Sacramento, CA--The beginning of a new millennium is a propitious time to clean out the closet of clichˇs, neologisms, jargon, and other familiar devices that have come to be a substitute for clear thinking. And maybe we can get rid of a few moribund institutions as well.

For example, it is high time we got rid of "public-private partnership," a euphemism for those cozy arrangements whereby private interests gang up with public officials to quash competition and pick the pockets of taxpayers. Since these are seldom, if ever, a "win-win situation," we can lose those as well. When the government is involved, it’s usually a win-lose situation.

Even though it has become part of the zeitgeist, "building infrastructure" usually means expanding government and raising taxes, so we can eliminate the phrase. "Asset forfeiture" should be changed to "government revenue enhancement" or kleptocracy. And it should be obvious that phrases such as "bureaucrat reform," "IRS reform," and "compassionate," as a description of any public policy, serve no purpose other than advertising.

The therapeutic argot of 12-step programs, such as being "in denial," is also a candidate for the ash heap. And while we are at it, let’s chuck weasel-words like "consensus."

Consensus, Margaret Thatcher said, represents "the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?"

Does anyone watch "Nightline" any more? Isn’t Ted Koppel in danger of becoming the Dick Clark of news? Regis Philbin is definitely overexposed, too, but shows no signs of going away any time soon. But perhaps what we should do is harness the irrepressible game- show revival to rescue us from the primary season doldrums. Instead of these interminable debates, why not have Regis host, "Who Wants to be President?" The rules would be simple: the winning contestant would keep a percentage of the money he saved the taxpayers. "For one hundred billion dollars, how would _you_ cut taxes, Alan Keyes?"

Or maybe if Ben Stein is looking for an equally deadpan substitute host for "Win Ben Stein’s Money," he could get Al Gore. Except the Veep would change the game to "Al Gore Wins _Your_ Money." For every wrong answer, your income-tax rate goes up one percent. Or now that the Super Bowl is over, maybe John Madden can be induced to transfer his talent for describing gladiatorial conflict from football to politics.

His "All-Madden Team" would consist of big spenders instead of big hitters. He could use his telestrator to analyze how the congressional "offense" of liberal spenders prevails over the "defense" of fiscal responsibility and limited government. "Look how this congressman throws an appropriation rider downfield in committee--_whap!_ --and sticks it to the taxpayer in this unguarded section of the tax code--_boom!_ I tell ya, he’s some kinda big spender. You just can’t teach that, you know. It’s pure instinct."

-- Steven Hayward

You are here: > Publications > Capital Ideas