Why We Still Talk About JFK

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

I am on my way from Los Angeles to Dallas, where tomorrow I will appear on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” which will come live out of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. I can’t believe I’ll be inside that place, from which, 50 years ago next week, at a corner window on the sixth floor, Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots that killed John F. Kennedy.

One of the questions we’ll discuss: Why do we still talk about JFK?

From my show notes:

1. We talk still about JFK and his death because the biggest generation in all U.S. history, that part of the population known as the baby boomers, watched it all, live, on that new thing called TV, and it entered our heads and never left. It was the first central historical fact of our lives, so we still read about it, think about it, and watch anything having to do with it.

2. Our parents experienced it as a different kind of trauma. They had lost one of their own. He had fought in World War II, like them. He was still young, like them, and now he was brutally cut down. What a lot of them felt was captured in the famous conversation of the newspaper columnist Mary McGrory and her friend Pat Moynihan. McGrory said: Oh Pat, can you believe we’re at Jack Kennedy’s funeral? “I feel like we’ll never laugh again.” He replied: “We’ll laugh again, but we’ll never be young again.”

3. We talk about JFK’s death because for the 18 years leading up to that point—between the end of the war, as we used to say, and 1963—America knew placidity. Many problems were growing and quietly brewing, but on the surface America was placid, growing more affluent, and politically calm. And then this rupture, this shock, this violence, this new sense that anything can happen, history can be ripped from its rails, that security once won cannot necessarily be maintained. That our luck won’t necessarily hold.

4. And what followed—growing political unrest, cultural spasms, riots at political conventions, more assassinations and assassination attempts—was so different from the years preceding that we couldn’t help look back at JFK’s murder as the breakpoint, the rupture. After that, things turned difficult.

5. Why, after all the historians’ revelations and the stories of the past 30 years—the women, the drug use, the Kennedy White House’s own farfetched efforts to do away with Fidel Castro, the fantastical nature of the Bay of Pigs, the failure of JFK to anticipate and answer the crude communist clichés of Kruschev at Vienna, etc., etc.—why do we continue to hold this special place for JFK? Because in the months and years after his death we fell in love with him as he was presented to us by those who knew and cared about him. Youth, beauty, charm, high intentions, wit, a certain fatalism and, deep down, a certain modesty. “Camelot.” But Camelot isn’t JFK. Camelot is the way we remember America before JFK died. Camelot is the America that existed, for one brief shining moment, before Lee Harvey Oswald began to shoot. a placid-seeming, even predictable place that we have not seen since.

6. We live in now. We live in this world. Right now I can hardly believe it that I am in seat 6B of American Airlines flight 2442, LAX to Dallas-Fort Worth, a few hundred miles west of Los Angeles, mountains and desert stretching below—and I am typing on an iPad, and will press a button, and my editor in New York in just a few seconds will read this and post it on The Wall Street Journal website and you will read it. It still takes my breath away. This is “the age of miracles and wonders.” Some child born now will look back on these days as Camelot.

ObamaCare Disaster Recovery

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

Congress right now has a historic chance—really, it could wind up in the history books next to the stopping of FDR’s court-packing scheme in 1937—to hold back ObamaCare. Congress can delay it, or pass a law mandating or allowing insurance companies to continue insuring everyone they just threw off coverage. Heck, they could try to vote now, under new conditions and with the American people behind them, to repeal the whole thing.

And who knows, they just might.A great deal is possible because the people are coming around to the Republican point of view on the program: They do not like it, do not trust it, do not believe it will make things better. The president got caught—and it’s amazing he did it, because he must have known he’d be caught when the program debuted—dissembling, for three years, as he sold and attempted to popularize his program. In fact if your insurance isn’t provided by an employer or the government, chances are pretty good you will soon lose your policy, your doctor, your premium price.

The White House is getting timorous. They’re losing their usual braggadocio, their burly confidence that they can weather any storm. By now they’ve seen a lot of Titanic cartoons. By now they’re wondering if that music they’re hearing isn’t “Nearer My God to Thee.” The polls show less faith in the president, less trust.

What a fall, and how richly deserved. The administration didn’t care enough to make sure the people of their country were protected. In the middle of a second Age of Anxiety they decided to make Americans more anxious. The next few weeks and months they’ll continue to see the people’s mighty wrath.

The mainstream press is already beginning to peel off. Bill Clinton gave them permission for that. Big Dawg was right: The president has to honor his own word and protect those who trusted him and have been thrown off their plans. The press, and congressional Democrats, are no longer disloyal if they say the same thing.

President ObamaDemocrats in the House seem near to snapping, and you never know what the House will do. They’re elected every two years. They’re always in an election cycle, and are thus more reactive to and sensitive to shifts in public thinking.

It would make history if congressional Democrats proved to be serious, equal to the moment, if they pushed back against the White House and came through for the American people by moving, in a real move, not a cosmetic gesture—too late for that, that’s what they should have been doing a month ago!—against ObamaCare.

And you get the impression they just might.

It would be practical. People back home don’t like ObamaCare now, and soon—as the Nov. 30 website deadline is blown, as public clamor spreads about canceled policies, higher costs, doctors no longer on the network—they’ll like it even less.

Weeks ago they were talking of the possibility of a death spiral, but ObamaCare is in a death spiral.

So the Democrats’ moving against it would be realistic, practical. Successful politicians are by definition survivors. They’ve been loyal to Mr. Obama for a long time, but most of them don’t really know him. They don’t owe him much. And he is tanking their brand. Democrats can claim a special reason for reversing their earlier support—they believed the president when he said you could keep your coverage. But now, having seen the anxiety the people back home are feeling, they’re bravely standing up to the administration to protect the constituents they love. “We need national health-care relief. The system has long been broken, but let’s face it, this program isn’t working and won’t work. It’s time to start over again and get things right.” That’s the way to go for Democrats, “Get things right.” They shouldn’t give up on the issue—the trauma of the past few weeks will likely, and ironically, leave Americans more open to a simple single-payer approach—but they should give up on ObamaCare. And they should always call it that, to distance their own future programs from it.

Or they can hunker down and lose in 2014. They can take the advice of Democratic National Committee chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Run on ObamaCare, go home and explain how great it is. Which is another way of saying stand by the limp and tattered flag, draw all the fire and die on the field.

More and more it seems obvious that the vast majority of the politicians who pushed the bill in the House and Senate never read it. They didn’t know what was in it. They had no idea. They don’t understand insurance—they’re in politics, a branch of showbiz.

