President Obama offered to kick the budget-cutting can to Congress. They said no. And then the President, at the State of the Union, said that if Congress won’t pick up the job of doing serious work on his budget, why—he will kick the can to a commission to do the politically unpopular and difficult work of bringing his spending back to reality. [See the New York Times interactive chart: Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal. The chart shows how much was spent last year and the percent of increase as well as setting out the spending for all the different categories: in some cases it is breathtaking how high the proposed increases are and in other cases it is striking how many new categories are being funded.]

On the eve of our struggle for independence a man who might have been one of the greatest among the Founding Fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren, President of the Massachusetts Congress, said to his fellow Americans, "Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of.... On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rests the happiness and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves."

Professor Ceaser discusses why the Obama candidacy was such a cultural event and offers an explanation for President Obama’s rapid first year decline in approval. In the process of advancing his thesis, Mr. Ceaser offers persuasive analysis about: Mr. Obama’s speeches on foreign soil (that many characterized as nothing more than apology tours); why dogma compels the President to persist in criticizing George W. Bush (even at a risk to his domestic political standing); why postpartisanship excludes Republican “retrogrades” (those who “cling to their guns and bibles” are unworthy); and why the President’s approach to Islamic terrorism, while hurting his domestic standing, satisfies a higher calling.

The confluence of the Religion of Humanity with the Obama campaign has every appearance of being a providential event. It was prepared by the advent in the 1990s of an ongoing world public opinion, something that had never previously existed. The focus was on views and attitudes about America, a symbol that was constructed under the guidance of the intellectual vanguard. This symbol, known as anti-Americanism, was given a human face in the first decade of this century when it was joined to the personage of George W. Bush. It was invested with every element deemed to be retrograde: the primacy of the nation, a claim of exceptionalism, and a set of principles—“nature and nature’s god”—grounded in theology and metaphysics. The world was depicted as comprising two fundamental “substances,” Bush and non-Bush, that were locked in a cosmic conflict.

Barack Obama’s coming served as the galvanizing force to carry the day for the cause of progress. Although Obama never conceived himself as playing a universal role when he launched his presidential bid, he awakened at some point in the campaign to the realization that he was no longer running merely for president of the United States. He was being selected for the much grander “office” of leader of a new world community. His credentials for this position were impeccable. Humanity as a concept formally includes everyone, but it is especially favorable to those who have previously been excluded from full recognition. (The old aristocrats, in Comte’s description, were hardly part of Humanity.)

Hugh Hewitt posted an informative discussion from a confidential source [posted here at:   Banker Guy] in the banking and mortgage business about the misguided Obama tax on phantom “massive profits” allegedly accrued by all of the banks. He further explained that the “Volker Rule announced by the President on January 21, 2010 does not produce real reform”and the new agency Mr. Obama wants to create [Consumer Financial Protection Agency (“CFPA”)]will not deal with the underlying reasons for the 2007 failures in the financial industry. Banker Guy also explains how exploding numbers of regulators and regulations are chilling business and limiting access to loans for customers and contaminating the business environment.

This insight from Banker Guy explaining why the Volcker Plan falls short seems to strike at the heart of the problem:

The law of requisite variety states that the solution must be a complex as the problem.  There needs to be comprehensive reform that addresses “too big to fail”, capital requirements and leverage, and brings the shadow banking system under regulation.  The CFPA does none of that.  Instead it creates a czar that will add costs and make it more difficult for consumers to get financial products.  Today at my bank we are attempting to be compliant with over 20 new laws and rules.  All of this has only made getting a mortgage more difficult, more time consuming, and more costly.

How does President Obama view progress? How can we reconcile his statement: “I am not an ideologue” with his populist attacks on business, banking, capitalism, the media, and others? What is the best way to counter the various positions President Obama is advancing that seem so antithetical to past American core values cherished by so many Americans?  

Mr. Mansfield explains Barack Obama’s goal to move beyond politics to a post-partisan era where the issues are settled and the arguments are over. Mr. Obama wants, in other words, to take politics off the table: settle the issues without debating the underlying principles and values and accept his view. And his first target was to finish the health care debate without debating the underlying principle issues. Mr. Obama’s goal according to Professor Mansfield is to “Nudge” us into this choice without realizing that we are not reasoning through the underlying principles nor are we discussing the pros/cons of moving to Mr. Obama’s end game.

