Dean Clancy

CLASS Act, RIP (and Good Riddance)

2011-10-14T22:17:00.009-04:00

We did it! We took down CLASS!

Today the White House officially pulled the plug on the CLASS Act, a key component of ObamaCare.

This is a huge development in the health care debate.

A Taxing Situation

2011-10-13T10:57:00.004-04:00

“So the consensus is really for cutting taxes and the only way you can do that is by cutting spending."

Of Mr. Cain's "999" tax reform plan

2011-10-07T18:06:00.017-04:00

Nine percent is a teaser rate.

Tea Party Debt Commission in Philly!

2011-10-04T14:12:00.005-04:00

Video highlights, 1 minute

Original post at freedomworks.org

More information on the Tea Party Debt Commission

Budget Cuts, Over Easy

2011-09-28T17:51:00.012-04:00

Instead of organizing another million-man march on Washington, FreedomWorks is now trying to show Tea Partiers that they can be even more successful if they get seriously wonky . . . over pancakes at Denny's.

Read more »

Tea Party Looking Beyond 'Super Committee' to 2012

2011-09-26T10:31:00.001-04:00

"The 2012 election is upon us and we are not going to get much more out of this Congress," said Dean Clancy of FreedomWorks . . .
Read more »

Armey & Me at Denny's

2011-09-23T18:09:00.004-04:00

Today, I had the pleasure of hanging out at a Denny's in Orlando with my boss, Dick Armey. It was just the two of us -- plus, about a hundred of our fellow tea party activists. We talked budgets, baselines, and debt, over burgers, fries, and "Grand Slams."

Listening to the boss

Podcast: Dean Clancy discusses the Tea Party Debt Commission

2011-09-20T17:45:00.004-04:00

Today I sat down with FreedomWorks' Tabitha Hale to talk about the Tea Party Debt Commission. What is the Commission? Why do we need it? Who is on it? And how does it relate to the (problematic) congressional "Super Committee"? Click to listen (8 min)

Original post at freedomworks.org

Report: HHS suppressed evidence of massive ObamaCare bailout risk

2011-09-16T15:31:00.011-04:00

A trove of just-released internal Obama Administration documents reveals that the President's top health care advisors were fully aware that a key component of ObamaCare presented a massive taxpayer bailout risk, but they chose to suppress the information in their frenzy to push the controversial legislation through Congress.Read more »

Will the Supreme Court strike down all of ObamaCare?

2011-09-15T20:21:00.029-04:00

This week, a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the individual mandate -- the linchpin provision of the President's controversial health care law. So have other judges.

But this judge did something more: He struck down several parts of the law, not just the mandate.

Which revives the hope -- however slight -- that we might yet win a total victory in the courts.

Podcast: PerryCare vs. RomneyCare

2011-09-14T20:44:00.004-04:00

Today on FreedomWorks Radio, I had a lively discussion with conservative blogger Michelle Malkin about Texas Governor Rick Perry's controversial Gardasil vaccine mandate. Is PerryCare as bad as RomneyCare?

Click here to listen (20 min).

Whose mandate is worse?

Dude! Your health care mandate is, like, execrated!

2011-09-14T16:35:00.002-04:00

A new poll finds President Obama's health care mandate is so unpopular, it gets less respect than Rodney Dangerfield.

Dinosaur bones!

2011-08-12T14:43:00.005-04:00

Dinosaur National Monument in northwestern Colorado. 150-million-year-old bones can be seen sticking out of the hillsides.

Click on image to enlarge.

Vernal, Utah

2011-08-11T16:07:00.002-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Hedonistic dinos enjoy the hot tub and plush towels at the Dinosaur Best Western in Vernal, Utah.

Fossil Butte

2011-08-11T15:08:00.004-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

A hidden treasure in southwestern Wyoming, Fossil Butte National Monument is home to a lot of dinosaur fossils, deposited 50 million years ago in what was once a huge lake.

Grand Tetons

2011-08-10T11:02:00.002-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

River in Old Faithful Basin

2011-08-09T08:55:00.010-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Artist's Point

2011-08-08T14:52:00.002-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Yellowstone Canyon

2011-08-08T14:49:00.006-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Dawn at Old Faithful

2011-08-08T07:30:00.003-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Giant Geyser

2011-08-07T09:41:00.001-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Morning Glory Pool

2011-08-07T08:26:00.001-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Waterfall in Yellowstone

2011-08-06T13:44:00.005-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Mammoth Hot Springs

2011-08-06T12:37:00.002-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Buffalo Crossing

2011-08-06T11:21:00.002-04:00

A common traffic problem at Yellowstone.

Click on image to enlarge.

Old Faithful

2011-08-05T14:59:00.005-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

A buffalo grazing

2011-08-05T14:35:00.016-04:00

Near the Yellowstone Lake Hotel.

Click on image to enlarge.

Lake Yellowstone

2011-08-05T13:13:00.002-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Buffalo Bill State Park

2011-08-05T11:58:00.005-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Devils Tower in B&W

2011-08-04T12:40:00.002-04:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Publish Post

Devils Tower

2011-08-04T12:23:00.004-04:00

Good site for a congressional "Super Committee" field hearing?

Click on image to enlarge.

Mt. Rushmore

2011-08-03T13:16:00.024-04:00

These guys supported balanced budgets.

Click on image to enlarge.

Colorado

2011-07-31T21:37:00.007-04:00

Vacationing out West puts the Great Debt Ceiling Debate in healthy perspective.

Instant analysis of the (deficient) Boehner debt hike plan

2011-07-26T10:23:00.004-04:00

Here is an "instant analysis" of Speaker Boehner's new debt ceiling bill, which was released late last night and is slated to be voted on in the House tomorrow.
Read more »

Sorry, Star Trek fans. Time travel is impossible.

