- Edwards Releases Senate Fundraising Totals
- Academics Say Higher Education Prepared Them for Higher Office
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: The Mountain Region
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: New England
- Top Races in 2016: The Midwest
The most important word spoken in the CNN/Tea Party Republican presidential debate this month was not “Ponzi.” It was “we.”
When moderator Wolf Blitzer posed the question, “Should we let him die?” after positing a hypothetical coma patient who had refused to buy health insurance before misfortune befell him, he didn’t make clear who “we” were.
In Rick Perry’s “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington,” it’s pretty clear that the Texas governor and Blitzer aren’t talking about the same “we.”
The coma question was aimed at Rep. Ron Paul, Perry’s fellow Texan. But Perry should prepare an answer — it’s likely to come up again, especially after a smattering of people in the audience seemed to agree that, yes, “we” should let the risk-taking patient deal with the consequences of his actions.
The point of Perry’s book and the play on words in its title is that the federal government is not the only “we” at work here and that the massive usurpation of authority by the federal government over the past eight decades has damaged all the other “we’s” in American civil society.
“Fed Up!” is in many ways an outlandish book. It convinces me that when Perry was saying he was undecided about whether to run for president, he was telling the truth. It seems inconceivable that anyone who had already decided to run for president would have written this book — it was published in November 2010 — or have another likely candidate (former Speaker Newt Gingrich) write the foreword.
In other ways, though, it reads like a conventional campaign tome. Perry pays homage to the Founders, praises the 10th Amendment and devotes a chapter to what the government should be doing differently.
Of course, it’s the stuff beyond the conventional that makes “Fed Up!” an interesting read.
Beyond the already well-chronicled presentation of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, Perry delves into detail on the broader vision of the New Deal. He finds it wanting, to say the least. Republicans have been successfully taking potshots at Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, eldest son of the New Deal, for quite a while now. But they’ve never had much success going after Franklin Roosevelt — none when he was alive and little more since his death.
Perry goes right for the progenitor’s jugular, though, referring to the delivered liberal wisdom on the era as “a fraud” that “simply does not stand up to history.” He brings numbers to bolster his case and cites the excellent work of Amity Shlaes and Burton Folsom in offering a revisionist look at the 1930s.comments powered by Disqus