The Weltanschauungen of Obama and Dayton

    The German word “Weltanschauung” refers to a world view. The power of an Weltanschauung was on display last week in two events–one involving President Obama responding to critics of his presidency and specifically his foreign policy, the other in Minnesota Governor  Mark Dayton delivering his State of the State address.  While the media largely covered these stories as political or campaign speeches, they missed the deeper meaning or world views that both contained. 
    First, consider a New York Times article this week where President Obama responds to his critics, especially John McCain, who assail him for his reluctance to use military force to respond to political crises across the world.  McCain and others have criticized Obama for being indecisive in Syria, Iran (and nuclear weapons), the China-Japan dispute, and now again in Ukraine and Russia.  Obama declared: “Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force,” Mr. Obama said, “after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous cost to our troops and to our budget. And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?”
    Obama and McCain, as I argued back in 2008 during their presidential contest, are generational politicians, affected by events that helped shape their generation’s view of foreign policy.  For McCain the image of him and his generation is that of 1938–It is British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returning from Munich with an agreement to concede Czechoslovakia to Hitler.  Chamberlain’s speech is infamous, with him declaring “I believe it is peace for our time...”  Soon after this speech Hitler invaded Poland and WW II commenced.
    Chamberlain’s speech is mocked as naivete.  It is a message that many of McCain’s generation took as a message that we should never appease dictators since they cannot be trusted.  All that they understand is force and power.  The message of WW II is that American Military might  succeeded, the failure of Vietnam is that we did not use enough military might, and that the Cold War was won because of American military superiority.  This is the Weltanschauung of McCain.
    Conversely, there is a second video clip–that of US helicopters evacuating the US Embassy  in Saigon in 1975 after the fall of Vietnam.  It is a video about the limits and failures of US military power and about why war and force is not always the answer.  This is the video clip that affected many Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, including Obama.
    To Understand Obama and McCain one needs to understand how appeasement and Saigon  affect their thinking and that of their generation.  Both events are world views, paradigms that define how many people of each of their generations define and interpret the world.    McCain sees Assad  and Putin as Hitlers, negotiation is only appeasement and the only message either of them understand is force.  Obama is thus foolish to think that negotiation with them will solve anything.  Conversely, Obama reacts against war and force, especially unilateral action, seeing it potentially as backfiring.  Obama’s world view is reinforced by Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Both Obama and McCain are blinded by their Weltanschauungen.  Neither can see beyond  their video clips to see when and how negotiation and force (or at least its threat) combine together  to form an effective foreign policy.  Moreover, Obama’s faith in talks and not threats also defines his domestic policy of dealing with Congress–an infinite faith in negotiation and talk.  Obama bristles when negatively compared to Lyndon Johnson, the master president when it comes to strong arming both friends and foes into deals.  Obama is no LBJ and he cannot be one–that is just not his  Weltanschauung about how politics and the world operates.

Mark Dayton’s Minnesota
    Mark Dayton’s State of the State address was widely reported as a campaign speech.  It described what he promised as candidate, what he has done, and what he hopes to do if re-elected.  But reporters missed a deeper meaning.  It was the Weltanschauung of Dayton, a view that defends the role of the state in improving the quality of life of Minnesotans.  To me the most important line in the whole speech came near the beginning.  After describing some of the policies of his administration and the role he sees that they had in job creation, Dayton declares: “
Some people believe there is no role for government in private sector expansion and job creation.  To see that they’re mistaken, just look around Minnesota.”
    Dayton’s speech presented the case for government.  It is the case for how government can make a positive impact in our lives.  It is an ideology that once brought us the Minnesota Miracle, the Good Life of the 1970s that put the state and Governor Anderson on the cover of Time magazine.  His view stands on contrast to his Republican rivals who have a different view.  Kurt Zellers stated his view well: So, that would be my vision, getting government out of the way, off the backs and out of the pockets of all Minnesotans.”  Government does not create jobs, the private sector does.
    Dayton’s speech set up not just a contrast between himself and his opponents but also a contrast between rival views of Minnesota and government.  He sees his Weltanschauung as having state government critical to Minnesota’s good life, while the opponent’s view will not produce the  quality of life Minnesota once knew and which it can have again.  It is a retrospective world view that takes us back in time before Reagan.  For the Republicans, their world view is also retrospective, echoing the spirit of Reagan while perhaps in reality taking us even further back to a pre New Deal era.  Dayton and his Republican opponents have world views that capture their generations, speaking to their visions and beliefs about the worlds they experienced and the one’s they would like to see.
    Weltanschauungen are powerful lenses that define our worlds.  In Obama and Dayton we see great examples of both and how they define their performances and views of the world and state.