What every progressive wants is to put the particular issue he espouses beyond political dispute. Obama wanted, and as his first State of the Union address showed still wants, to put health care beyond politics so that he can be the last president to be concerned with it. He did concede in that speech “philosophical differences” between the parties, “that will always cause us to part ways.” But he did not say what these differences are and seemed to assume that they would only infect “short-term politics” by serving the ambitions of party leaders. True leadership in Republicans would require them to cooperate in the reform despite their ambitions and their philosophy. Once the bill is enacted, health care need only be administered by experts whose main task will be to adjust (i.e., expand) its extent and to cover its costs. The principle will have been decided. It becomes an entitlement that is no longer open to political controversy; it is secure from second thoughts prompted by reactionaries.

I must confess that I didn’t invest enough time in trying to understand what the President’s progressive plan to change America would look like until I heard a man speak out, a man that I think may be our own modern day version of Paul Revere.

While many are shining a light on progressivism [see footnote], there is one man who stands out from the others, a man with a very large bullhorn, his voice reverberating daily from two national platforms with his radio and television programs. And that man is Glenn Beck. And during the last two Fridays in January, 2010, he has delivered his message of warning, “his cry of alarm.” First in a documentary now available on YouTube (Glenn Beck Documentary: "The Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free...Or Die" - 01/22/10), and second in a program on the following Friday, January 30^th, when he shifted his focus to the roots of modern day progressives in the U.S. In fact Hillary Clinton, in the third Democrat debate, said that she would rather be called: a "modern day progressive" than a liberal, or to borrow Mr. Beck’s formulation of a progressive—someone more in favor of evolution than revolution. And so the second program[Glenn Beck- January 29, 2010- "Egghead Hour" (Part 1/5) at YouTube], which Beck called his ‘Egghead Hour, featured three historians who responded to questions about the meaning of progressivism in America, explaining that it is the antithesis of the founder’s governing plan, setting out how the progressive agenda is a dream of a larger central government, an evolving set of laws and rules as deemed necessary by the elites who once having acquired the power will then decide how to use that power. And so you ask, what is wrong with that? We will be governed by the smartest people from the elite schools; won’t they act to optimize my opportunity for happiness, to advance what Charles Murray calls the happiness of the people?

Beck’s two programs in January provide the answers. His documentary traces how the revolutionary plan in Europe and Russia has lead to abuse, less freedom, and a loss of opportunity for happiness. And in the U.S. what would an evolutionary progressive plan look like? How would power be used if it is untethered from the Constitution? If there is no written set of rules governing those in authority then they can make it up: blue pills for everyone over 70! By way of example, evidence that greater power in a central government can lead to abuse should be clear from just two comments by close advisers and confidantes of the President. Ron Bloom, the Manufacturing Czar, said “We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.” [Video and transcript] And Andy Stern, SEIU head, and perhaps the most frequent visitor to the White House who said "We're trying to use the power of persuasion and if that doesn't work, we're gonna use the persuasion of power because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws that affect these companies.” (Video and transcript)

And so there are many dangers ahead: progressivism shifts power to a central government and results in a randomness of action. The founder’s did not want top down government. They did not want a central authority controlling every aspect of how they lived their lives. But perhaps, you might say, we can have a transformational change with a benevolent despot. The founders didn’t want to gamble and take such a chance; they put their faith in anchoring our rights in the Creator and in a written Constitution. For the founders history was clear; such gambles never paid off. Do you want to take the chance or are you going to “waken and listen to hear” the call of our modern day Paul Revere?

Footnote:

Thomas Sowell (A conflict of visions : ideological origins of political struggles); Jonah Goldberg (Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change ); and Hillsdale College, as evidenced by their on line Constitution Town Hall aired on Saturday, January 30^th [web archives permit registration; it is simple and fast and anyone can now listen to the lectures, read the outline and view the documents relied upon at the Constitution Reader, and access the extensive course materials that are linked to each of the topics set forth in the Table of Contents: I. Natural Rights and the American Revolution; II. The Founders on Religion; III. Government under the Articles of Confederation;  IV. Rethinking the Nature of Union and the Structure of Government;   V. The Three Branches of Government;  VI. The Founders on Slavery and the Rise of the Positive Good School, and the Roots of the Secession Crisis;  VII. Crisis of Constitutional Government; VIII. Secession and Civil War;  IX. The Progressive Rejection of the Founding;  X. Institutionalizing Progressivism: The New Deal and the Great Society.]