Some of them would have tried to read it, but it was 2,000 pages of impenetrable paragraphs—real word-clots, word-slabs—accompanied by long lines of swimming numbers. Comprehensive bills are never comprehensible ones—they are meant to lack clarity. Administrations get bills passed and then let administration regulators interpret them. That’s why Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” It was literally true!

After failing to read or understand the bill, members of Congress relied on briefings from some guy from the White House, some kid from the speaker’s office, and whichever Ezekiel knockoff was available as an expert.

Lawmakers listened. They took notes.

The briefers thought—hoped—they themselves understood what they were saying. But they were never sure either! You can sort of think you know what you’re saying when you say things like, “When each local exchange module launches it will reflect a national weighting of ‘invincibles’ and ‘ancients’ that will stabilize prevailing market realities while providing broader access not only to the poor but to those who currently have non-grandfathered or insufficient plans. So in the end it’s win-win for everyone.” Would they have known what any of that would mean in terms of real-world application?

The congressmen tried, in their distracted way, to understand. And gave up. And went on “Hardball” saying, “It’s win-win—broader and better coverage for all!”

Most of them had no idea what they were voting for. They’re as surprised as anybody at what’s happened. And it’s not only because so many of them are idiots. They believed what they were told and, more important, they wanted to believe it. And, I suspect, they had a magical and almost touching belief in the ability of the U.S. government to do anything. It’s done anything in the past, why wouldn’t it now? (Because in the past it wasn’t asked to construct huge, sprawling, incoherent Rube Goldberg machines? And because government hasn’t always executed brilliantly, but often just well enough not to make everybody cry?)

One thing about the progressives of Congress: They really drank the Kool-Aid. They really did think government could do anything. They were sincere! They really thought there were no limits.

I wonder if this will sober them up.

People are wondering if we are seeing the end of liberalism. We are not. Liberalism, a great and storied American political tradition, will survive this. But progressivism—liberalism without blood—has been badly, deeply damaged. We are seeing the end of its first major emanation, ObamaCare.

ObamaCare Is the Story

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

Republicans should stop taking the boob bait of the press. The story of the day is ObamaCare and the pain it is causing the Democrats. That story is not being fully explored. We are not seeing pieces on Captol Hill Democrats rethinking their four-year-long lockstep backing of a program that is failing massively and before the nation’s eyes. I’m not seeing “Pelosi Agonistes: The Speaker Who Said ‘We Have to Pass It to Find Out What’s In It’ Has Some Regrets.” We’re not seeing “Democratic House Group Meets, Anguishes, Decides on New Path.” We’re not reading “Dem Sens From Red States Bolt: ‘It Only Takes One to Start a Jailbreak.’”

The focus of political journalism now should be on what’s happening on the Democratic side, because ObamaCare is a Democratic program. They bought it, they built it, what now?

Democrats aren’t talking about that, at least on the record, and none of them colorfully. They’re in the domestic political/policy debacle of their lives and their reaction is discretion. Some of them are loyal, some of them are kind. Some of them think in terms of blind team-ism. Some of them fear reprisal from the party’s enforcers. Some are stupid and don’t understand the fix they’re in. But many of them are simply disciplined.

What are we seeing on the Republican side? Nonstop taking of the press’s boob bait. “Potential Christie Rival Says He’s Not Conservative,” “GOP Readies for 2016 Battle Reflecting Party Divisions,” “GOPer: ‘Moderation the Path,’” “GOPer: Why Do Women Hate Us?” “Establishment Hates Grass Roots,” “Grass Roots Hates Establishment,” “Libertarians Hate Everyone,” “Everyone Hates Them,” “Republican: Even I Hate Me.”

Someone should tell Republicans that the story now, next week and this winter is ObamaCare, not 2016. It is what to do about ObamaCare. 2016 is not the subject now, it is a changing of the subject.

Is the press beginning to focus on the Democrats and 2016? To a small degree. Mostly they’re fixed on Hillary Clinton. Someone said on cable this morning that there’s the Elizabeth Warren story, she’s being mentioned. Somebody else said Sen. Warren’s in the news as a possible contender because the press needs a 2016 story on the Democratic side, it’s no fun to cover a coronation. True enough. But even truer is this: Hillary needs a fight. She has to prove she can win, not glide. She needs someone to defeat. Democrats understand Mrs. Clinton’s eventual future primary win will be tarnished, even clouded, if no one serious gets in to do battle with her. She has to appear to have fought for it. So they’re in search of a few interesting contenders who can fight hard and lose well.

*   *   *

Back to ObamaCare.

More than four years ago, in July 2009, I wrote a column in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt offered President Obama some wisdom on health care. Obama’s newly proposed plan—the Affordable Care Act—wouldn’t work, said FDR. In fact, Obama’s proposal put him in a “lose-lose” position. “If you don’t get a bill along the lines you’ve announced, you’ll look ineffective and weak—a loser. If, on the other hand, you win, if you get what you asked for, it will all be a mess and all be on you. The system will be overwhelmed, the government won’t be able to execute properly, the costs will be huge.” FDR said the Obama plan would “thoroughly discombobulate things” and ruin the Democrats’ prospects in the 2010 election.

But FDR had an idea—a sly one, as his ideas usually were. First, he told Obama, drop your current bill. Second, take everyone aback by talking constantly about the national medical program that already exists, Medicare. Show your love for it, insistently—but also admit very freely what isn’t quite perfect about it. “Get your people in Congress to focus on making the system ‘healthier.’ It’s rife with waste, fraud and abuse, everyone knows that. And there’s the demographic time bomb. Come together in a great show of bipartisan feeling with our Republican friends and announce some serious cost-saving measures that are both legitimate and farsighted. Be ‘Dr. Save the System.’ On thorny issues like end-of-life care, put together a bipartisan commission, show you’re open to Republican suggestions.”

The sly fox was telling the young president to show good faith to Republicans by admitting problems, and reassure Democrats by showing his heart and commitment to federal solutions. “Then, at the end,” said FDR, “get your Democratic majorities to make one little change in the program—it’s now open to all. You don’t have to be 65. The uninsured can enroll. Do it in the dead of night if you have to, you’ve got the votes.” Such a program, he said, after so many institutional and structural changes, would of course have to have a new name. “I’d suggest ‘The National Health Service.’”

“Voilà. You now have the single-payer system you wanted.” “Everybody wins. You get expansion, Republicans get cost control, the system is made more secure, and the public for once isn’t terrified.”

