Milbank claims Beck’s method for success is simple, “He goes places where others are forbidden by conscience.” Or in other words, other conservative talk show hosts have standards, scruples, integrity, shame, etc., but Beck isn’t constrained by such things. Beck says whatever he wants to say for the sake of ratings and nothing else. As evidence, he brings up Beck’s mentions of “Death panels? Government health insurance for dogs? FEMA concentration camps? An Obama ‘civilian national security force’ like Hitler’s SS or Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard? An administration official advocating forced abortions and sterilization agents in drinking water?”

In other words, Milbank is implying there is no credible evidence for government-run health care death panels or any of the other items in that list. Anyone who seriously brings up these items as criticism for our government does not have a conscience, or is defying it.

But Dana, there is evidence for death panels. Obama himself gave evidence of his support for the rationing of care that would be the domain of “death panels” in his famous “take the pill” statement. Whenever a government bureaucrat makes decisions in situations that affect the life and death of a patient, rather than leaving that up to the patient and doctor to decide, then you’ve got a death panel. You might argue that it’s the same when a life insurance tells grandma to take the pill instead of getting a pace-maker, but no, it isn’t, because when the government becomes involved, there will only be one choice. The current system, with its problems, at least gives me some options, however limited and expensive they may already be due to government regulations.

As for the other items in the list, they aren’t necessarily made up, or the domain of crazy, half-brained conspiracy theorists, except for the FEMA concentration camp item, which Beck actually debunked. And just because Glenn asks a question, doesn’t mean he’s making a claim. He’s trying to figure out what’s true and what isn’t, and if something gets traction and can’t be dismissed out of hand, then he’ll do the research until he figures out what’s going on.

But the ultimate insults Milbank brings to bear, which has become the popular thing to accuse Beck of over the past year or two, is that “There’s scant evidence that Beck holds his zany views with any conviction…” That is, he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, he just says it because it works. How ironic for the left to accuse Beck of such a thing, when it is the left that engages in exactly this behavior. A case of projection, perhaps? We don’t have to look any further than Obama’s campaign statements of 2008 and compare them to his actions in 2009 to see that there are those on the left who are willing to say anything to get elected, even if it’s the opposite of what they intend to do once in office. On the other hand, what evidence does Milbank have that Beck doesn’t believe what he says? Well, to borrow Milbank’s term, it’s “scant”. Apparently so are Milbank’s journalistic qualifications.

Of course Limbaugh knew this would be inflamatory, would be taken the wrong way, and would result in millions who didn’t know him being exposed to him, many of who would become listeners and therefore pour even more gobs of money into his enterprise. But what did Limbaugh really mean, and how else could you take it as being offensive? It’s fairly simple to explain, and we can do so by comparing Presidents Obama and Bush and how their adversaries view them.

Failure vs. Failure

There are two ways to look at Limbaugh’s statement. Either he wants Obama to fail in implementing his stated policies, or he wants Obama to fail as President, regardless of his policies. Limbaugh clearly meant he wanted Obama’s policies to fail. His full statement wherein he said “I hope Obama fails” was:

“Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

For Rush, Obama represents liberalism, and Rush hopes that liberal policies aren’t implemented. In that sense, he wants Obama to fail. He wants him to fail to implement liberal policies. This is quite different than saying he wants Obama to fail as a President. If Obama were espousing policies Rush agreed with, you can be sure Rush would be wanting Obama to succeed.

Contrast this with how Bush was treated. During the Bush years the Democrat party didn’t care what Bush did or what his policies were. They wanted him to fail as a President because he was a Republican and in their minds anything a Republican does is bad, even if it’s what they would do. Any piece of legislation can be bad or good based on whether Democrats or Republicans support it. Even when President Bush signed bills that would normally be favored by Democrats (No Child Left Behind, Medicare benefit for seniors, etc.) they bad-mouthed these plans and tried to make them fail in order to make Bush look bad so that they could restore Democrats to power, and obviously is has worked. Of course it hasn’t helped the country much, but at least Democrats are in power, and for Pelosi and Reid that’s what appears to really matter.

And so the liberals have described Rush (and by extension all conservatives and Republicans) as wanting Obama to fail rather than simply wanting his liberal policies to fail. They do it either knowingly because it’s politically expedient, or unknowingly because it’s what they would do, and indeed did, when presented with the chance.

I don’t care about the unions donating to political parties. I don’t care about how much union heads get paid. But I do care about their goals and the policies they are trying to enact to achieve them, because some of them will hurt our economy and our country. Here are a few examples from the article:

1. Card-check, aka the Employee Free Choice Act. If you knew nothing about the Employee Free Choice Act other than that it was associated with unions and you had to guess what it was, what would you guess it does? Maybe it allows employees to join a union or not join a union? Actually, it would make it more likely that employees would be coerced into joining a union.

Right now, if the employees of a company vote to start or join a union, they can. But those votes are secret. Nobody knows which employees voted for the union and which didn’t. Unions can make their case to employees, and employers can also make their case. But under the Employee Free Choice Act those votes would no longer be secret. Unions would know who voted for or against unionizing a company, and could target (i.e. harass) those employees. Do you think we’ll see a lot more companies being unionized if this legislation passes? Do you think that means more employees paying dues to a union? Do you think that means more money for Andy Stern? You betcha. Do you think we’ll see improvements in worker conditions and in the economy at large? Mmmm, not so much.

Andy Stern says “Employee free choice is only a process of giving workers the choice of sitting down with their employers about getting raises,” but it sounds like just the opposite. I run a business. My employees can come and talk to me any time about a raise and we can negotiate. If my business was unionized, the unions would be negotiating with me instead of the employees, and they would be negotiating whether or not the employees wanted them to. Unions don’t create a connection between employers and employees, they add a buffer.