2011-07-26T00:01:00.000-04:00

186,000 miles per second. It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

Should we surgically repeal the individual mandate? YES

2011-07-22T15:27:00.011-04:00

In a blog post today, Avik Roy reports that in the debt ceiling hike discussions, President Obama is willing to entertain a request by House Speaker John Boehner to repeal the individual health care mandate.
Read more »

The Aug. 2 debt deadline: How ominous is it?

2011-07-21T09:42:00.001-04:00

The Aug. 2 debt deadline: How ominous is it?

The Week | JULY 21, 2011 | 9:42 AM

The Obama administration says America faces catastrophe if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling in time. Many Republicans don't believe it.
Read more »

GOP sounds more unified note on debt ceiling

2011-07-19T19:10:00.003-04:00

GOP sounds more unified note on debt ceiling

By Seth Mandel | Commentary magazine | July 19, 2011
Read more »

Video: 7 reasons why Aug. 2 isn't the end of the world

2011-07-19T12:01:00.000-04:00

FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy explains why President Obama's August 2nd "deadline" simply isn't the end of the world.

Watch the video

Debt ceiling: 7 reasons why Aug. 2 isn't the end of the world

2011-07-18T20:00:00.004-04:00

President Obama's predicted "economic Armageddon" won't happen on Aug. 2nd. And I can prove it.

Link to original post at redstate.com

New paper blows away Obama's Social Security check threat

2011-07-18T03:12:00.000-04:00

This handy 1-pager completely blows away President Obama's claim that he might not be able to send out 50 million Social Security checks on August 3rd, if Congress hasn't raised the national credit limit by August 2nd.

Read the analysis here (1 page)

Negotiators scramble to solve debt-limit puzzle

2011-07-17T22:10:00.007-04:00

As deadline draws near, negotiators scramble to solve debt-limit puzzle

By Niall Stanage | The Hill | 07/17/11 10:10 PM ET

On one side lies the chance of a historic bargain; on the other, the threat of a financial apocalypse. Negotiations over the debt ceiling have been almost unprecedented in their tortuous intensity.

With a grand bargain now looking unlikely, and the fervent House Republican freshmen too few in number to get all that they want, some middling approach appears the best bet. But the politics of the 2012 elections, both presidential and congressional, are making even that difficult.
Still, the irreducible concerns of key protagonists, and the challenges and threats they face, are becoming clearer by the hour.

BARACK OBAMA

Obama wants a grand bargain. But even as he reiterated this preference at a White House news conference Friday, he noted that the fallback option offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could be a “constructive” way “to at least avert Armageddon.”

If the McConnell proposal forms the basis for an eventual deal, Obama may emerge from the negotiations relatively unscathed, at least in the short term.

He seemed to be in a weaker position than Republican leaders just weeks or even days ago. But as the possibility of default loomed and the president increasingly used his bully pulpit to cast himself as a reasonable leader frustrated by Republican intransigence, the ground shifted in his favor.

This was the soil in which the McConnell plan germinated. Obama may ultimately grab it, albeit in the knowledge that shouldering full responsibility for debt-ceiling increases carries electoral peril next year.

MITCH McCONNELL

McConnell’s initial announcement of his plan had all the buoyancy of a lead balloon among the conservative grassroots.

Hardliners are still unappeased but the idea has unquestionably gained traction — not least because of the lack of viable alternatives as the deadline approaches.
One of the major questions is how much — or, rather, how little — Republican support it is likely to attract in the House. Significant Democratic support will almost certainly be needed to keep it alive.

Even if the plan fails, however, McConnell has solidified his reputation with all but the most strident of his Senate colleagues. Many GOP members in the upper chamber are deeply unhappy with what they see as the cavalier approach of their House colleagues.

JOHN BOEHNER

The Speaker’s standing was diminished when he first seemed to clamber on board Obama’s “grand bargain” train, and then had to disembark in the face of opposition from within his own conference. He has also had to contend with Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) becoming the public face and voice of House conservatives during negotiations.

Boehner will have to play at the top of his game as negotiations move toward a conclusion. Another stumble could raise serious questions about his leadership.

But the Speaker has not survived this long on Capitol Hill without versatile political skills. In particular, his willingness to let Cantor move to center stage may rebound to his advantage, especially as his rival ponders whether to back a deal that will almost certainly involve painful concessions.

NANCY PELOSI & HARRY REID

Pelosi has been more forceful than either President Obama or her House colleague and sometime rival Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in defending social programs beloved by Democrats.

Several accounts paint her as more willing to compromise behind the scenes, however, so long as Republicans have to share the pain, too. (“A pimple on your nose is different than a pimple on an elephant’s ass,” was how she put it during one meeting, according to the Wall Street Journal.)

Reid, meanwhile, has done what Reid does: work behind the scenes on the details of a deal (some modified version of the McConnell plan), while throwing barbs across the aisle, as when he called Cantor “childish” and said that he “shouldn’t be at the table.”

ERIC CANTOR

The good news for Cantor: he has upped his national profile and enhanced his standing with his conservative colleagues by playing such an assertive role.

The bad news: he faces some challenging days ahead, whatever way things play out.

If he chooses not to accept a deal, Democrats will redouble their efforts to portray him as the poster boy of Republican inflexibility.

There is also still doubt about what Cantor would accept, short of the conservative ideal. No one seems to know.

Still, assaults on Cantor, including from Reid, may burnish his status, both within the party and with grassroots supporters beyond the Beltway.

CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform seems more amenable to a McConnell compromise than might have been expected.

“I think there is an argument for a back-up,” Norquist told The Hill. “I like [McConnell’s] approach.”

Norquist added: “Look, there is going to be an election in 2012. We don’t have to change the world between now and 2012.”

FreedomWorks, an organization closely associated with the Tea Party was, perhaps predictably, more scathing of the McConnell plan and of the overall process.

“We denounced the McConnell plan when the ink was still wet,” Dean Clancy, the group’s legislative counsel, told The Hill proudly.

“The White House talks are a sham because the president is not really interested in a deal,” he said. “We think he wants a government crisis that he can blame on Republicans.”