Our federal government, once limited to certain core functions, now dominates virtually every area of American life. Its authority is all but unquestioned, seemingly restricted only by expediency and the occasional budget constraint.

Congress passes massive pieces of legislation with little serious deliberation, bills that are written in secret and generally unread before the vote. The national legislature is increasingly a supervisory body overseeing a vast array of administrative policymakers and rulemaking agencies. Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of “laws” are promulgated in the guise of “regulations” by bureaucrats who are mostly unaccountable and invisible to the public.
…

We can trace the concept of the modern state back to the theories of Thomas Hobbes, who wanted to replace the old order with an all-powerful “Leviathan” that would impose a new order, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who, to achieve absolute equality, favored an absolute state that would rule over the people through a vaguely defined concept called the “general will.” It was Alexis de Tocqueville who first pointed out the potential for a new form of despotism in such a centralized, egalitarian state: It might not tyrannize, but it would enervate and extinguish liberty by reducing self-governing people “to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”

…

Liberty no longer would be a condition based on human nature and the exercise of God-given natural rights, but a changing concept whose evolution was guided by government. And since the progressives could not get rid of the “old” Constitution — this was seen as neither desirable nor possible, given its elevated status and historic significance in American political life — they invented the idea of a “living” Constitution that would be flexible and pliable, capable of “growth” and adaptation in changing times.

In this view, government must be ever more actively involved in day-to-day American life. Given the goal of boundless social progress, government by definition must itself be boundless. “It is denied that any limit can be set to governmental activity,” prominent scholar (and later FDR adviser) Charles Merriam wrote, summarizing the views of his fellow progressive theorists. “The modern idea as to what is the purpose of the state has radically changed since the days of the ‘Fathers,’” he continued, because ….

…

The Great Society also took the progressive argument one step farther, by asserting that the purpose of government no longer was “to secure these rights,” as the Declaration of Independence says, but “to fulfill these rights.” That was the title of Johnson’s 1965 commencement address at Howard University, in which he laid out the shift from securing equality of opportunity to guaranteeing equality of outcome.

Today, our political class is in a frenzied, forced march to remake America, seemingly indifferent to the unprecedented tea party gatherings of protesters concerned about reckless spending and staggering debt; indifferent to the record breaking crowds attending town hall meetings in their districts--crowds fearful and frantic about the economy and jobs; and indifferent to national polls reflecting record low levels of approval for both the President and Congress. A Gallup poll reports the President’s approval rating at the lowest level ever for any President at a similar 10-month stage of his term. And Gallup’s “Annual Honesty and Ethics of Professions” poll discloses for the first time that a majority—in fact 55% of Americans—say the ethical ratings for Congress are low or very low. And as a further sign of the public’s ringing disapproval the “Right Track/Wrong Track” results revealed in a Real Clear Politics average of four polls find only 34.5% feel we are on the right track and a whopping 59.5% worry that the country is on the wrong track.

The political class in Washington is not only indifferent; they are out of touch with their constituents. You see, they are busy jumping from one complex and unfinished legislative bill to another 1,000-plus page, unintelligible bill; rushing from trillion dollar spending bills to burdensome cap and trade proposals; pushing us towards a Leviathan government-run health care. And all the while, like maggots feasting on rotten pork, they are creating new ways to spend and tax, seeking new ways to curry favor with political interest groups, new ways to expand government, new ways to extend control in a broad and comprehensive way over what were previously individual choices.

Thomas Jefferson said: “When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Today, Jefferson would likely say we have things backwards—our political class does not fear the people. Today our politicians march onward despite constituent concerns and fears. They seem driven, perhaps compelled in search of a fantasy ideology, and the spending rolls on, without regard to constituents concerns, without concern about the pain and the fear they are causing, fear of government action resulting in waves of debt facing the U.S. Government, and a failure of the economy or a collapse of the dollar leading to a coming deficit disaster.