2. Minimum binding arbitration. But it doesn’t stop there. Let’s say 51% of the employees of a company vote to join a union. They join a union, and the union comes in to negotiate a contract for 100% of the workers (sorry, no free choice for the 49% who voted against unionizing–everyone joins or you can get a job somewhere else). But what if the employer and the union can’t come to an agreement on a contract? After 120 days it goes to a mediator who listens to both sides and then decides what the contract will be. Who is this mediator who makes this decision, which both employer and union have to agree to? The government, of course. The government will now decide the contract between employers and employees. So much for employers saying “We’ve got such and such a position that pays $10/hr” because the unions will say “No, that position has to pay $20/hr” and when the employer and union can’t agree, the government will come in and say “Let’s compromise and make it $15/hr”. The trouble is, maybe the company can’t make a profit if they’re paying $15/hr for that position. So the company can either get rid of that position entirely (which obviously doesn’t favor workers), or they can start charging more for their products and/or services. This means we, as consumers, end up paying more for those products/services, and that means we’ll buy less of those products and services. If the company is selling less, how does that help workers?

Markets have an uncanny knack for matching up people who are willing to work for $10/hr with companies that are willing to pay $10/hr. When unions and the government come in and start saying “No, you should pay more for this position” then it appears to benefit the worker who now gets $15 instead of $10/hr, but it’s a superficial and short-term view. Applied generally, such market interference hurts companies, economies, and ultimately the very workers the unions are supposed to help.

But as Andy Stern puts it, “It’s not good for America when people fight.” That is, it’s better when unions and the government force businesses to do things then if the businesses can negotiate directly with employees.

3. Universal health care. If health care is a right, why wasn’t it include in the Bill of Rights? Why didn’t the founders of our nation even discuss the issue? But let’s not get into that right now since it’s fairly obvious that people are willing to call anything they want the government to give them a “right”.

But why are unions for universal health care? They’ll say it’s good for workers, but like most things unions propose it isn’t. Frankly, I don’t know why they’re for it because I haven’t researched the connection yet, but I would guess that if you follow the money/power trail, you’ll find your answer.

4. Let’s be more like Europe. What I really have been waiting to get to is the true insanity of Andy Stern, which comes out in his statement “I think Western Europe as much as we used to make fun of it has made different trade-offs which may have ended up with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality.” This statement is so ridiculous as to make me wonder if I’m misunderstanding him, but based on other comments in the article I think he means exactly what he’s saying.

Just to make sure we all understand the economy of Western Europe that Mr. Stern would like to emulate, let’s take a look at a few nations’ unemployment rates, as of 2007:

France – 8%

Germany – 8%

United Kingdom – 5.3%

Italy – 6.2%

Spain – 7.3%

Compare those to the United States’ unemployment rate of 4.6% at the same time. Obviously that has gone up in recent months, but the unemployment rates of Western Europe have likely also gone up as a result of the current economic downturn.

Does Mr. Stern truly believe this country would trade our unemployment rate for that of Western Europe for the sake of equality? There are two ways this “equality” can take place–higher wages for workers while keep executive pay where it is, or lowering executive pay while keeping worker wages stable.

Obviously workers would like to be paid more, but Mr. Stern himself admits to the connection between higher wages as a result of union negotiations and/or government decree and higher rates of unemployment. There is a trade-off and there’s no way around it. But the absurdity of the argument is plain. Given the choice, would anyone prefer equality over employment? Are autoworkers at the Detroit 3 more worried about what the execs are getting paid or whether or not they’ll have a job next year? Would you be willing to sacrifice your job if you knew it would help your co-worker earn more so that the gap between workers and execs would shrink? Would you be happy to give up your job if you knew the CEO was getting a pay cut? Many people might gripe about executive compensation, but I wager it would be tough to find a single employee in the entire country who would prefer equality over employment.

Ironically, Mr. Stern argues that China, which has no unions, has no incentive to innovate or use workers efficiently because they have an abundant supply of cheap labor. But in fact the standard of living in China for a majority of the population has risen dramatically since 1978. Of course China is not a model for the US, except in the sense that they’re moving in the right direction. We, however, seem to be rushing to meet them and go the other way.

A paragraph or two ago I said that there is a trade-off between higher wages and unemployment and there’s no way around it. This is true if the higher wages are due to non-market interference. Markets do quite well at raising the wages of workers while keeping unemployment low, provided the markets are allowed to function more or less freely. Yes, I know that union wages generally are higher than non-union wages, but at what cost?

2. Suppression of free speech. The Nazis suspended German laws guaranteeing free speech soon after Hitler took power. The Fairness Doctrine in the US was abolished in August 1987, with the FCC stating “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,”. But Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi, Richard Durbin, and John Kerry have all made statements in favor of reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, which effectively gives government the power to regulate media and promote their viewpoint, since there is no objective way to determine whether a particular media source is subjective or objective itself.

We also see a non-institutionalized but widespread suppression of speech in the entertainment industry where, ironically, virtually all persons would claim to be fervent supporters of free speech. And yet if someone in the industry promotes a conservative viewpoint, they are blacklisted and barred from further employment in that industry in what can only bring to to mind the McCarthyism of the 40s and 50s except that the tables have been turned.

3. Easily swayed by propaganda. The Nazis understood the power of branding, marketing, and advertising, and so do Democrats. You could say that Republicans do too, but you’d have a weak case because their marketing stinks. Just as Hitler promised a better life for Germans emerging from financial and social ruin and used that rhetoric to come to power, today Democrats also promise “a better life” without providing details of what that means or what the means are by which they will provide that better life. Hence the current phenomenon wherein Barack Obama can campaign on nothing more than a slogan of hope and change and succeed in rallying legions of followers, many of whom apparently cannot name a single policy Barack plans to enact if elected President.