The Minnesota Budget Deal: Lipstick on a Pig

The deal that ended the government shutdown in Minnesota was terrible both in how it was negotiated and in what it produced. While initially all parties who negotiated it described it as bad, increasingly they are defending it, seeking to find beauty in its ugliness. Yet let’s call this effort what it is—putting lipstick on a pig!

A Bad Budget Process

The government is shutdown. Barricades block access to the capitol. The legislature is suspended. The press and public are barred from observing negotiations. The opposition is kept in the dark. Once a deal is struck and the legislature is allowed to meet the public is given little notice about their deliberations which take place in the dark of the night. Members are restricted in their debate; they have no time to read the bills. They are told to vote for the bills and ordered to be finished by dawn. Sound like politics in a dictatorship or former communist country? Welcome to Minnesota.

From the week before the shutdown to the ugly end last Wednesday, Minnesota was a model in anti-democratic politics that violated all accepted norms of transparency, openness, and accountability. The Republican leadership and Governor Mark Dayton insisted on secrecy to allow for candidate debate, demonstrating hostility to democracy, a contempt for process, and an indifference to open government. What they did is possibly also illegal, violating Minnesota Statutes §13.D, the Open Meetings Law. Were a local government to have done what the legislature and the governor did it would violate the law. The process was bad.

And A Bad Budget Deal

But did the ends justify the means? Did the bad process produce a good result? Except for the delirious who have to salvage something out of it, no one likes the deal struck. But there are two types of dislikes. One is where everyone has to give but the final product is good for the state. The other is where everyone gives and it is bad for the state. The deal struck is the latter.

The budget deal is bad for Minnesota. Nothing was done to address the long term structural deficit the state faces; it is more budget gimmicks. K-12 faces more shifts and possibly borrowing from schools that never gets repaid. Minnesota’s competitive economic edge has historically resided in its highly educated workforce. Yet the budget deal sacrifices long term welfare and economic good for the state, continuing a repeated raiding of education money that questions how much of a priority Minnesota really places on schools.

The tobacco settlement money gets robbed, diverting it from the stated purpose to address health costs and education surrounding smoking. The borrowing here off the tobacco money means increased debt for the state. Thus, Minnesota continues to borrow and shift debt to the future in ways similar to what federal government has done for years. It is no different than paying off one credit card with another. In 2013 Minnesota will be back to the same place it is now. Minnesota is effectively deficit spending but budget tricks and borrowing hide that reality.

In short, long term problems and needed investments are sacrificed to end the current shutdown crisis. The governor and the legislature shut Minnesota government down to reach this deal? Given how bad it was, maybe it would have been better to continue the shutdown.

The Leadership Crisis

But why such a bad deal? One can point to political gridlock, dueling claims of political mandates, ideological polarization, and a host of other issues. But ultimately the blame comes down to a lack of leadership among the three principals–Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, Speaker of the House Kurt Zellers, and Governor Dayton.

But why the lack of leadership? One answer is that all are inexperienced. None of them had ever been responsible for moving a budget through the legislature. For Koch and Zellers, they are new leaders heading up caucuses for the first time in years in the majority, composed of many new members and rookie committee chairs. They were not up to the job. For Dayton, the lack of leadership was surprising given his resume. Yet his experience in executive positions is distant, his relationship with the DFL party has always been fragile, and this was his first time shepherding a budget through the legislature.

Terrific, Minnesota’s political leadership this year were rookies and JVs.

So here is the leadership deficit: If this is the best deal Dayton, Koch, and Zellers can negotiate, with a process that was undemocratic and possibly illegal, then that questions their ability to lead the state and their parties. The three should have never let Minnesota get to this place.

Detached Reality and Altered States: The GOP Response to the Dayton Budget

"This budget is detached from the reality every other state has recognized," Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Zellers.

That's how Speaker Zellers describes Governor Dayton’s budget, especially the provision calling for new taxes on the wealthy. Similarly, Senator Amy Koch, majority leader of the Senate, calls it a “job killing budget.”