Ben Chavis has now taken his education model public, after turning around AIPCS, turning it around with family, good books, good teachers, a back-to-basics focus, structure, discipline, high expectations, a taste of free market capitalism, accountability and his unique disdain for educational orthodoxy: “Multicultural specialists, ultraliberal zealots, and college-tainted oppression liberators need not apply [for teaching jobs].” But success was not foreordained for his school. In fact, it was just one vote away—within days of Dr. Chavis taking over as principal—from being ordered closed by the school board. I invite you to follow his rescue and recovery, as he replaces a broken faculty, and fixes a dysfunctional curriculum, and imposes structure and discipline on a school without either. On his journey, Dr. Chavis will take away student computers and refuse to offer the federal school lunch program. He will take mirrors out of the student restrooms and require students and parents sign contracts. He will emphasize perfect attendance for all students, paying students at year end if they have zero unexcused absences, and his attendance rates will climb each year from around 65% to about 98%. He will require teachers focus on teaching language arts (reading, writing, grammar) and math each class day, allocating 90 minutes to each subject. He will adopt an educational model that focuses on the student, requiring approved texts, retaining only quality teachers, administering a program of accountability with an emphasis on rewards for achievement and punishment for misconduct.

And during that time, gradually building on success, his middle school’s performance results will slowly climb from subterranean levels to the top of the performance charts, reaching the magic 800, the benchmark of excellence on the California Academic Performance Index, subsequently with breakneck speed the scores climb above 900, distinguishing the school as one of the top 10 in the state, garnering national recognition for his Oakland school. And along the way he sets Olympian goals for his students. Eventually, he expands his model, adding an AIPCS high school and a second middle school in Oakland: both schools continuing to excel.

It is a redemptive journey and there are now AIM-Ed (AIM to Educate) models of Dr. Chavis’ program being replicated in CA and elsewhere in North America. Besides the story about turning around a troubled, dysfunctional school, this book is also an intriguing story about the life of Ben Chavis, a North Carolina Indian, a story about how he came to challenge just about every politically correct, educationally popular elixir in education today. Mr. Chavis learned from his own life lessons what works: focus on teachers in the classroom—eliminate the bureaucracy and ancillary staff positions; focus on teacher-student relationships—require that a teacher be assigned to the same middle school class for all three years and emphasize core subjects; and focus on discipline—breaking down students that are discipline problems and building them up again. And Dr. Chavis blends all of these ingredients into an educational philosophy that works—works with exceptional results, at both the middle school and high school level.

And when you read this book, you will cry the next time you read about the chaotic, inner-city schools with their 50% flunk-out rates, with students graduating who cannot read, and with the huge waste of so much talent. And when you think about what these youngsters from Indian, Asian, and Hispanic poor families in Oakland accomplished, you might just wonder if the education lobby—consisting of too many left wing fantasy ideologists—is so committed to its religious orthodoxy that it would prefer the current school model over academic justice for students? Would they really prefer a model that just keeps plodding along with more failure over a school system that is successful beyond their dreams? In fact, a model that is so successful that every child in the first high school graduating class takes AP calculus and AP literature, 100% of the 2008 - 2009 seniors are accepted to four-year colleges and universities, and every middle school gets test results placing the class in the top 10 in the Academic Performance Index in the State of CA. And if they would prefer dogma over academic justice, then finally we will know that for some: the schools exist for everyone but the students.

And despite a hint of disapproval from Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show on Thursday, October 8, 2009, as he played a clip of the interview with the two ladies singing a song of love to our President for his generosity, stash is actually a pretty accurate term for the “urgent” dollars fleeced from other Americans or their grandchildren in the name of the President’s emergency Stimulus Bill. And in a related report, Rush even spoke approvingly of the “two entrepreneurs” outside Cobo Hall, described by news reports as scam artists, offering to sell readymade applications for $20, Rush expressing a touch of relief and pleasure knowing that the entrepreneurial spark is not dead, even in Detroit.

Apparently, there were no shovel ready jobs for the able bodied in line so they could retain their self respect and earn their checks. Nor was there likely any thought by the White House of tackling the 50% inter-city teen unemployment by lowering the minimum wage for teens and those taking their first job, creating a way for teens to work and contribute rather than take a hand out, opening up opportunities for local businesses to hire an untrained worker at a salary that better reflects the workers lack of skill, and training, and education, and preparedness to comply with the social requirements of a first job.  