LIBERAL ACTIVISTS

On the left, disappointment with Obama now wears only the thinnest of veils.

Damon Silvers, policy director at the AFL-CIO, told The Hill that “our members are looking for leaders who care about the things that matter to them.”

Asked whether they were finding such leaders, Silvers laughed wryly and said, “Every day is a new day.”

Max Richtman of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare told The Hill that his organization’s “level of concern was elevated dramatically when the White House raised Social Security as being part of a grand bargain.”

Many liberals were actually relieved when the idea of a grand bargain was capsized by Republican opposition. But the fluidity of the negotiations continues to cause heartburn.

“If I’m optimistic now, I might be pessimistic in 10 minutes’ time,” Richtman said.

(c) 2011 The Hill

Link to original post at thehill.com

BREAKING: House to vote on Cut Cap Balance Act, Tues 7/19

2011-07-17T12:00:00.000-04:00

Backed by a wave of overwhelming grassroots pressure, Speaker John Boehner has scheduled a surprise House vote on the Cut Cap Balance Act (H.R.2560) this coming Tuesday, July 19th.

TAKE ACTION: Tell your Congressman to vote YES on the Cut Cap Balance Act!

Link to original post at freedomwork.org

Video: Debt ceiling snap vote: What YOU can do

2011-07-17T09:30:00.000-04:00

Next Tuesday, July 19th, the House will vote on the Cut Cap Balance Act (H.R.2560) vs. the McConnell-Reid-Pelosi "Cut Run & Hide" approach. FreedomWorks' Max Pappas & Dean Clancy explain what you can do NOW on this important vote.

View the video (9 minutes)

Shootout at the Debt Hike Corral

2011-07-14T12:00:00.001-04:00

The following was originally posted at freedomworks.org

These next 2 weeks may be our last chance in a generation to get Washington spending under control.
Read more »

Blogs: Mitch McConnell 'fiendishly clever'

2011-07-13T10:54:00.000-04:00

Blogs: Mitch McConnell 'fiendishly clever'

By REID J. EPSTEIN | 7/13/11 7:54 AM EDT Updated: 7/13/11 1:22 PM EDT

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s proposal to allow President Barack Obama to raise the nation’s debt limit without Congress identifying corresponding spending cuts has split the Republican blogosphere into warring factions.
Read more »

Cantor's debt deal slides

2011-07-13T08:26:00.001-04:00

Here's a link to Eric Cantor's debt-ceiling deal slides, which leaked yesterday. They give a good glimpse of where the various parties stand in the Great Debt Ceiling Debate.
Read more »

Leaked menu of possible Medicare savings

2011-07-13T08:06:00.001-04:00

Before their debt-ceiling talks fell apart on July 10th, President Obama and congressional Republican leaders were discussing another roughly $350 billion in 10-year Medicare savings (on top of the $500 billion already passed as part of ObamaCare). Most of the discussed savers are your typical, unimaginative "provider reimbursement cuts," which often don't even save money because clever providers find workarounds and/or Congress later simply reverses the "cuts." But there is one very interesting idea on the list. It would require Medicare seniors and federal employees to cover the first $500 of their health care costs each year. That would save taxpayer money -- and help lower health care costs for all of us.

Here's a link to the list

Arm yourself for August recess

2011-07-13T00:02:00.000-04:00

Click here for your free kit

Fury on the right as McConnell outlines new plan for Obama to raise debt ceiling

2011-07-12T20:53:00.000-04:00

Fury on the right as McConnell outlines new plan for Obama to raise debt ceiling
By Chris Moody | Yahoo! News | The Ticket – Tuesday, July 12, 2011 ~5:53 PM
Read more »

Obama's failed "tax hike on the debt hike" gambit

2011-07-10T20:00:00.000-04:00

It appears President Obama's strategy in the debt ceiling talks has been to do 4 things:

Increase Uncle Sam's credit limit by enough to get past reelection.
Pose as a fiscal centrist.
Neuter the GOP on taxes.
Thwart real entitlement reforms.

Until two days ago, his strategy was working.

ObamaCare's health care mandate upheld again

2011-06-30T12:00:00.001-04:00

Yesterday's decision proves once again we cannot count on the courts to overturn ObamaCare.

FreedomWorks forming rival debt commission to Obama's group

2011-06-27T20:30:00.000-04:00

FreedomWorks forming rival debt commission to Obama’s group

Published: 5:30 PM 06/27/2011 | Updated: 10:29 AM 06/28/2011

By Nikki Grey

Some Tea Party activists aren’t impressed with President Obama’s debt commission.

So they’re going to form their own.

Announcing the Tea Party Debt Commission

2011-06-27T12:00:00.000-04:00

"The only way we will ever reduce the debt and balance the budget is if America beats Washington and tea party activists take over this process." -- Matt Kibbe

Tell the DC spenders to take 'The Pledge'

2011-06-21T12:00:00.000-04:00

It's quick. It's easy. And it could save our country.

No debt ceiling hike without a BBA!

2011-06-16T12:00:00.000-04:00

The bipartisan debt ceiling talks are likely to produce a bad deal.

ObamaCare is raising premiums

2011-06-15T12:00:00.000-04:00

A new government report confirms it. ObamaCare is already driving up health care costs.

Top 10 reasons to support the Ryan Medicare plan

2011-06-03T12:00:00.001-04:00

Sign the petition to Stand With Paul Ryan!

1. It will save Medicare (and thus the U.S. government) from bankruptcy.

Podcast: Senate budget votes

2011-05-26T14:57:00.000-04:00

It's been 757 days since the Democrats have passed a budget. Yesterday, the Senate held a vote on four different budget proposals, including President Obama's, Pat Toomey's, and Rand Paul's. President Obama's fared worst, defeated 97 to 0!

Dean Clancy has given us the breakdown.