Would it make Republicans happy to think they beat Obama back on his original boondoggle? Sure. “But people will start referring to the National Health Service every day, and they’ll believe they have one, and they’ll believe you gave it to them. And you can run in ’12 saying you did. That’s what I’d do!”

I still believe FDR was more or less right. It was 2009, Obama had just been elected, we looked to be at the beginning of a big liberal wave. America was anxious, coming to terms with a terrible recession, maybe worse than that. And everyone knew the health-care system was a mess. There would have been plenty of space for turning it around by cleaning up and repairing, and then broadening, deepening and enriching, the health structure we already had. And not inventing a new one.

Comprehensive new programs have a million moving parts. Programs with a million moving parts are less likely to succeed. ObamaCare hasn’t, and won’t.

*   *   *

A final word on Democrats on the Hill and ObamaCare. In the past month they’ve dealt with the disaster through talking points. That’s what parties in duress do, have kids in the back room write press releases based on the pushback guidance of combative consultants. Those talking points have gone, more or less, from “heavy demand caused the website to crash” to “the website will soon be fixed” to “every big program has bumps at the beginning” to “wait till the American people see their benefits!” to “not that many policies have been cancelled” to “not that many premiums have gone up” to “not that many people will lose their doctors.

Not one of the talking points has worked. Because incoming data, day by day, kept washing over them and sinking them.

The new talking point is that ObamaCare was damaged and fell due to Republican “sabotage.” Republicans on Capitol Hill refused to vote for it, refused to like it and support it. They tried repeatedly to repeal it and defund it.

And all this is true. But it is not sabotage. This is opposition. The Republicans thought the ACA a bad piece of work, a bad bill that would make things worse, not better.

Still, Republicans should take the sabotage charge seriously, because it is not a claim aimed at the consideration of the American people but of history. Democrats are admitting with this charge that ObamaCare is a disaster. They no longer want to argue that it is not. They are arguing that it is a disaster brought about by Republicans. That will be what they argue for history and feed their journalistic historians.

As I remember it, the Democrats on Capitol Hill got the bill they wanted. They were heady, back in the majority, with a new and popular president, and they didn’t much care about GOP support. They wanted the credit: It was their bill. They wrote it in a way no Republican could support. And they got no Republican support. When Paul Ryan, who had emerged as the Republican point man, attempted to come forward with ideas, he was rebuffed.

The new president—and this was a key historic moment—decided not to act on the accumulated presidential wisdom of the ages, which is: Get the other party in on all big things. Give them a stake in it, use them for cover, show you have bipartisan juice, that you are truly national and not only the leader of one party, show you can wield your mighty power across the aisles. Get them bragging they passed it, with your leadership. Make them co-own it so that when certain parts don’t work, and certain parts won’t, they have deep motives to help you fix it.

Instead, a perfect storm of misjudgment, immaturity and lack of historical perspective, and a perfect storm of shortsighted selfishness (it’s all ours, it’s not even a little bit yours) brought forth a perfect storm of a health-care disaster.

‘Politics Is a Feeling’

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

All my friends in politics on the Republican side are feeling dour, angry, frustrated, furrow-browed. That’s understandable. Progressivism may look tottery at the moment, but Republicans don’t know how to knock it down and are at odds over what to replace it with. Interparty friction is high: The GOP is a bird with a lot of wings. Intellectuals on the conservative side are doing their best to argue through the party’s stands, but for all their earnest efforts there’s that simmering and intractable thing, the problem with the Republican brand. Everyone’s fretful.

Which is why time spent with Gov. Chris Christie this week felt like a tonic, an antidote to the prevailing mood. What I saw as he kicked off a seven-day New Jersey bus tour was the lost pleasure of politics. We forget: It’s supposed to be fun. Mr. Christie is cruising to a big win as a red-state figure in a deep blue state, so he’s got a lot to be happy about. But his pleasure in the game and the meaning of the game—his remembering that on some level it is a game, to be won or lost, to cheers or boos—is a clue to the mood with which a great party might approach its work. So here we put aside policy questions to take a look at what winning looks like, and sounds like.

First Lady Mary Pat and Governor Chris Christie
As New Jersey First Lady Mary Pat Christie leads the way, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as greets supporters in Linden, N.J., during a campaign stop.
Mr. Christie on the trail: hustle, bustle, applause, cameras, hugging—a lot—autographing. Everybody’s smartphone in the air. “Governor, Governor!” The crowds are big and enthusiastic. A stop in Linden had people lined up four and five deep more than half a block down the main street. It was the kind of crowd a presidential candidate gets early on. A woman—60s, retired from a hospital—said, “I’m so excited, I feel like I’m meeting a movie star. He’s like me. I feel like he’s telling the truth.” Is she a Republican? “I’m a registered Democrat. I don’t care what party you’re from.” A woman at the Ritz Diner in Livingston told why she’s for Mr. Christie: “He can get things done because he can go between the aisles. Harry Reid and the president won’t even talk to the other side.” This was a prevailing theme: a yearning for bipartisan progress, and support for his abilities in this area. Ellie Cohen, a Democrat who knew Mr. Christie’s mother, Sandy, described her as colorful, funny, direct. “She was . . . Thelma Ritter, if you know what I mean. He’s like her.”

You forget Mr. Christie’s a rock star because he’s been one for a while. But he is, at least at home. There are 700,000 more registered Democrats in Jersey than Republicans. It is one of only a handful of states Barack Obama won in 2012 by a wider margin than in 2008. Mr. Christie, in the poll of polls on RealClearPolitics, is ahead by 25.4 points.

In the bus, in a big, business-class kind of seat in his big, billowing white shirt, Mr. Christie took questions.

What’s the magic number below which people like me will say, “Hmmm, Christie’s win was not as big as expected”?

“I have no idea what the magic number is because it changes all the time, because what the press does is react to the latest poll.” However, “historically if we do anything near what the public polls are now then there will be only one person in the history of the Republican party in New Jersey who will have done better.” That’s Thomas Kean, who won the governorship with 69.6% of the vote in 1985. “I’m not gonna beat Tom Kean.”

How do people treat him now, compared with four years ago, when he first ran?

“It’s an enormous difference. . . . Four years ago I think I was a bit of a curiosity. Now . .  people greet me like they really know me.”

What do you think you have become to the people of New Jersey?

“I’m one of them.” And they know it. “That’s the most powerful thing we’ve accomplished.” Livingston is upper-middle-class, Linden is blue-collar. It doesn’t matter: “I’m one of them.”