Of course the whole idea of our President and the federal government playing Robin Hood was alien to the founders, Mr. Madison remarking: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Two economic reports last week confirm the worst fears of many Americans about the economic acumen of the Obama administration: the Thursday, October 2, declining auto sales report, auto sales plunging by 23%, sales for General Motors crashing 45%, sales for Chrysler collapsing 42%, the report corroborating the concern of critics that the billions spent for clunkers was as bad as any junkyard sale, stealing future sales, exacerbating conditions in an already weak economy reeling from trillions of dollars of spending by the Obama administration, and the Friday, October 3, 2009, Unemployment Numbers, rising to 9.8 percent in September, as employers cut 263,000 jobs, a 26 year high, setting the worst record since 1983, further persuading many Americans that the President’s Stimulus Bill is as ineffective as a committee of Washington politicians trying to write a piece of legislation in plain English.

And as the trillions of dollars of debt pile up, debt as wide as the prairie and as high as the heavens, both the Stimulus Bill and the Cash for Clunkers Bill add to a growing awareness that the President and his team are drifting aimlessly without a Captain at the helm, without a navigator, without anyone who knows the water or can chart a course to a sound economy, or as Vice President Biden aptly put it—we guessed wrong.

The question today is whether or not the President’s dismal loss in Copenhagen, a first round blow-out, garnering a meager 18 of 94 votes, a shellacking seldom experienced even by the hapless Mets, puts Mr. Obama in a decision box, a box limiting his options, requiring him to send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan as requested by General McChrystal, troops the General says are needed if we are to avoid losing the war, denying the President the option of either kicking the can down the road again with a half-measure decision, or walking away from Afghanistan and ordering a total withdrawal of all troops.

In fact, the International Olympic Committee shutout just about requires that he neither pull out as his left-wing base desires, nor that he follow the advice of the Vice President, Mr. Biden apparently arguing for an offshore approach with a reduced force structure, a move strikingly reminiscent of a present vote, a delaying tactic, a move that must surely be attractive to a President in love with the idea of not taking a stand, of not making an either or choice: all in or all out.  

Whether you consider the Copenhagen junket a huge loss of face, on the scale of an 8.2 earthquake, or just a minor tremor, a quivering that removes the thrill from Chris Matthews’ leg, but otherwise passes quickly, Mr. Obama cannot afford to be tagged repeatedly as a “LOSER.”

And another “LOSER” tag is on deck as the Obama administration began talking with the Iranians this past week, looking for ways to walk back their nuclear ambitions, to reset their pell-mell march towards their promised destruction of Israel and the ushering in of the 12^th imam. The smart money expects the Iranians to talk and talk until their bomb is fully operational. Since President Obama has already taken so much off the table it is, arguably, only a matter of time, unless Israel strikes, until Iran has a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama has frequently asserted, however, that Iran would not be allowed to get a nuclear bomb, but such an eventuality is all but built into the game, and when it occurs it will be STRIKE 2 for the President: “LOSER.”

Meanwhile, a game-changing decision is needed in the Afghanistan war, and pulling all troops out of Afghanistan seems to be the President’s preferred position, but a withdrawal at this time would be a clear loss of “the real war,” unlike the diversion in Iraq as Mr. Obama called that conflict. And if the former junior Senator from Illinois rejects the request from General McChrystal for 40,000 more troops, it would be STRIKE 3 for the President: “LOSER.”

Iran and Afghanistan represent clear losses, losses potentially more existential than a failed Olympic bid, a bid where the IOC boots your city in the first round, losses possibly tagging him as a serial loser, perhaps beginning a death knell for his candidacy, ending any cooperation from blue dog democrats, a rallying cry for opponents, a demoralizing strike on Democrat efforts to recruit candidates for the next two elections cycles.

The President’s loss in Copenhagen makes it more likely he will reject any signal of failure in Afghanistan, assuring that he will send the General an additional 40,000 troops, committing him to a counter-insurgency strategy and a protracted war struggle. And so, the President will reluctantly grant the General’s call to add more troops, following LBJ into the abyss—and if he doesn’t do something quickly to fix his draconian Rules of Engagement Afghanistan could turn out worse for him than Vietnam did for LBJ.

What should President Obama say this week to a joint session of Congress about health care reform? Should he repeat another version of his previous “111 health care speeches, interviews, and press conferences in which he’s talked about health care?”Should he send Hillary to Russia to get back the “reset” button? Should he try something else?