Click to listen (9 minutes)

Link to original post at freedomworks.org

Report card: Grading the budget plans

2011-05-26T12:00:00.002-04:00

FreedomWorks has compiled a handy one-page report card on the competing 10-year budget plans:

Senate budget vote: GOP 40, Obama 0

2011-05-26T12:00:00.000-04:00

The Senate voted last night on 4 competing budget plans, and rejected all of them. Here's how they fared.

The Medicare test for President

2011-05-20T12:00:00.000-04:00

"A candidate who is timid on entitlement reform is not qualified to lead the country." -- Dick Armey & Matt Kibbe

TAKE ACTION: Stand with Paul Ryan!

The great debt ceiling debate scorecard

2011-05-19T12:00:00.000-04:00

The Great Debt Ceiling Debate of 2011 has begun, and FreedomWorks has published this handy scorecard to help you follow the action and weigh in. Here, on one page, is where all the key players stand:

An UNLIMITED ObamaCare slush fund

2011-04-28T12:00:00.000-04:00

Just when we thought there were no more brazen audacities left to report about in Obamacare, here comes a doozy.

A tale of three budget plans

2011-04-25T12:00:00.000-04:00

This chart from the 4/21 Wall Street Journal puts the budget battle in perspective.

Instant analysis: Obama's budget speech

2011-04-13T17:00:00.000-04:00

FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy and Max Pappas provide instant analysis of President Obama's April 13, 2011, speech on the budget.

Watch the video (9 minutes)

Video: House budget plans compared

2011-04-12T15:13:00.000-04:00

FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy and Max Pappas explain -- and grade -- the competing budget plans that will soon be voted on in the House of Representatives.

Specifically, they discuss competing 10-year budget plans offered by President Obama, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), and the House conservative caucus (RSC).

Watch the video (11 minutes)

Why this week's House budget vote is so crucial

2011-04-11T12:00:00.000-04:00

This past month's government-shutdown fight pales in comparison to the longer-term budget fight ahead.

In the words of a leading congressional budget-cutter, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), "We must now move from saving billions to saving trillions."

'Mother, may I?': Will Republicans fall for Wyden-Brown?

2011-03-01T15:38:00.000-05:00

'Mother, may I?': Will Republicans fall for Wyden-Brown?

Published: 12:38 PM 03/01/2011 | Updated: 2:27 PM 03/03/2011

By Dean Clancy

If liberals like Ezra Klein are right, yesterday’s olive branch “compromise” offer by President Obama on his controversial health care law won’t win any supporters among the law’s opponents, because, in so many words, it comes from Mr. Obama himself, and they don’t trust him enough to go for any “compromise” that he endorses.
Read more »

Time for a time out on ObamaCare

2011-02-04T12:00:00.000-05:00

On February 3, 2011, FreedomWorks and a coalition of conservative organizations sent a letter to the top leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, urging them to pass legislation stopping the Obama Administration from implementing Obamacare, pending review of the unpopular law’s constitutionality by the Supreme Court.

ObamaCare: Down but by no means out

2011-02-01T18:12:00.000-05:00

Obamacare: Down but by no means out

Published: 3:12 PM 02/01/2011 | Updated: 8:11 PM 02/03/2011

By Dean Clancy

Yesterday, a federal judge in Florida declared unconstitutional Obamacare’s mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance — the linchpin of the unpopular law rammed through last March by congressional Democrats. If the mandate is ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, Obamacare will unravel and Congress will have little choice but to reopen the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for amendment. That would enable us to reverse the government takeover and adopt a patient-centered approach.

Podcast: 2011 State of the Union reax

2011-01-26T12:00:00.000-05:00

FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy and Max Pappas comment on President Obama's 2011 State of the Union speech, as well as the Republican response from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin). 20 minutes.

Click to Listen

Link to original post at freedomworks.org

Podcast: Historic House repeal vote

2011-01-19T15:00:00.000-05:00

On January 19, 2011, the House passed a bill to fully repeal ObamaCare, with 245 Republicans and 3 Democrats voting in favor, 189 Democrats voting against. The vote was a huge win for the tea party and the American people. Dean Clancy discusses the historic vote -- and likely next steps.

Click to listen (5 minutes)

How to make the Senate vote on repeal

2011-01-18T12:00:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow, the House will vote on a bill to repeal the government takeover of health care. After it passes, the bill will go over to the Senate. The conventional wisdom is that it will die there. But don't start the funeral parade too soon. There is way to force a Senate vote on the House repeal bill.

The Clancy movie list

2010-12-27T13:17:00.000-05:00

"The fact is I am quite happy in a movie, even a bad movie."--Binx Bolling, The Moviegoer

FreedomWorks praises Virginia court's ruling on individual mandate

2010-12-14T14:16:00.000-05:00

FreedomWorks praises Virginia court's ruling on individual mandate

Published: 11:16 AM 12/14/2010 | Updated: 11:41 AM 12/15/2010

By Amanda Carey - The Daily Caller

FreedomWorks – the Washington, D.C. based conservative activist organization released a statement late Monday praising the Virginia court ruling on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health care bill, essentially calling it the beginning of the end of Obamacare. The organization called the decision a “blow on behalf of limited government and common sense.”

All of Dean Clancy's blog posts at freedomworks.org

2010-12-01T11:01:00.000-05:00

Link to all of Dean Clancy's posts at freedomworks.org

Who Is Dean Clancy? Part 5

2010-04-06T12:38:00.006-04:00

+ + +

"To be happy at home is the end of all human ambition." —Dr. Johnson

+ + +

To Be Happy at Home

And now for something completely different. What are my hobbies? Let's see. Reading for pleasure. Dating my wife. Joking with my daughter. Playing games with my sons. Impersonating a handy man around the house. And oh yes, tooling around in my convertible like a teenager. Midway through life's journey, I find myself turning into a little boy again, and a bit of a curmudgeon.