What changed everything was Hurricane Sandy. Before that he’d been tough, fast, YouTube man, toe to toe with angry teachers. That was his image. After Sandy people saw him as not only a battler but someone they could rely on, who could lead, who was “compassionate.” “I think that people got to know me.”

He quickly understood that how he handled Sandy would either bind him forever to the state or loosen and kill all binds. Thousands were without the basics—water, electricity. He realized that people felt “cut off—literally.” They needed information. In his news conferences he was specific, detailed.

But not every leader gets a storm, and not every leader handles it well. How do you get Democrats to consider voting for a Republican?

“You gotta show up—regularly, consistently. And you gotta listen. You can’t always talk at people, you have to listen.” He said he’s spent the past three years in town halls, at community meetings, ignoring counsel to skip places where he can’t win. He mentions Irvington, in Essex County. “I got 4.7% of the vote four years ago.” He went there anyway “and took lots of really hard questions.”

To show up is to show respect. “If you show up and let them know you care about them, they’re willing to give you a chance.” That doesn’t mean you’ll change their minds, but “everybody’s the same . . . people want to be paid attention to.”

Is Jersey a microcosm of America?

“No. New Jersey is more liberal than America.” But there is one way it is like America: ethnic diversity. “What we have in New Jersey is you have everyone that’s in America today.”

I asked what reporters and pundits and movement conservatives and liberals miss when they look at modern politics.

“I would say this: I think that people who observe what’s going on in New Jersey . . . many of them completely misevaluate what’s going on here in this election. They misunderstand what people want from someone in political life right now. I think [voters] want someone who’s going to solve their problems. And who’s gonna be practical. And who’s gonna listen to them. And who has a philosophy that they can live with—not that they [always] agree with. The only person that I agree with all the time is me. I don’t agree with anybody else all the time, and I think most people are like that.

“I think what [pundits] are missing here is everybody tries to kinda put everything in a little box . . . and I don’t think that’s what politics is. Politics is a feeling. It’s a visceral reaction to someone. Especially when you’re voting for an executive.

“So I think that everybody who tries to analyze this and put it into little boxes—which boxes does he check, which boxes doesn’t he check—I don’t think that’s the way people vote. And if that is the way people vote then no one’s going to be able to explain next Tuesday. No one will be able to explain it.”

The ‘Establishment’ Fights Back

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

Washington

It is a month since the government shutdown and a day after the election. The minority leader of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, longest-serving senator in Kentucky history (1985 to the present, up for a sixth term in 2014), is seated in his office talking about the stresses, strains and estrangements that mark the relationship between what is called the tea party and what is called the GOP establishment, which at the moment seems to consist of everyone who isn’t in the tea party. Mr. McConnell is soft-spoken, contained, a person of habitual discretion. What seemed to be on his mind was something like “Star Wars: The Establishment Fights Back.” What he expressed was more like “The Establishment Voices Some Aggravation.”But it’s a start.

“The most important election yesterday wasn’t the governor of New Jersey and it wasn’t the governor of Virginia, it was the special election for Congress in South Alabama, where a candidate who said the shutdown was a great idea, the president was born in Kenya, and that he opposed Speaker Boehner came in second.” The victory of a more electable Republican, is significant, Mr. McConnell says. To govern, parties must win. To win, parties must “run candidates that don’t scare the general public, [and] convey the impression that we could actually be responsible for governing, you can trust us—we’re adults here, we’re grown-ups.”

Republicans must enter the 2014 election cycle remembering the advice of William F. Buckley : “He always said he was for the most conservative candidate who could win.”

Is the GOP in civil war? “No, I don’t think so.” Everyone agrees on the central issue: “We would all love to get rid of ObamaCare. If we had the votes to do it we’d do it in a heartbeat. It’s the single worst piece of legislation that’s been passed in modern times.”

But “we have a disability right now—it’s called in the Senate ’55 of them and 45 of us.’ I’m not great at math, but 55 is more than 45. . . . I think it’s irresponsible for some people to characterize themselves as sort of true conservatives, to mislead their followers into believing you can get an outcome that you can’t possibly get.”

Senator Mitch McConnellThe tea party, he says, consists of “people who are angry and upset at government—and I agree with them.” But “I think, honestly, many of them have been misled. . . . They’ve been told the reason we can’t get to better outcomes than we’ve gotten is not because the Democrats control the Senate and the White House but because Republicans have been insufficiently feisty. Well, that’s just not true, and I think that the folks that I have difficulty with are the leaders of some of these groups who basically mislead them for profit. . . . They raise money . . . take their cut and spend it” on political action that hurts Republicans.He refers to the Senate Conservatives Fund. “That’s the one I’m prepared to be specific about.” The fund “has elected more Democrats than the Democratic Senatorial Committee over the last three cycles.” The group is targeting Mr. McConnell with ads slamming his leadership during the shutdown. “Right now they’re on the air in obvious coordination with Harry Reid’s super PAC—Harry Reid’s!—in the same markets, at roughly the same amount, at the same time.”

But he says he isn’t worried about his own race: “I don’t wanna be overly cocky, but I’m gonna be the Republican nominee next year.”

Are members of the tea party on the ground being fooled by operators, profit makers and cynics? “Yes,” he said, followed by a brief silence. He declined to say more, but emphasized again that “I make a distinction between the leaders and the followers. I mean, I think a lot of well-meaning people are sending money to organizations having no idea they’re gonna spend all that money against Republicans. Because they’re being misled.”

During the government shutdown there was significant tension and discord among various Republicans on the Hill. Where does that fit in this story?

“It was a strategy that I said both publicly and privately could not work, and did not work.” The idea that a Democratic president and Senate might abandon their signature legislation was “a fantasy—in other words, it was not the truth.”

“All it succeeded in doing was taking attention off of ObamaCare for 16 days. And scaring the public and tanking our brand—our party brand. One of my favorite old Kentucky sayings is that there’s no education in the second kick of a mule. It ain’t gonna happen again.”

The lesson? “Learn from your mistakes, and realize that had we been talking ObamaCare during that 16 days, instead of people being consumed with the shutdown, we’d probably have a generic party ballot lead right now.”

ObamaCare itself is “a catastrophic failure. It’s a lot bigger than the website—sooner or later they’re gonna get the website fixed—but from a strictly political point of view,” the fallout for Democrats will be serious and long-lasting. “Not a single Republican voted for it, not one in the House or Senate. Every single Republican voted to defund it, to delay it, to get rid of it in any way.”

