Consistency & Common Sense
One thing we rely upon is the expectation of consistency and a certain degree of common sense. We like the idea that certain things can be counted upon and that they will make sense to us if we consider them carefully.
Businesses understand this. That’s why fast food chains make their meals the same regardless of the location, why restaurants strive for a consistent presentation of food and service, and transportation companies strive to achieve on-time service. When a company consistently offers a product or service that makes sense, people will continue to use it.
The same should be true when we deal with government. Government services should make sense and perform as predicted. We expect, for example, that traffic laws will be clear and equally enforced, that contracts will be respected and that regulations will be consistently applied.
When people (and governments) develop cooperative arrangements for working together (or competing in a structured manner), a fundamental expectation is that one’s position can be explained, that it will make sense, and that one will act consistently with that position.
A reputation for common sense and consistency (doing things in a predictable manner) is close in importance to a reputation for honesty and integrity.
When we look at candidates and the political parties, it’s natural to look for these traits. How they voted in the past, the values and principles they acted upon or tried to implement, and the clarity of their ideas, are important predictors of what we can expect in the future.
The debates still occurring between Democratic candidates offer an opportunity, when combined with their past history, to assess their potential should they be elected.
Both Democrat candidates have stated that they would disengage from Iraq.
“The most important part of Hillary’s plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq’s civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home.”
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/
“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
In the most recent debate, both Democratic candidates were asked whether they would return troops to Iraq if al Qaeda reestablished a presence there after we withdrew. Senator Clinton declined to respond to this “hypothetical” question. Senator Obama said that he would send troops back.
They both also say they would keep troops in Iraq (or, per Obama, return them there) to fight al Qaeda.
And both say al Qaeda is currently in Iraq (because George Bush invaded Iraq!).
Let’s think about those statements. If al Qaeda is currently fighting us in Iraq, and fighting al Qaeda in Iraq would be worth sending troops back to Iraq, why does it make any sense for Clinton and Obama to remove the troops currently fighting al Qaeda?
Would it make sense to our allies? Or is it just political posturing.
If we’re seeking some common sense and consistency here, it’s not obvious.
Both Democratic candidates have stated they will make affordable health care available to all.
“Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law.”
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
“Hillary’s American Health Choices Plan covers all Americans and improves health care by lowering costs and improving quality. If you want to change plans or aren’t currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare.”
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/
It’s clear that the costs of health insurance are an increasing problem for families and businesses, but proposing government managed health care doesn’t make sense.
Do we really want the government (which brought us FEMA, the IRS, and Amtrak) making decisions on our health care? Does it make sense that government will excel in such a complex and rapidly evolving field as health care?
Regarding consistency, Hillary Clinton was leader of the 1993 Task Force on National Health Care Reform. It met in secret, was successfully sued to force disclosure of its deliberations, and its recommendations were not accepted by the majority Democratic Congress.
Albert Einstein described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Next we should consider what to expect should New Hampshire voters return a Democrat majority to Concord in the next election. What would it do with spending and taxes, assuming that it would be consistent with the performance in the current session and also with the promises made on the NH Democrat Party website?
Ray Chadwick is the Chairman of the Bedford Republican Committee.