Winter of Discontent
Things just keep getting worse for Fearless Leader-elect. First, the economy skids into oblivion, taking with it companies and jobs, and putting the country into a recession that's likely to last several years. Then, he hires cabinet members who most see as practical-minded, fairly competent people (most, at least), thereby ticking off the true believers on the far left, who now feel pouty and used. Hell hath no fury like a crabby ideologue. Now, the governor of his home state, and leader of his state party, gets nabbed by the FBI in a major corruption probe. And you thought the Rezco stuff was distasteful.
Sure you want this job?
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The Great Unwanted Unwashed
Harry Reid says he's pleased the Capitol Visitor's Center is finished because he won't have to smell the summer tourists anymore. So the Senator is saying all that hot air comes from another source, other than the gum-flappers and media hangers-on?
Smell thyself sinner.
And here I was thinking the Democrats were the party of the people.
Harry Reid says he's pleased the Capitol Visitor's Center is finished because he won't have to smell the summer tourists anymore. So the Senator is saying all that hot air comes from another source, other than the gum-flappers and media hangers-on?
Smell thyself sinner.
And here I was thinking the Democrats were the party of the people.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
As to why the blogging has lagged
Over the river, and through the wood,
to Grandfather's house we go;
the horse knows the way to carry the sleigh
through the white and drifted snow.
Over the river, and through the wood,
to Grandfather's house away!
We would not stop for doll or top,
for 'tis Thanksgiving Day.
Over the river, and through the wood-
oh, how the wind does blow!
It stings the toes and bites the nose,
as over the ground we go.
Over the river, and through the wood
and straight through the barnyard gate.
We seem to go extremely slow-
it is so hard to wait!
Over the river, and through the wood-
when Grandmother sees us come,
She will say, "o, dear, the children are here,
bring a pie for every one."
Over the river, and through the wood-
now Grandmothers cap I spy!
Hurrah for the fun! Is the pudding done?
Hurrah for the pumpkin pie!
Lydia Marie Child
"A Boy's Thanksgiving Day"
1844
Over the river, and through the wood,
to Grandfather's house we go;
the horse knows the way to carry the sleigh
through the white and drifted snow.
Over the river, and through the wood,
to Grandfather's house away!
We would not stop for doll or top,
for 'tis Thanksgiving Day.
Over the river, and through the wood-
oh, how the wind does blow!
It stings the toes and bites the nose,
as over the ground we go.
Over the river, and through the wood
and straight through the barnyard gate.
We seem to go extremely slow-
it is so hard to wait!
Over the river, and through the wood-
when Grandmother sees us come,
She will say, "o, dear, the children are here,
bring a pie for every one."
Over the river, and through the wood-
now Grandmothers cap I spy!
Hurrah for the fun! Is the pudding done?
Hurrah for the pumpkin pie!
Lydia Marie Child
"A Boy's Thanksgiving Day"
1844
Monday, November 17, 2008
Intolerant tolerance
Good column in the Chicago Tribune by John Kass, about a fourth grader's experiment in tolerance, wearing a McCain shirt to class and recording comments. Shock of all shocks, the inclusive Obamanaics became distinctly threatening when they saw her attire.
Good column in the Chicago Tribune by John Kass, about a fourth grader's experiment in tolerance, wearing a McCain shirt to class and recording comments. Shock of all shocks, the inclusive Obamanaics became distinctly threatening when they saw her attire.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Yet More From the Neighborhood
Below is my take on the real causes of wage and income inequality and increasing socio-economic rigidity in the U.S. and whether tax policy can solve the problems:
Huzzah for the middle class! But where does it come from and why has it been getting harder for the poor to move up the ladder? There are many who want to take the short-cut and use tax policy to transfer wealth. I'm very much in favor of the social safety net but income transfers, pursued too aggressively, would have the effect of reducing long-term growth by reducing investment, research and development and employment. And who gets hurt the most in a low-growth environment? Not the rich, you can be sure of that - they have resources and the ability to shelter themselves from government policies. The real losers are the middle-class and poor.