But is that enough? I suggested there is a void in the GOP reaction to ObamaCare. Wave one of the story was debut, website, failure. Wave two was “Oh my God, I just got my cancellation.” Wave three: “Oh my God, I wasn’t cancelled but they hiked my premiums.” All this is making millions of Americans anxious and resentful—they have a sense the president lied to them. How does the Republican Party right now step in to help? What can it offer people who are suffering from the dislocations?

“Yeah, well, I hate to keep repeating myself, but to have the kind of relief the country needs, I think we change the government. Change the Senate, change the presidency. To get relief between now and then will require wholesale [Senate] Democratic defections. And it’s going to be interesting to watch them running away from this. Just three weeks ago they were all in lockstep, voting against any effort to delay it or defund it or anything else. Now a number of them, particularly who happen to be running in red states in 2014, are saying ‘Whoops, maybe we ought to do this or do that.’ So if there’s a jailbreak on the other side, so that the president is put in an awkward position with his own members demanding adjustments, it could happen.”

But “a lot of Democrats would have to start to defect, in a big way, to force onto a reluctant president massive changes.” And “I wouldn’t hold my breath on that. I think what [Democrats] will do is sort of pick around the edges and try to put some distance between themselves and the implementation.”

Is Mr. MConnell going to them and saying, “Guys, it would be very helpful to the country if you would begin to defect”?

No. “I’m waiting for them to come to us, because that’s when you know you’ll have real leverage.”

Obama’s Catastrophic Victory

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

Years ago John McPhee wrote a great book about Bill Bradley called “A Sense of Where You Are.” I keep thinking about that title. You have to know where you are in time and space, you have to know who you are and what you’re doing, you have to be able to locate the moment and reorient yourself within it.

Politically where are we right now, at this moment?

We have a huge piece of U.S. economic and social change that debuted a month ago as a program. The program dealt with something personal, even intimate: your health, the care of your body, the medicines you choose to take or procedures you get. It was hugely controversial from day one. It took all the political oxygen from the room. It failed to garner even one vote from the opposition when it was passed. It gave rise to a significant opposition movement, the town hall uprisings, which later produced the tea party. It caused unrest. In fact, it seemed not to answer a problem but cause it. I called ObamaCare, at the time of its passage, a catastrophic victory—one won at too great cost, with too much political bloodshed, and at the end what would you get? Barren terrain. A thing not worth fighting for.

So the program debuts and it’s a resounding, famous, fantastical flop. The first weeks of the news coverage are about how the websites don’t work, can you believe we paid for this, do you believe they had more than three years and produced this public joke of a program, this embarrassment?

But now it’s much more serious. No one’s thinking about the websites. They wish you were thinking about the websites! I bet America hopes the websites never work so they never have to enroll.

The problem now is not the delivery system of the program, it’s the program itself. Not the computer screen but what’s inside the program. This is something you can’t get the IT guy in to fix.

They said if you liked your insurance you could keep your insurance—but that’s not true. It was never true! They said if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor—but that’s not true. It was never true! They said they would cover everyone who needed it, and instead people who had coverage are losing it—millions of them! They said they would make insurance less expensive—but it’s more expensive! Premium shock, deductible shock. They said don’t worry, your health information will be secure, but instead the whole setup looks like a hacker’s holiday. Bad guys are apparently already going for your private information.

Look at the simple, factual eloquence of Edie Littlefield Sundby, from Monday’s Journal. It is a story that tells you everything you need to know about ObamaCare. It is the single most persuasive and informative piece written since the whole program began.

And now there are reports the insurance companies are taking advantage of the chaos of the program, and its many dislocations, to hike premiums. Meaning the law was written in such a way that insurance companies profit on it.

And—I am limiting things to just today’s news – the New York Times reports that while millions may qualify for enough federal subsidies to pay the entire monthly cost of some health-insurance plans, the zero premiums come with some “serious trade-offs.” What serious trade-offs? Most of these plans, called the bronze policies, “require people to pay the most in out-of-pocket costs, for doctor visit and other benefits like hospital stays.” Huh? I thought the purpose of the law was to help with the cost of doctor visits and hospital stays!

*   *   *

Back to a sense of where we are. You know where we are? It’s as if it’s 1964 and the administration has just passed landmark civil rights legislation and the bill goes into effect, and everyone looks—only immediately it is apparent that it makes everyone’s life worse! It doesn’t help minority groups – it makes their lives harder and less free! And it does real, present and intimate damage to the majority.

It’s as if it’s 1937 and they launched Social Security, only rich coupon-clippers on Park Avenue immediately started getting small monthly checks, and 67-year-old dust bowlers in tarpaper shacks started getting monthly bills.

It’s the biggest governmental enterprise that hasn’t worked since the earliest beginnings of the U.S. rocket program, when they kept trying to send rockets into space and they kept falling, defeated and groaning, into the ground. Only the rockets were still unmanned, so those failures never hurt anybody!

*   *   *

ObamaCare is a practical, policy and political disaster, a parlay of poisonous P’s.

And it is unbelievable – simply unbelievable – that the administration is so proud, so childish, so ideological, so ignorant and so uncaring about the bill’s victims that they refuse to stop, delay, go back, redraw and ease the trauma.

Two closing notes. In my lifetime the good word liberal was discarded by the Democratic Party. Over the decades they’d run it into the ground and changed it from a plus to a minus. Liberal came to suggest a whole world of bad ideas—soft on crime, eager for gun confiscation, big taxing. So the past 20 years Democrats tried to change their label, and in the Obama era it was finally definitively changed. They were now progressives.

Well, the biggest piece of progressive legislation in our lifetimes—not just costly but intrusive, abusive, and marked by a command-and-control mentality—is ObamaCare.

Remember, “We’re gonna need a bigger boat”? They’re gonna need another name.

Second point: I don’t know, maybe the Republican Party could focus on where we are and help those Americans who are beside themselves with anxiety? A friend had a suggestion today. Maybe instead of having oversight hearings on the stupid website, they could be hauling in some insurance executives to see if they’re capitalizing on this bad law and trying to profit on its dislocations? You know, like they’re listening not to K Street lobbyists but the people?

Maybe they could even call in some people from the White House and Congress, the ones who helped write and interpret this famous law that you had to pass before you could know what was in it, and ask: “Did you ever meet a normal human? Did you understand what you were doing when you produced this thing?”

Maybe they could even ask the president: “In your entire life, from community organizer to lawyer to politician, did you ever buy an insurance policy? Were you always on your wife’s plan, or immediately put on a plush government plan? Did you ever have to do anything like what you’re telling the people of your country to do?”