Judging by remarks from commentators, if President Obama doesn’t try something else, his message on health care reform won’t persuade. Mark Steyn in The Omnipresent Leader criticizes President Obama: “the more he opens his mouth the more the American people recoil from his ‘reforms.’” And in Obama the Mortal, Charles Krauthammer observes the President’s decline: “The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic.” And Peggy Noonan in Coruscating on Thin Ice declares Mr. Obama has lost the trust of the center: “But the great mass of Americans, the big center, will, I strongly suspect, not be listening. Mr. Obama has grown boring. And it's not Solid Boring, which is fine in a president and may be good. It's sort of Faux Eloquent Boring, especially on health care.” Eventually, everyone on board —even movie goers at this White House—knew the Titanic was going down. President Obama cannot afford to do more of the same—he must try something else—when he speaks to Congress.

 How could the President change course—turn the ship of state—and fundamentally reset his health care reform goals? One way is to take some basic assumptions and reverse them. In his books, Cracking Creativity and Thinkertoys, creativity expert, Michael Michalko explains that by reversing assumptions you broaden your thinking, you change perspective, you often see answers to problems that were not obvious before. 

When Alfred Sloan took over General Motors on the verge of bankruptcy, he reversed some assumptions. At that time, Michalko says the assumption was that “you had to buy a car before you drove it.” But by reversing the assumption “to mean you could buy it while driving it,” Sloan pioneered the concept of installment buying for car dealers. Michalko notes, “Many creative thinkers get their most original ideas when they challenge and reverse the obvious.”

Two of the key assumptions President Obama has been clinging to during his health care reform campaign are that reform needs to be comprehensive and that it can be paid for by taking money from Medicare.

But does health care reform need to be comprehensive? Why can’t the White House reverse the assumption? Why can’t Mr. Obama pursue a series of actions? Why can’t he achieve closure through a series of small wins, building a coalition as he goes along, gaining the confidence of the opposition, enhancing his power to persuade? Why not begin with issues like portability of insurance or an authorization permitting the purchase of medical insurance nationwide, issues where he should be able to get a majority of Republicans to join him?

Part of the “power to persuade” is as old as Aristotle; it is the ethos of the speaker. The President’s poll numbers more likely reflect that the President has lost the public trust than that the public doesn’t understand the health care plan. Health care is too important to have a two-tier discriminatory system. The elderly should be cherished as national assets, not given a “blue pill” and told to take one for the Gipper!  Reverse the assumptions: America can spend more and we can keep our promise to provide quality health care to the elderly—does anyone really believe the cash for clunkers program is a better expenditure of taxpayer funds than 5 more years for granny?

Judging by his declining approval numbers during August, a reset should certainly be considered. In fact, in a recent column, It’s Time for Obama to Change Course, blogger Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics argued that the declining poll numbers threaten the President’s “power to persuade.” And if he wants to advance new health care reforms through Congress, then he needs a course correction. His first recommendation for the President is for him to recognize that “the Cheese stands alone,” alone on the mountain top he stands, and he must act accordingly. Even if it is unpopular with those around him; the call is his alone to make. He has to take charge. He has to chart a course.

 If we just focus on this idea for now that the President has to lead even if advisors or supporters are not completely happy, then how might the President change course? What might the President do if he wanted to recapture the center? What would a fundamental shakeup look like?

One suggestion, by Cost, would be for the President to adopt some of his campaign rhetoric. Following up on that suggestion, the President argued as a candidate that sacrifices—yes, sacrifices—would be asked of everyone. Why not reverse the current assumption that Congress, the unions, and trial lawyers are off limits in the health care debate?

Why not begin by asking the political class to lead by example—a time honored tradition in our military—by announcing that there will not be a two-tiered system? That any reform will apply equally to Congress and the President—and if Congress likes its current health care system and wants to keep it, then they must pass similar coverage for all Medicare recipients. 

The unions were among the President’s biggest supporters. If they won’t sacrifice to help him, why should anyone else agree to inferior care or less care than they currently receive? If our private health spending is “too high because our tax rules lead to the wrong kind of insurance,” the President should urge Congress to close the current health-insurance exclusion even if the unions “are particularly vehement in their opposition to any reduction in the tax subsidy.”

Trial lawyers were big supporters of the President. But needless medical procedures ordered merely to inoculate physicians from litigation are a large part of our health care costs. Why can’t punitive damages, designed to punish a plaintiff for misconduct, be awarded to a government owned trust fund to pay for Medicaid rather than being distributed as a windfall to a plaintiff? Congress could set a 20% compensations rate for lawyers pursuing punitive damages in egregious cases, recognizing their contribution to the public interest.