I used to do a good deal of movie-viewing -- I love the films of Akira Kurosawa, Billy Wilder, John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock; and I will confess to having something of a crush on Audrey Hepburn -- but in recent years I've given up virtually all electronic amusements, for lack of time. Also because so much popular fare nowadays is so incredibly lame -- and often brewed too strong, if you know what I mean. I suppose I'm pickier than most folks, but if you don't think the progression from Double Indemnity to The Black Dahlia is a decline, I'd like to know what your idea of a decline looks like. Or, to take some other examples, from Have Gun Will Travel to Deadwood, from White Christmas to The Brown Bunny, from Forbidden Planet to Avatar, from A Night to Remember to Titanic, from M to . . . oh heck, any slasher movie you can think of! You get the idea. We mistake vulgarity for realism, and realism for seriousness. I think the reason we don't see things like Grand Illusion or Seven Samurai any more is not because this generation lacks the talent to produce such magnificent glimpses into the human condition. On the contrary, our technical skills are amazing. I think it's because today's audiences wouldn't know what to do with them. Our moral horizon is too narrow. Just when we can finally depict anything imaginable, we lose our imagination! There are exceptions, of course -- The Lord of the Rings comes to mind, The Incredibles -- but I think their rarity, and seeming inanity, only proves my point.

To change the subject, and at the risk of a cloying metaphor, the day Mrs. Clancy came onto my screen was the day my life went from black and white to technicolor (and with Panavision, to boot). It was the spring of 1988. She wasn't Mrs. Clancy then, of course. After our first meeting, I didn't see her again for some months. When I did, I asked her out. Our first date was one of the official inaugural balls in Washington, January 20th, 1989. Turns out those events are over-rated. But we had a ball, despite the ball. And we kept seeing each other. I was smitten. A year later, I asked her to marry me. We became engaged at the end of the Reflecting Pool, on the National Mall, on a spot that is unfortunately now the World War II Memorial.

A little over twenty years later, I'm happy to report that our love has proved extremely peaceful, enduring, joyful, and productive of many good things. We have four beautiful children. Remarkably, she's still bright-eyed and gorgeous after more than two decades of living with yours truly -- a feat that surely qualifies her for canonization. She is our children's teacher, and a good one. I call her Smiles.

Today, we live in northern Virginia in an early-Sixties split-level home with a swimming pool and a sport court and a lot of tall trees. There are seven of us in the house -- me and Smiles and our three boys and her parents. The place is filled with love, and noise.

Our eldest child, now in college, is writing a novel and boasts a third-degree black belt. Her wit is only slightly softer than her elbow-strike. Obviously, the beauty, humor, and talents of my daughter make her a most attractive marital prospect. Therefore, gentlemen of excellent character, and good reflexes, are welcome to inquire about potential courtship opportunities. Those with substantial wealth are encouraged to do so.

P.S. I own a gun.

+ + +

"To love is to be vulnerable.” —C.S. Lewis

+ + +

Previous (Part 4)

Who Is Dean Clancy? Part 4

2010-04-06T12:37:00.020-04:00

Vote Tea Party!

Some folks might mistake me for a libertarian, but I don't accept that label. I don't hate government or politics. I accept the need for both, because "men are not angels" and politics is in our genes. I don't want to end or debilitate government, I want to constrain its powers and and limit its reach. I hate politicians but I love statesmen. The best politics -- true statesmanship, selflessly helping one's community to be decent, free, and just -- is as noble and inspiring a thing as can be imagined.

To me, true liberty means permitting that which is not wrong, and discouraging that which is wrong by reasonable means. So who decides what's right and wrong? Who decides what's reasonable? We do. Through local self-government. We discuss, we debate, we vote, and after the vote we obey the law -- or get out of town. Free societies have three essential marks: free speech, free elections, and free emigration. If you don't like our laws here, move to where the laws are more to your liking. Annandale: love it or leave it.

Anglo-American law traditionally recognizes four permissible reasons for public regulation of private activity: health, safety, welfare, and morals. I know it's unfashionable to go beyond the first two items on that list, but I think all four are in principle sufficient bases for restricting individual liberty. The "consenting adults" principle is a fine guide when we are speaking of things everyone regards as harmless. But taken too far, it can justify some pretty troubling things that no truly healthy community would or should condone. If you permit a thing, to the extent you permit it, you are in fact condoning it. So every community has no choice but to make choices about what it will and won't permit (and thus about what it will and won't condone).

In a room full of my fellow Christians, I feel like a freethinker. In a room full of libertarians, I feel like a medieval monk.

Mr. Clancy, do you consider yourself a political partisan? Yes. I am a Whig.

That's only half in jest. The Founders described themselves as Whigs, the anti-monarchical party in British politics -- and it's as good a description of my views as any.

Or you might say I'm a nineteenth-century Liberal. I believe in liberty.

Unfortunately, we don't have an eighteenth-century Whig party or a nineteenth-century Liberal party at the moment, so I'm in a quandary. To paraphrase Will Rogers, I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Republican. To be sure, there are days when I want to burn my party card with a blow-torch. But as I see it, America is a two-party country, and we all have a basic choice between the Evil Party and the Stupid Party, and I take my stand with the Stupid Party, so help me God.

Now, I'm not just any sort of Republican. To paraphrase Howard Dean, I am from the Republican wing of the Republican party. I am a republican with a small r. So paradoxically, I don't vote straight Republican, I vote straight "tea party" -- for candidates of any party whose election seems most likely to advance liberty through constitutionally limited government.

That word "conservative" is, as Paul McCartney says of his rascally grandfather in A Hard Day's Night, "a troublemaker and a mixer." I've given up on trying to figure out what it really means. It's become a vessel into which you can pour any contents. I remember marveling back around 1990, when the press started referring to the Stalinist hardliners in Russia -- the die-in-the-last-ditch socialists -- who were resisting Gorbachev's "liberal" reforms as "the conservatives." Any more, I just mentally add an adjective in front of "conservative." I am a constitutional conservative, and most emphatically not one of the "compassionate" or "big government" variety.