Questions for Secretary Sebelius

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

Former White House press secretary Dana Perino has good, commonsensical advice for Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who’ll be questioning Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on ObamaCare tomorrow.

Boiled down: Can the theatrics, know your stuff, we don’t need re-enactments of constituent rage, be serious and sober. If members take this advice—Speaker John Boehner and Chairman Frd Upton should be sending it out—they’ll better their chances of meeting the moment and providing a service to their country.

Dana’s advice made me think of what I’d add.

1. Members should communicate beforehand and not go forward, as they usually do, like colliding atoms. They should logically coordinate their inquiry. There’s a lot of ground to cover and they don’t need repetitions, redundancies and free-associative journeys down tributaries that lead nowhere.

2. “It will be good for you to remember it’s not about you.” A health-care disaster has been visited on a significant number of Americans, who have been left understandably anxious, resentful and confused. If you use your time to pound the podium and get in the clips of the local news station back home, many of your constituents, seeing your theatrics, will recognize you to be an unhelpful blowhard out to gain from their pain. The national press will recognize you to be a grandstanding fool. Do you want that?

3. Do not take the bait when Democrats on the panel, who know they have been forced into defending the indefensible or joining a pile-on, try to change the subject. They’ll offer long, meandering (or accusatory and sarcastic) speeches on how Republicans have never wanted to help anyone in trouble and that’s why they’ve always opposed ObamaCare. Don’t engage, don’t start wrestling around with how many supported Social Security and who didn’t. Smile and let it go. You have limited time. Use it to find out what happened, what’s true and where we are.

4. Do not be defeated by Sebelius’s media coaches. Do not let the secretary’s slightly dazed unflappability get under your skin. All representatives of government are surrounded by communications advisers. Sebelius’s are no doubt advising her right now to do what they always tell officials in trouble to do: Come forth with long, meaningless yet on some level data-filled sentences that will steer clear of speaking plain truth and yet on some level imply the effort to be candid. (Yes, the irony: it is the taxpayers who pay for the media advisers who help the agency head mislead the taxpayers.) Sebelius will attempt to talk in a way that is arguably responsive and deliberately incomprehensible. She will not be trying to produce a colorful soundbite but to avoid one. She does not want to be on the evening news, she wants to get out of the hearing room with her career intact.

When government officials have been trained in this strategy, there is a tell. The tell is that they begin many of their sentences with the word, “So.”

As in:

Q: Madame Secretary, did you know or have reason to know the ObamaCare website would crash on opening day? If you did, did you tell the White House? Who in the White House? If you did not know, how did it happen that you, the person in charge of the program, did not understand the depth of its problems?

A: So, we know through historical experience that a vast, multitiered, horizontally integrated program will always yield or produce certain unanticipated challenges of a technological or other nature, which is inevitably and also predictably the pattern, and it’s increased by the scale and size of the endeavor . . .

Q: Let me ask: Did you know that as soon as the program debuted, millions of Americans would see their own health insurance policies canceled or terminated? And that they would often find that newer policies would be more expensive with less coverage? When did you come to understand this—during the writing of the law, after its passage, in the ensuing years? If you did not know that millions would lose their coverage, how did it happen that you did not know?

A: So, in the intervening days and months following the passage of the ACA, a focused task force composed of peer-reviewed stakeholders throughout the government and the private sector, in addition to appropriate designated agency officials, along with contractors and subcontractors . . .

This is what media advisers have gotten us to. If they had been advising clients in 1945-46 at the Nuremberg Trials the court transcripts would have looked like this: “So, part of the context within which directives were perceived is that there is a task announced and enforced by the government and its appropriate directors and agencies, and our topographical and rail line information, as provided on numerous occasions by the interior ministry, but also a number of people in the department had their own copies, suggested the most reliable train lines did in fact go through a town called Auschwitz. So considering that, and our responsibility to afford maximum efficiencies in accordance with the needs and directives, it was decided to . . .”

How to get around the obfuscation, indirection, passive voice, deliberately fractured grammar, and refusal to speak directly, clearly and pertinently?

Be courteous, cool, stay focused and press. “Madam Secretary, I know it’s hard under the lights, but I am going to ask for simple, direct answers. Please, at what point did you see a catastrophe coming? Who did you tell? And what did they say?”

“I must ask again, and I ask you to be clear and direct: Did you know, in the years that you and the president were saying ‘If you want to keep your current coverage you can keep it’—did you know that was not true?”

“You have heard the charge that that promise was a lie meant to aid in the selling of the Affordable Care Act to the American people. Was it a lie?”

“How did you expect the American people to react when they found out it wasn’t true?”

Keep to the question. Don’t make speeches. Find out the answer.

Update: Early reports say Sebelius will be apologetic in her testimony regarding the failed rollout. Meaning she does want a soundbite after all, and that’s it. An apology is fine, it’s appreciated, but an apology is not accountability. When a guy causes a fatal car crash it’s good if he says he’s sorry, but it doesn’t exonerate him. Was he driving under the influence? Was he texting? Was he asleep? Who’s going to pay for the damage, what will ease the suffering of the victims?

There are reports she will blame one or more of the outside contractors. This is weak—the government oversees and directs the contractors. It’s like the captain of the Titanic saying the problem is the company that made the rivets in the water tight compartments. Maybe, but it was his ship and he let it sail full steam into an icefield.

The Deep State

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

President Obama says he didn’t know the U.S. government was tapping Angela Merkel, and you know, maybe he didn’t. I have come to wonder if we don’t have what amounts to a deep state within the outer state in the U.S.—a deep state consisting of our intelligence and security agencies, which are so vast and far-flung in their efforts that they themselves don’t fully know who’s in charge and what everyone else is doing. Maybe they’re bugging so many people it’s hardly news to them when they bug the chancellor of Germany. Maybe they mentioned it to the president, maybe not. Maybe they don’t know.

Mr Obama has gone from seeming like someone who doesn’t quite know what’s going on in his government to someone who doesn’t really want to. He has perfected a sense of surprise. He’s always finding out at just the moment you are, and feeling your indignation.

So maybe he didn’t know. Maybe our intelligence and security apparatus—so huge and full of money since 9/11, so self-encased and self-perpetuating—didn’t tell him.

Before we think about that, should we be tapping Merkel’s phone?

