The conflict between the practical and the ideal (Ramesh Ponnuru and the Big Beautiful Bill)

The current spat between Trump and Elon takes me back to a central moment in my political formation. It had to do with George W. Bush’s proposed reform of Social Security. Like most policies, he had an outline of what to do and left the specifics to Congress, but it was an outline based on reason and decency. Needless to say, I was a big fan.

He would have slightly increased the funds going to the poor and lower-middle-class elderly. He would have allowed people, if they so chose, to invest in the stock market with a portion of their Social Security savings. There would have been requirements to make sure that they invested in multiple stocks and bonds in order to minimize risk. Then he would have reduced Social Security checks to the upper-middle class and the rich. Some versions would have cut off Social Security almost entirely for the super-rich.

Additionally, these changes would have only taken effect for people below age 45 or 50 or so. (I forget the exact number, but it is not particularly important.) The idea was to not change things for people who were just about to retire.

It also would have cut Social Security by quite a lot. By most accounts it would have made Social Security financially viable for two more decades.

These reforms to Social Security were both libertarian, conservative, and progressive-leftist in all good ways. It was libertarian because it would increase individual freedom, allowing people to invest in stocks and limit government spending. It would have been conservative because it encouraged slow and responsible change. And it was leftist because it gave more money to the truly needy.

While this was going on, I was getting my degree in Political Science; I had dreams of reading all the books about politics and policy worth reading, and writing the best policy platform ever. So, as you can imagine, I loved this policy. Heck, I still do. While I have forgotten the details, I can recall the general brushstrokes immediately.

This is why initially I disagreed strongly with Ramesh Ponnuru’s article published in National Review. Ramesh said that this great policy would fail because it was unpopular and it would prevent George W. Bush from doing other good things. I thought to myself, "Who cares if it’s popular? It’s right on every account. Let Dubya lose his political capital to push through the right policy. Isn’t that the whole point of having political capital?"

Then reality happened, and it mugged me. It mugged me hard. Everything that Ramesh predicted happened. George W. Bush utterly failed to advance his Social Security reforms and wasted much of his second term.

Right now, Elon Musk is going through his idealistic phase that I got over in college. By contrast, Trump understands politics. He knows that getting things done in Washington requires shoveling money like manure on a farm field. And both activities are equally pleasant and odiferous. However, unlike farmers who take care to spread the manure evenly to maximize growth, politicians are rewarded for favoring the politically influential. As an American poet once said, “Anyone who loves the law or sausages should never watch either being made.”

I don’t know if I have an inner child, like some of the new-age types believe in, but I do have an inner idealist. I understand Elon Musk’s revulsion at the mephitic largesse of the big, beautiful bill. I get where he is coming from both intellectually and emotionally.

But he doesn’t know politics, and politics is a non-optional part of reality. Elon Musk is an autistic person of the Aspie variety. Many autistic people think that if they go through their plan or argument with cold but precise logic, other people will respond in kind. Aspies like to think that politicians and regular people will engage in policy discussions like a modern Aristotle, with a focus on rigorous accuracy.* Obviously, Elon Musk has only recently started paying attention to politics.

There is a big debate about the big, beautiful, corpulent bill on Ricochet. I think it’s a healthy debate between idealism and practicality. I merely wish to explain the positions of both men.

Going beyond this specific bill, I will note that this question is eternal. I imagine Plato and Pericles had these arguments about this or that specific bill in the Ecclesia. Whatever happens in the future, the tension between what can be done and what should be done will continue as it always has.

*Some have suggested that Aristotle was an Aspie, and I think that is quite possible. If you have not read Aristotle, think of Data from Star Trek as a Greek guy and you have a pretty good idea of what he was about. He is the founder of logic, after all.

Henry's related book recommendation: Frederick Douglass was a fiery idealist all his life, and Abraham Lincoln was always a moderate compromiser. Brian Kilmeade is a big fan of both men, and his book, The President and the Freedom Fighter, does a good job of talking about their conflict with each other. It is well worth reading.