The tea party has been the delight of my political life. I view it as a natural and healthy reaction to the danger of unlimited power and the folly of unlimited debt. It is simply the beautiful America of old, coming to her senses. If you ask me to define the tea party program, I'd say it's constitutional conservatism, with an emphasis on smaller government, federalism, stopping the debt, and no more bailouts or special favors. Or as Congressman Tim Scott, Republican from South Carolina's First Congressional District, put it in November 2010:

If you believe in entrepreneurship and capitalism, you believe in at least a third of what the Tea Party stands for. If you believe that you ought not spend money you simply do not have, you believe in another third. And if you believe that limiting the role of federal government in our lives is a way to return power back to the people, I think you might be a member of the Tea Party.

By the way, Congressman Scott is the first black Republican sent to the House from South Carolina since Reconstruction.

If you're a social or religious conservative, as I am, the tea party's three-pronged agenda -- free markets, limited government, and fiscal responsibility -- is the only way forward. Under the American system, that third plank, limited government, is the only path back to the local control and traditional values we favor.

I believe this movement is the harbinger of what could very well prove a major political realignment. There ain't room enough in this country for both progressivism and the tea party. One of these two movements is going to prevail. Voters must make their choice. And live with the consequences.

It seems a conservative cannot avoid taking sides on Abraham Lincoln and his legacy, so I might as well show my cards. Unlike many of my friends, I do not view our 16th president as the American Caesar or the progenitor of Big Government. Just the opposite, I regard him as one of the greatest friends and defenders liberty has ever had. In saving the Union, he was saving not only the Constitution but liberty itself. Far from being a "tyrant," as some of our latter-day secessionist sympathizers like Thomas DiLorenzo claim, Abraham Lincoln was resisting the rising spirit of tyranny, because, unlike the rebels he defeated, he was preserving a Constitution dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal" against a counter-Constitution dedicated to the opposite principle.

Had the Confederacy prevailed in the Civil War, I am convinced, the ultimate result would not have been two American republics with similar institutions looking at each other across a long, peaceful border. Rather, slavery would likely have ended up triumphing throughout both countries. The expansionist spirit of the slave interest would have produced war to the south in Mexico and the Caribbean, and to the north by using control of the mouth of the Mississippi and an alliance with Britain, to pick off the weaker states of the old Union. The game would not have ended with a peace treaty, but ultimately with a re-Union under the Stars and Bars. The house would not have remained divided; it would have eventually become all-slave. That is why Lincoln fought as hard as he did to put down the rebellion. For that service, he should be hallowed.

Everything in our 16th president's statesmanship can be traced back to one source: the fundamental principles of America, as so eloquently expressed in her Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

These ideas are my inspiration as well, so I can't help but be fond of Lincoln and the Republican party he led. The Confederacy was not based on the principles of the Declaration, but on an explicit rejection of them. As the Confederate vice president, Alexander Stephens, made plain in a formal address at the outset of the Confederacy in February 1861:

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas [from those of the Founders, who held slavery to be "in violation of the laws of nature"]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."

A good introduction to my view of Lincoln and the Republican party of the nineteenth century is found in the essay, "Getting Right with Lincoln," by Charles R. Kesler, Claremont Review of Books, Feb. 21, 2001. As Kesler explains:

A generation after the Civil War, it would have been hard to see how American government had been distorted or permamently enlarged by Lincoln's administration. The widows and orphans of army veterans were being paid pensions; the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution had been added and so the national government had a new authority over civil and voting rights; but nothing essential to American republicanism had changed.

In those days, the Republican party stood for energetic but limited national government, for the equal rights of man and for the privileges and immunities of American citizenship. Calvin Coolidge's party, two or three generations later, was still very much the party of Lincoln.

Modern American liberalism began not with Lincoln or Coolidge but with the conscious break with the principles of the American founding made by the so-called Progressives. Big Government began when Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Croly rejected Lincoln's (and Taft's, and Coolidge's) Republicanism because they discerned at its heart the founders' republicanism.

He regarded the Declaration
as a "self-evident lie."

In the house of many mansions that is American conservatism, I do not feel at home in any of the more familiar rooms. I am neither a libertarian nor a traditionalist nor a paleocon nor a neocon. I can't bring myself to count Burke or Kirk or Calhoun or Hayek or Mises or Rothbard or Rand as among my personal heroes, though I do acknowledge their very real contributions to the cause of liberty, and I treat their best arguments and actions with great respect. But I can't fully embrace any of them for the simple reason that each appears, in his own way, to reject or undervalue the proposition that "all men are created equal."

Calhoun is the worst, going so far as to defend slavery as a "positive good" and to provide intellectual leadership to the southern slaveholding interests, who, in their zeal to preserve their peculiar institution, went to the extremity of denouncing the Declaration as a "self-evident lie" and concocting an unhistorical "states rights," "compact theory" of the Constitution to justify secession and rebellion. When conservatives and libertarians associate themselves with ideas like that, is it any wonder the American people refuse to entrust them with a governing majority? (There's an excellent treatment of Calhoun's political philosophy in chapter 5 of Thomas L. Krannawitter's fine book, Vindicating Lincoln.)

I am fond of all of the most important American Founders: Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and yes, even Hamilton. I do not try to view these men, with all their many differences, through the eyes of a partisan. They are all my friends, because they all clearly held that "all men are created equal."

Okay, so what exactly did these men mean by "all men are created equal," anyway? Well, as in so many things, I think Lincoln offers the best summary. In 1857, the Supreme Court in its Dred Scott opinion had held that no black man had any constitutional rights that a white man was bound to respect. The Declaration, the Court argued, did not refer to all human beings, but rather only to all white people of British (or perhaps of European) descent. In other words, the Court was asserting, "all men are created equal" is not a statement about individuals at all, but rather about groups: one group, the British colonists living in North America, were created equal to a second group, their fellow British subjects living in the mother country. Lincoln, following the Founders, rejected this interpretation, insisting the Declaration means exactly what it says: all men are created equal.