No, for a simple reason: Because it is wrong. She is our friend. She is our ally. She leads a great nation. As such—friend, ally, greatness—she deserves respect. It is not respectful or friendly to invade her privacy and spy on her in this way.

It also seems sort of nuts. Does the National Security Agency think Angela Merkel is planning to blow up Times Square? That would be just like her, wouldn’t it? Does the NSA want to get the mood of her government before the trade talks commence? Then they can do it the old-fashioned way, through old-fashioned human measures: “Hey, source in the foreign ministry, what are you hearing?”

America has been embarrassed by this. A president with more than adequate political smarts would never OK it. But our intelligence and security agencies? That vast edifice that always wants whatever new technologies are available and whatever new targets are around? Sure, they would do it. After all, it’s not their job to look after America’s reputation in the world, it’s just their job to get the goods and say they got them. Maybe they don’t get into sources and methods even with presidents.

Particularly obnoxious on this question are the American policy thinkers and journalists who, when asked about the Merkel taps, put on their world-weary professional wise-guy face, looking like tragic suburbanites who once read a John le Carré novel and can’t forget the shiver of existential dread, and say that everyone does it, governments spy, get with the program, this is the way the world works.

*   *   *

Sorry, but tapping the private telephone line of one of your most important friends in the West is not how the world works, it’s how, once she finds out and the world finds out, it falls apart.

A president would, naturally and out of sheer diplomatic courtesy, tell his intelligence community to cut it out. What I’m wondering is: Do they cut it out? Who would know if they didn’t? Maybe they will choose to be courteous to the president, stop the tap and present Germany with evidence the tap has stopped. But maybe the deep state will think it doesn’t have to be pushed around by some joker who’ll be gone in a few years, to be replaced by another joker.

Yesterday on “Face the Nation,” I was on a panel that included Tom Johnson, Philip Shenon and Bob Woodward. We talked about the tendency of government agencies to cover up their mistakes, hide their internal agendas and lie. We’d been discussing Shenon’s impressive book on the JFK assassination and the making of the Warren Report. He documents the extent to which agencies and actors in those days withheld and even destroyed information that should have gone to the Warren Commission.

Anchor Bob Schieffer noted that the first things agencies under duress tend to do is “try to make sure they can’t be blamed for something. And, clearly, that is why the FBI and the CIA did not come clean with the Warren Commission.”

Woodward referred briefly to Watergate, and added: “I think there’s a theme here in all of this . . . that connects somewhat to what’s going on now.” He spoke of “the power of this secret world—CIA, FBI,” in the past, to know of or be involved in activities such as assassination plots against Fidel Castro, and not divulge those activities to a commission that was ostensibly searching for potential motives behind the Kennedy assassination.

Woodward brought it to the present. “We look now at what’s going on with all the NSA wiretapping and people saying, ‘Well, they didn’t know, or they did know.’ It clearly is much more extensive than people expected. You connect this with the drone strikes in Pakistan, and Yemen, which is our government conducting regular assassinations by air. You know, what’s—what’s going on here? Who is in control of it? And who can find out? You know, I think—it’s in the New York Times this morning that there is a review that Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser for Obama, has done on Mideast policy. They need to review this secret world and its power in their government because you run into this rat’s nest of concealment and lies time and time again, then and now.”

I agreed with Woodward. His stated concerns are very much my growing ones. And the pertinent questions are, as he says, “What’s going on here?” and “Who’s in control?”

What Woodward calls “this secret world” I have come increasingly to think of as the deep state—again, the vast, unfathomable and not fully accountable innards of the permanent U.S. intelligence and national-security apparatus. I have been wondering if it isn’t true that presidents change and directors change—you can keep changing the showbiz side, the names on the marquee—but the ways, needs, demands, imperatives, secrets and strategies of The Agencies stay pretty much the same, except for one thing: They always want more. The dynamic is always toward growth, toward more reach and more power. (We see some of this too in the permanent regulatory and administrative class in all the domestic agencies, EPA, HHS and IRS. You know why Lois Lerner more or less operated as if she had impunity? Because she more or less had impunity.) And it’s all gotten too big, too dark, too impenetrable. I’m not talking about “Homeland”-type darkness and shadows. It is more bureaucratic than that, more banal, less colorful, less dramatic. It is more James Clapper than James Angleton, more Vienna, Va., than mildly sinister McLean dinner party.

But it is actually the big thing our country should be talking about now, needs to be talking about and would be talking about if only our president had not decided, a few years ago, to blow up the U.S. health-care system.

And so now we’ll have to deal with that. It will demand all focus as we try to turn it around. But the NSA, its size, power and way of operating—that will have to be reckoned with.

Bonus anecdote. Once about 10 years ago an official who worked with a famous European leader told me of a conversation that had just taken place in the office. The leader met with his staff, who had decided to warn him that every day he’s just one comment away from disaster. “Anyone can hear you now,” they told him, “not just when you’re in public but when you’re in the car or at home on the phone. Hidden mics, taps, devices of all sorts—you can’t say anything.” It’s not only the media and all sorts of freelancers, they said, it’s other governments, perhaps our government, unseen forces and powers.

The leader looked crestfallen. This couldn’t be, he thought—this will require a whole new way of being alive.

But he knew they were telling the truth. Later, to an aide, he said, “I guess the only way to guarantee my privacy now is to sit crouched in the bathtub, with a big blanket over my head, talking to myself.”

Yes, the aide said, that’s about it.

ObamaCare Is Taking On Water

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

We should not lose The Headline in the day-to-day headlines. This is big history, not small. The ObamaCare rollout is a disaster for the White House, not a problem or a challenge or an embarrassment, not a gaffe or a bad few weeks. It is a political disaster, and the only question is whether it is partially recoverable, meaning the system can be made to work in a generally satisfactory way in the next few weeks. But—it has to be repeated—they had 3½ years after passage of the Affordable Care Act to make the program into something the American people could register for and feel they were benefiting from. Three and a half years! They had a long-declared start date: It would all go live Oct. 1, 2013, and everyone in the government, every contractor and consultant, knew it.

The president put the meaning of his presidency into the program—it informally carries his name, it is his brand. It was unveiled with great fanfare, and it didn’t work. For almost anybody. Crashed systems, frozen screens, phone registration that prompted you back to the site that sent you to the 800 number, like a high-tech Möbius strip.

All this from the world’s greatest, most technologically sophisticated nation, the one that invented the computer and the Internet. And from a government that is able to demand and channel a great deal of the people’s wealth.

So you’d think it would sort of work. And it didn’t. Which is a disaster.