A fundamental shake-up that shows real leadership might help the President gain the confidence of voters, restoring his credibility and “power to persuade,” garnering him a second chance to see health care reform succeed.

There are many translations of The Consolation of Philosophy (The Consolation), the influential classic written about an imaginary conversation Boethius has with Lady Philosophy while awaiting his execution. So why read Fortune’s Prisoner? How is it different? How is it better?

After reading a translation of The Consolation of Philosophy by David R. Slavitt, in the original style of prosimetric text (alternating prose and verse), I turned to this James Harpur edition offering a collection of just the thirty nine poems. And I am glad I did.

There are several good reasons to purchase this book in addition to a translation of The Consolation. The poems stand together as a complete work by themselves. They are thoughtful, and they are beautiful. Additionally, the author has added several features that I found contributed to a better understanding of the text and verse. First, Appendix II has an excellent overview of each of the five books of The Consolation. Additionally, Harpur gives each of the verses a title, helping the reader to focus on a key idea covered in the poem, and thus meets his stated objective “to suggest the poem’s theme and provide a little orientation.” Furthermore, most of the verses include one or two epigraphs taken either from the verse itself or from an outside source. I enjoyed these thoughtful quotations, and I found they also furthered my understanding of the theme and my enjoyment of the verse. Further, I believe they met the objective of the author: to demonstrate that “Boethius was part of a philosophical and spiritual tradition extending backwards and forwards from his time: indeed ... He preserved and transmitted this tradition.” Fortune’s Prisoner is well worth your consideration.

Education’s End by Anthony Kronman, former Dean of Yale Law School, is an excellent analysis—I highly recommend it—of a critical issue that affects the framework of American society. A thoughtfully planned and carefully balanced argument about the role of the humanities in education, Education’s End exposes the current shortcomings in higher education. For Kronman, the big rocks—the things of value—in education are the questions: What is the meaning of life? How should we spend our time? How can we succeed in the art of living? For much of our history U.S. education included the big rocks; they were part of a college education. Today, this is no longer true.

Kronman reviews what he believes to be an unfortunate path traveled by higher education in the U.S., breaking down the regrettable history into three eras. First, during the antebellum era beginning with the opening of Harvard University, there was a focus on God, a Christian perspective, and an emphasis on “the ancient model of virtue and order.” Second, during the era of secular humanism following the Civil War, there was a focus on family and country, and an emphasis on “modern ideas of individuality and creative freedom.” And third, during our modern era, there is a focus on political correctness and the research ideal. The research ideal places an emphasis on research that restricts scholarship to a narrow field of specialization, and it requires publishing something new with the understanding that any contribution will be superseded.

Chapter 3 (The Research Ideal) is excellent, but Kronman is really just beginning his critique. In Chapter 4 (Political Correctness), he skillfully, but tactfully, slays the three-headed monster of modern political correctness: diversity, multiculturalism, and constructivism (post modernism). After explaining why the natural and social sciences are better able to survive in the current environment, he peels away the layers of misguided intentions that appear to support political correctness exposing the problems for the humanities. For example, discussing why multiculturalism is unacceptable, he explains how “an internal dialogue” carried on by each succeeding generation of thinkers and authors throughout western history offered a unique teaching opportunity that is unavailable in other cultures. Highlighting the weaknesses with each aspect of political correctness, Dean Kronman argues that the status quo short-changes teachers, denies students, and deprives society of a value previously enjoyed during the era of secular humanism.

 Kronman’s arguments are frequently understated, but this book is nothing less than an indictment of how the humanities are taught today: we prepare students for careers, but not for life. Also, he does more than just lament this failure today to ask the big questions. He blames the academy for abandoning a trust respected during the era of secular humanism that it carried forward until the 1960s, keeping alive a continuity—through the humanities—of teaching a curriculum that reached back to the classical era. He explains that this tradition of arts and letters continued a legacy that allowed students to see themselves as a participant in the “great conversation.” As part of that squandered inheritance, Kronman notes the diminished role of the humanities in education today. In the past, humanity teachers felt qualified and confident enough to guide their students through questions about the meaning of life and about how to spend their lives. Unfortunately today few, if any, humanities professors feel it appropriate to ask or instruct on the big question.