But because Americans in Lincoln's time tended to think of blacks as inferior to whites in various respects, Lincoln knew that if he were to succeed as a statesman -- if he were to succeed in preserving liberty -- he had to clarify what he meant in rejecting the "group rights" interpretation. Notice how precisely and carefully he does so, in one of his famous debates with Stephen A. Douglas:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary. But I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence -- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects -- certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

[The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois" (August 21, 1858).]

In this debate, Lincoln believed, much more was at stake than the mere question of whether slavery should be permitted in the territories acquired from Mexico. At stake was nothing less than the principle of self-government itself. As he had argued the previous year, in his speech denouncing the Dred Scott decision:

I think the authors of that notable instrument [the Declaration] intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

[Speech on Dred Scott (1857), in Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, ed. Roy P. Basler (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 403-407.]

In a speech on Independence Day 1858, the Railsplitter had offered still another argument in defense of the Declaration's self-evident truth: it supplies the unifying princple that, in America, serves the role filled in other lands by ties of blood and kinship. He began by noting that when we celebrate the Fourth of July, we celebrate the deeds and words of the Founders, men who, for many people in his day, were "fathers and grandfathers," the flesh and blood of those who were then living. But not so for the nation's many immigrants:

We have . . . among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men [who created our country]. They are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian . . . finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none. They cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel they are part of us. But when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' And then they feel that the moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men -- that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration. And so they are.

[Speech on Independence Day 1858.]

One more long quotation (sorry). One of my favorites, from Coolidge:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

[Speech on the Occasion of the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926, Philadelphia, Pa.]

And that's what I think, too.

Rather than the Pledge of Allegiance, our group loyalty statement should be the "We hold these truths" passage of the Declaration of Independence.

+ + +

P.S. There are, of course, numerous strands within libertarianism, so when I reject the label, I don't want to suggest that I reject absolutely everything every strand of libetarianism embraces. The key question is should we be free to choose? Or should be be free to choose the good? I say the latter. Hence my stress on the need for local self-government and letting people define the good for themselves as communities. Jordan Bailor has offered some interesting food for thought on this question.

P.P.S. Kesler proves a helpful guide to the endless civil wars within conservatism, in his essay, "All Against All," Claremont Review of Books, April 10, 2003. In those wars, I side with those who hold that liberty and equality are not opposing principles but two sides of the same coin. Without equality there can be no true liberty; without liberty no true equality. (I mean of course equality of opportunity, not of result.) In short, I hold that America -- the America of the Founders and of Lincoln -- is not a problematic but a very good thing, founded on a self-evident truth, and worthy of preserving unto the last generation.

Who Is Dean Clancy? Part 3

2010-04-06T12:36:00.010-04:00

My Views, and Goals

My philosophy of life can be summed up in a machine-gun burst of short sentences: Nature imposes limits. There's no free lunch. The only goal is happiness. No happiness without virtue. Virtue = good habits. Liberty, not license. Know thy self. Control thy self. Never lie to thy self. Love thy neighbor as thy self. Hands off my stuff. Don't touch my junk.

And oh yes, never complain about free food.

And never pass up a restroom.

You may suspect that I was born in the wrong century, and you would be right. All my political thinking begins with the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal." All my moral ideas boil down to the Golden Rule. Ask me to turn out my intellectual pockets, and all I can produce is one unfashionable truth and one threadbare platitude, heavily used. What can I say? I actually believe all that old stuff about natural rights and the consent of the governed and life, liberty, and property. I actually get chills when I read the Declaration of Independence, with its solemn invocation of "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Who talks like that any more? Oh heck, I have to quote it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. * * * We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States * * * And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Here's a bit of fun. Did you know that, in this document, there is a hidden teaching about monarchy? Look closely, you will see three distinct references to God, each describing him in terms of a different aspect of his divine rulership. "Creator" = legislative branch. "Supreme Judge" = judicial branch. "Divine Providence" = executive branch. Kind of makes you think of National Treasure, doesn't it? What the Founders are saying, I believe, is the Deity is the only monarch we can accept, because only in his divine hands can the three fundamental powers of government be safely entrusted.)

I had the honor of serving as the staff director of the President's Council on Bioethics during the height of the cloning and embryonic stem-cell debates (2001-2004). That experience taught me a lot about law, ethics, biology, and technology. It also tended to confirm my techno-pessimism, which I date to an evening in college, when I read C.S. Lewis's Abolition of Man in one sitting. Despite my doubts about the modern project of conquering nature to "ease man's estate," I came into the bioethics discussion assuming, as most people do, that science and technology are more or less positive forces in our lives, that "every day, in every way, our world gets better and better." The more I learned, however, the more I began to doubt my own optimism. I came to fear that there may be some truth -- alas! -- in the motto of the 1939 World's Fair: "Science Finds. Industry Applies. Man Conforms." And yet, despite all this, I remain a political optimist: No matter how great our power over nature, reason gives us the power to remain human, so long as we remember that we can have human dignity or unfettered liberty, but not both.

He defended the Constitu-
tion as a liberty document.

I am pro-life and pro-civil rights. Frederick Douglass is one of my heroes, because he defended the Constitution as a liberty document, not only against the slave interests that would shred it to preserve their peculiar institution, but also against those of his fellow abolitionists who denounced it as a slavery document and a "pact with Hell." Douglass rejected both extremes. As an escaped slave, he knew something about liberty, and about Hell.

I spend a lot of time thinking about what ails our country and the complexities -- the perplexities! -- of our system. My chief public ambition, modestly, is to help the American people restore limited, constitutional government. Not "small" government. "Small" implies weak or ineffective. I don't want government to be weak. I want it to be effective, but also tightly limited in what it can do. I want Uncle Sam locked within the iron cage intended for him by the Founding Fathers, via the system of enumerated powers. My view is well captured in "The Constitution and Limited Government" by Edward J. Erler, Imprimis, Sept. 2011.