Even though it’s huge, and those who are reporting the story every day are, by and large, seasoned and have seen a few things, no one seems to know how it will end. Because it’s new territory. Does anyone believe the whole technological side can be fixed quickly? No. The president may eventually accept a brief delay in implementation—it is almost unbelievable that he will not—but does anyone think that the economics of the ACA, the content as set out and expressed on the sites, will flow smoothly, coherently, and fully satisfy the objectives of expanding health-insurance coverage while lowering its cost? You might believe that, but early reports of sticker shock, high deductibles and canceled coverage are not promising. Does anyone think the president will back off and delay the program for enough time not only to get the technological side going but seriously improve the economics? No. So we’re not only in the middle of a political disaster, we’re in the middle of a mystery. What happens if this whole thing continues not to work? What do we do then?

It hardly matters if anyone is fired. That’s the fifth paragraph in the Wikipedia history, or the 10th. Yes, a firing would be good democratic form, and it would acknowledge the idea of accountability—someone or some persons failed on a historic level and were removed. It would take some heat off the White House—”Look, we’re doing something!”—so it’s surprising they haven’t done it and odd the Republicans are clamoring for it. But who would want to be the new HHS secretary? Who would take that job?

Titannic HealthcareIt was Bill Daley —accomplished political player, former commerce secretary and, most killingly, former chief of staff of President Obama —who Thursday, on “CBS This Morning,” admitted the scale of the problem. Asked whether Kathleen Sebelius should be fired, he said: “To me that’s kind of like firing Captain Smith on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.”

The Titanic. Some will see his comments as disloyal. Actually they were candid and realistic. Although in fairness, the Titanic at least had three good days, and Edward Smith chose to go down with the ship.

He didn’t deny the waters were icy; he failed to slow his ship, failed to show heightened concern. Mrs. Sebelius did not show overwhelming confidence in the days before the debut—there was no “God himself couldn’t sink this program.” She repeated her lines in a way that seemed almost furtive, appearing not confident but confused, and almost guiltily stubborn. Her message was almost always the same: There are no icebergs ahead.

Norman Ornstein in National Journal this week reminds us of Democratic Sen. Max Baucus’s iceberg warning—actually “train wreck”—at a hearing six months ago, in April. He warned implementation of ObamaCare could be a disaster. He told Mrs. Sebelius: “I understand you’ve hired a contractor. I’m just worried that that’s going to be money down the drain because contractors like to make money more than they like to do anything else. That’s their job.” A lot of agencies are involved, he said, people are going to get confused, more simplicity is needed.

He was right. I happened to reread his warning while the House Energy and Commerce Committee questioned the four major contractors on the ObamaCare sites. The most pertinent query came from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who asked the contractors to put on paper, and under oath, exactly how much money they had made from the federal government so far, and exactly how much they stand to make now, as they fix the sites, and in the future.

There are more questions on the failure to launch. Did Mrs. Sebelius and her top staffers know that the system was not ready and likely to fail? If they knew, did they not tell the White House? If they didn’t know, how did it happen that they didn’t? If the White House knew of the likelihood of a coming failure, why did they go full steam ahead? And if they didn’t know, why?

Was there some degree of fabulism, or magical thinking, or reliance on blind luck within the White House and the greater administration? Many important people in the administration, and those contracting with it from the outside, would have had to ignore various signs of a coming failure. Did some of them know or have reason to know problems were both present and coming, and mislead or fail to inform their peers or superiors?

And there is the enduring mystery of why the president, who in his career has attempted to persuade the American people to have greater faith in and reliance on the federal government’s ability to help, continues to go forward with an astounding lack of interest in the reputation of government.

He talks but he doesn’t implement, never makes it work. He allows the IRS under his watch to be humiliated by scandal, waste, ill judgements prompted by ideological assumptions. He allows his signature program, the one that will make his name in the history books, to debut in failure. In response he says bland, rounded words that leave you wondering what just got said.

We’re all reading of Jack Kennedy. He stayed up nights with self-recrimination after failure. “How could I have been so stupid?” he asked about the Bay of Pigs. A foreseeable mistake and he’d blown it, listened to the wrong people, made the wrong judgments. That man suffered over his missteps. He worried about his reputation, and the reputation of his government, and of America.

It is disorienting to not see this in a president. It is another thing about this story that feels not only historic, but historically strange.

Scott Carpenter, RIP

-- The Wall Street Journal:

 

Oh what it was like. “Mission Control, Tranquility Base here, the Eagle has landed.” “America on the moon.” “Godspeed, John Glenn.” “Come on and light this candle.” “A-OK.” “Four 3, 2, 1, and liftoff, we have liftoff.”

Oh, we did. Those are words and phrases of America’s space program, especially the Mercury program, one of whose astronauts died this week, 88-year-old Scott Carpenter. In 1962 he became the second American to orbit the Earth. He was the one they couldn’t find for a while, when he missed his splashdown point by about 250 miles. It’s tempting to write that all of America was on the edge of their seats while Navy planes searched for him and his capsule, but we weren’t. We knew it would be fine.

But what an era of dynamism, of breaking through, of pushing out, of daring. The space program gave us a forward-looking attitude, a sense we could do anything in any area. Especially if you were a kid, as I was, age 11, when Carpenter flew. What a gift it was to be young then—America blasting off, the Yankees or the Dodgers always winning. No one cared about government—what bliss—but to the extent we had one it seemed to work. Respectable people like Dwight Eisenhower were in charge, and then, in ’61, the glamour of the Kennedys. People were getting TVs. A whole new way to waste time! But also something else, our culture showing itself to itself, and it didn’t look so bad, especially, again, if you were young.

But the point is the era. It was big, expansive, it was pushing against limits, even against gravity. Now we have shutdowns, ceilings, chained CPIs—it’s all limits. The head of NASA talks about greenhouse gases.

Our children aren’t told by our culture that we can do anything, they’re taught to be afraid by people who are afraid—the future can harm you, hunker down, shelter in place. Really, that phrase captures the mood of our time: “Shelter in place.” Don’t go anywhere interesting, like a planet.

We don’t talk greatness now, we talk problems; and we don’t solve them, we set up processes to address them down the road.

I don’t know who the next American president is, but I know who the next great American president is—someone who remembers and can marshal and bring forth the mood of the old America: “Liftoff, we have liftoff.” “We will do it.” “Endless horizons.” “Home of the brave.” Great nations run on spirit. The next great one will know that. Scott Carpenter, steely-eyed rocket man, rest in peace.