Job killing and detached from reality. This is the core argument of the GOP against the Dayton budget. Yet behind the name calling one looks in desperation for the Republican alternative and it has yet to emerge. Just last week Dayton vetoed the $1 billion in cuts the GOP had already suggested. Yet that $1 billion was more than $5 billion short of what is needed, and the GOP has yet to propose how they plan to find the additional money.

The truth is they do not have a solution. Yes they will rant and rave about tax hurting the state economy (little evidence that is true), that there is waste and fraud (little evidence that is true), and that the budget is a job killer (even less evidence that is true). However, they do not have a solution and are afraid to offer one. Why? Two reasons.

First, education, health, and public safety constitute 70%+ of the state budget. Any solution that seeks to address the deficit without cutting these items will not work. As Willie Sutton said when asked why he robs banks: “That is where the money is.” These items include K-12 and other popular programs for health. Cuts to them will be unpopular and the GOP does not want to be the party proposing them. They want to be a majority party beyond 2012 and if they get tagged as the ones who threw grandma out of the nursing home and took books away from Suzie, they are dead. They are hoping Dayton and the DFL take the lead on these cuts and then the GOP can escape blame. Moreover, the $1 billion cuts they suggested so far? Simply trial balloons on programs such as LGA to see how Dayton would react. So far, none of their proposals inflict clear pain upon voters.

The other reason they cannot swallow taxes? Their core constituency seems dead set against it. Tax opposition is the cornerstone of the GOP and the Tea party. To raise taxes is to violate a core belief no matter the reality. To raise taxes means the GOP is no different than the Democrats. To raise taxes also risks alienating many fiscal conservatives who might go elsewhere or not vote if the GOP supports taxes.

Thus the rock and hard place for the MN GOP: Be responsible, compromise, and accept some tax increases on the wealthy along with some spending cuts and risk alienating their base. Oppose tax increases and cut spending to popular programs and lose your majority in 2012. All Dayton and the DFL need to do is figure out how make this GOP dilemma work to their advantage.

Some will argue the GOP can make all these cuts without tax increases, without hurting the state, while also making additional tax cuts, and in the process grow the economy. Sound familiar? About 30 years ago Reagan said he could cut taxes, increase defense spending, and grow the economy without hurting the poor. John Anderson, in running for president against Reagan, said the only way that could be done was with “smoke and mirrors.” He was right then, and now. David Stockman confirmed that.

The basic GOP message on the economy, taxes, and the budget has been smoke and mirrors for 30 years. It has been about cost shifting, fund raiding, program bleeding, living on past spending approaches. It has been about blaming government waste, immigrants, and lazy welfare cheats as the cause of the financial problems we face. It has been about ignoring how the demand for tax cuts to benefit the wealthy have forced a hemorrhaging of the deficit at the national level. It has been about Pawlenty pushing through a law counting inflation for revenue purposes but not for the purposes of state expenditures.

It has been about simply being dishonest about the reality of the budget crisis we are facing. It is about constantly postponing to the future the problems with the present budget and spending scenario. It is about them saying that we do not have a revenue problem but a spending problem. It is about them clinging to a faulty supply theory of economics that is no more than a gloss for tax the poor and give the rich a free lunch.

Dayton’s budget reflects compromises, yet I do not see the compromise coming from the GOP. I give Dayton a lot of credit. His budget is grounded in reality. He is saying to those who got the feast it is time for them to pay for the meal. It is telling those best positioned to bear the risk and costs to assume their burden. It is telling people that we need to ask the best advantaged to stop being so greedy and recognize they have a community duty to pay their debts and help others.

Conversely, Obama and the national GOP are equally culpable in creating the Washington mess. Together they extended Bush era tax cuts that added nearly $1 trillion to the deficit and now both sides are whining that they need to make cuts. Last December Jesse Jackson got it right when he said the tax cuts then meant the poor would lose this spring. Even Pat Buchanan agreed. Obama admitted this week his budget did little to address the bigger structural problems with the budget. No one will do this until after 2012, if then. They have all created a mess they are unwilling to fix.

And then there is Bachmann. She continues to run across the country demanding fiscal accountability and cuts, yet she has no track record on delivering either. She seems more interested in worrying about whether women breast feed in public. Terrific! She has now cornered the anti-lactation vote.

I grew up in the home town of Rod Serling and the Twilight Zone. I know something about altered states. I wonder in the end, who is really living in a different reality.