If I had to reduce my my political goals to a bumper sticker, it would be: "It's the federalism, stupid." Getting back to the Founders' "compound federalism" is, I believe, the only sensible way to address most of our country's thorniest domestic issues. Not every issue, to be sure, but most. The states were meant to be watchdogs against federal encroachments on our liberties, and vice versa. I hasten to add: what we need isn't what we have today: "cooperative" federalism, where state and national politicians collaborate to expand government at all levels. No, what we need is the competitive federalism of the original Constitution. We haven't had that in a century. Pit state and federal politicians against each other again, and I guarantee you liberty and self-government will revive before your very eyes.

I also want to end the judicial usurpation of democracy. Increasingly, we are governed by a judicial oligarchy. Like the other federal branches and the states, the Supreme Court must be limited to its constitutionally assigned duties. Only one tool in our system seems to work to check judicial usurpations, and this is careful selection of judicial nominees via litmus tests. Here I side with most Democrats against most Republicans. The former understand that legal philosophy matters so much, it is worth fighting for. I see little value in the circuses that Senate confirmation hearings have become, and would frankly like to see them discontinued. (They only date back to the 1950s, anyway.) But I think Presidents and Senators do have both the right and the duty to ask for and receive rather specific assurances from potential nominees, as the price of their support. I mean assurances regarding their philosophy of judging, and yes, about their views on past cases. Does this seem corrupt? Does it threaten the "independence" of the judiciary? Well, what's the alternative? To be ruled by surprises. The downside of getting to pick your rulers is you have to screen them carefully, especially the ones you won't be able to fire. Republicans have an especially bad record on judicial appointments, and should therefore be held to an especially high standard of scrutiny. Life, liberty, and property can't afford even one more Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, or Miers.

Finally, I want to restore privacy -- real privacy. I want to be free to escape the sleepless gaze of Big Brother; to walk into most public places and not see a camera recording me; to go online without Google (and the government) recording my every keystroke; to check into a hotel and pay cash, without being commanded to produce my ID; to travel by air without some security guard taking pictures of my naked body through my clothes. (Tasteless joke of your choice here.) Above all, I want to deny the folks in Washington any reason or authority to know my name or where I live -- with reasonable exceptions, of course, for things like my passport and the census. I especially don't want the government knowing how much I earn or how much I've saved. Politicians and bureaucrats are like drunkards who simply can't stay sober; they will always help themselves to our property if they can. Therefore, let us, to the best of our ability, take away their temptations. Let's deprive governments at all levels of personally identifiable information about our income, our assets, our lawful actions, our whereabouts.

I have some ideas for how we could bring about the aforementioned reforms. But that's a subject for another blog.

+ + +

"Although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing,

we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it,

by being a slave himself."
—Lincoln

+ + +

Who Is Dean Clancy? Part 2

2010-04-06T12:35:00.013-04:00

Career

In November 1986, I landed my first real job, as a mail reader in the Reagan White House. It gave me a wonderful introduction to the minds and hearts of the American people. I was later promoted to staff writer, then I was a speech writer for HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, and in the early '90s I became a legislative staffer on Capitol Hill for a Texas congressman named Dick Armey.

I got to help Republicans stop HillaryCare in 1994 (and centrist Democrats too -- they had some of those back then, and without them the monstrous bill would certainly have become law).

What a thrill to be part of the Republican Revolution of '94!

Two years later, I had the honor of helping shepherd into law the historic Welfare Reform Act. It proved an amazing success. After 60 years of steady growth, the welfare caseload fell by half overnight. The cycle of dependency driving a seemingly permanent under-class was broken. Against stiff resistance from the press and the Left -- Time and Newsweek depicted Republicans as modern-day Scrooges -- we proved that gridlock can be overcome, and that the key to changing the incentives of welfare recipients is to change the incentives of the bureaucrats who "serve" them. We replaced an open-ended entitlement to individuals with a block grant to states, and that made all the difference in the world. We should do the same for other federal welfare programs, starting with Medicaid.

Beginning with the HillaryCare fight, health care reform policy proved my primary focus. In 1999 I drafted the first targeted health insurance tax credit bill. The idea, though it's not good tax policy, would have been very good health care policy at the time. The idea was to move toward a patient-centered health care system by creating a more level playing field in federal subsidies for private health insurance purchases. We need to wean ourselves away from the employer-based health benefits system, with its associated uninsured and job-lock problems. We need to inject market forces more forcibly into the health care marketplace. In 2000 this idea would be picked up by a GOP presidential candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush. As president, Bush failed to secure its enactment, mostly because of a lack of congressional imagination on health care issues, but also because Bush had other priorities, such as nation-building in Iraq and (sigh) adding a prescription drug benefit to an unreformed Medicare program. But the tax equity idea was picked up and expanded on by his successor as GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who of course didn't become president. I firmly believe that if this idea -- leveling the health care subsidy playing field -- had been enacted in some form under President Bush, President Obama's massive health care takeover would never have happened.

I've worked for three Presidents, a Vice President, a cabinet Secretary, and a House Majority Leader. A quarter-century in national policy-making has made me a Washington insider, though I've always had the soul of an outsider. I am a good team player but a bit of a maverick. I love effective cooperation; I hate groupthink. The quality I most admire in a statesman is imagination — and stubbornness.

+ + +

Been stuck in airports, terrorized

Sent to meetings, hypnotized

Overexposed, commercialized

Handle me with care

—Traveling Wilburys,
"Handle With Care"

+ + +

Who Is Dean Clancy? Part 1

2010-04-06T12:34:00.011-04:00

Hi, I'm Dean Clancy. You can read about my current day job in the "about me" box to the right. For my professional background, see my LinkedIn profile. Here, I'll provide some more personal information. (Note: I updated this five-part series of posts in October 2011.)
Read more »