  With all the bickering in Washington, if the Senate ever blockaded a nominee for Fed chair or revised the Federal Reserve Act to micromanage its quasi-public, quasi-private operations, then we would know that our political/economic system is in big trouble.  Even the wonderful structure of checks and balances and separation of powers could not protect us from that kind of indiscreet legislation.

As it stands, the great thing about the Fed–and a source of worry should it fade away or collapse–is that it suffers from no unfunded mandates, insofar as people and institutions around the world trust it.  The Fed snaps its fingers, and don’t think too hard about fighting it unless you have money to burn.

Their Usual Faffing About Won’t Do The Trick–Congress Needs A Long Nap

Dilly-dallying won’t do it. All 535 need plenty of sleep, and some of the worst–no need to name names, I expect–may need 24 full hours just to begin clearing the gunk out of their toxin-filled brains.

Rhetoricians Of Reaction Make An Exception To The Exception

The “rhetoric of reaction,” as described by Albert O. Hirschman in 1991, expresses suspicion of government via three theses: perversity, futility, and jeopardy. “According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to ‘make a dent.’ Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishments” (Rhetoric of Reaction, p. 7). Hirschman notes that these three theses may be used by progressives when conservatives are in power, but that perversity, futility, and jeopardy are arguments used primarily by counter-modern reactionaries.

Republicans in Congress have taken this rhetoric of reaction to new lows in their refusal, for example, to make any constructive tweaks to the Affordable Care Act. For decades, Republicans have, however, made an exception to their suspicion of government when it came to supporting the military, and the President as their Commander-in-Chief. Now, for President Obama, most seem to be making an exception to the exception. This is not to say President Obama has a foolproof plan, but Congress has not usually required that of Presidents before giving them latitude to strike or threaten credibly to do so. The divided Democratic caucus is a story for another day–as is the intentionality, or not, of John Kerry‘s utterances.

Care For Jam With Your Freedom Muffin?

The NY Post cover yesterday showed a funhouse image of President Obama in the Oval Office with the headlines “The Buck Does Not Stop Here!” and “Obama punts on Syria.” The other leading right-wing media organ, that is the WSJ, took a slightly higher road: “Obama recklessly gambles with American credibility.”

Many In Congress–Democrats as well as Republicans–might have preferred to not take a vote, so as to have the luxury of critique without fingerprints. President Obama deprived them of that easy path. Even though he did signal that he might go ahead with some kind of military action without Congressional authorization, I think that is quite unlikely. The political right is outraged whether Obama shows scrupulous respect for Congress’ Article One prerogatives or not. Their squeals are especially loud now that Obama has forced them out of their comfy Obamacare repeal fantasy zone and into the political open. Which is not to say Mr. Obama has a clear plan.

P.S. Are we likely to see the Murdoch-owned press show Cameron as a cheddar-cheese eating surrender monkey and Francois Hollande as a heroic Gallic Asterix? Will we (as has been tweeted already) have to call our breakfast food freedom muffins?