The actual cause of the decline in economic mobility, I think, is a lot more complex and is directly related to human capital development which is the true source of all wealth. A recent book, "The Race Between Education and Technology," by Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz throws this issue into high relief. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, rapid industrialization occurred in tandem with the rise of the high school movement. For the first time in human history, a society decided to begin equipping most people -- male and female -- with high quality basic education. The young adults moving from farms into factories were arriving at work with strong literacy and numeracy skills and the capacity to adapt quickly to changing technology. The result was explosive economic growth, rising incomes across the board and the rapid expansion of the middle class.
Since the 1970s the picture as been the opposite. Education and technology have been out of sync, with the effectiveness of our education system falling behind technology at a rapid rate. The result of lower levels of education has been a "bidding-up" by the market of the available workers. (This trend is further exacerbated by the demographic squeeze brought on by smaller family sizes.) This is the real source of growing income inequality. Repeat after me: the market always wins. A declining supply of educated, flexible workers means the average unit cost of those that remain goes up. This market effect is what is driving wage and income inequality. If we want to strengthen the middle class, the long-term solution is to do a better job at educating and training the workforce to be able to staff a technology-driven economy.
Of course, the education and training problem isn't equally distributed across society. For the middle and upper class, the education systems still work pretty well. Schools serving poor kids? Not so much, mostly because the kids aren't arriving ready-to-learn in classrooms, live in chaotic households, and are often members of sub-cultures where learning isn't valued or esteemed resulting in dropout rates exceeding 50 percent. I doubt we will fix these problems by spending more on schools. District of Columbia public schools spends more per capita than any system in the country and has traditionally had some of the worst outcomes.
So what's the answer? Poor families, neighborhoods and communities need help to achieve a shift that fosters safety, health, and a love and appreciation or education. Government can do some things (like a better job of policing and expanding access to health care) that will help. But the bigger problems lie outside the realm of government and require strengthening non-governmental institutions, religious and community organizations, for instance, that can help deal with the values questions. Youth mentoring is a good example of this because it helps prepare children for opportunity by changing their beliefs about themselves and the world around them. It is only when we address these precursor or learning-readiness issues that all our other investments will begin to pay off. Otherwise, it is pouring water into a basket - it just runs right through.
In short, resentment toward the rich can feel very rewarding, and, on some level, may even be deserved. But making the rich poor does not mean you will make the poor rich or even middle class. If you take the easy way out, the way that demands nothing from those you are trying to help, you could very well end up making the problem worse not better. Proceed with caution.
Below is my take on the real causes of wage and income inequality and increasing socio-economic rigidity in the U.S. and whether tax policy can solve the problems:
Huzzah for the middle class! But where does it come from and why has it been getting harder for the poor to move up the ladder? There are many who want to take the short-cut and use tax policy to transfer wealth. I'm very much in favor of the social safety net but income transfers, pursued too aggressively, would have the effect of reducing long-term growth by reducing investment, research and development and employment. And who gets hurt the most in a low-growth environment? Not the rich, you can be sure of that - they have resources and the ability to shelter themselves from government policies. The real losers are the middle-class and poor.
The actual cause of the decline in economic mobility, I think, is a lot more complex and is directly related to human capital development which is the true source of all wealth. A recent book, "The Race Between Education and Technology," by Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz throws this issue into high relief. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, rapid industrialization occurred in tandem with the rise of the high school movement. For the first time in human history, a society decided to begin equipping most people -- male and female -- with high quality basic education. The young adults moving from farms into factories were arriving at work with strong literacy and numeracy skills and the capacity to adapt quickly to changing technology. The result was explosive economic growth, rising incomes across the board and the rapid expansion of the middle class.
Since the 1970s the picture as been the opposite. Education and technology have been out of sync, with the effectiveness of our education system falling behind technology at a rapid rate. The result of lower levels of education has been a "bidding-up" by the market of the available workers. (This trend is further exacerbated by the demographic squeeze brought on by smaller family sizes.) This is the real source of growing income inequality. Repeat after me: the market always wins. A declining supply of educated, flexible workers means the average unit cost of those that remain goes up. This market effect is what is driving wage and income inequality. If we want to strengthen the middle class, the long-term solution is to do a better job at educating and training the workforce to be able to staff a technology-driven economy.
Of course, the education and training problem isn't equally distributed across society. For the middle and upper class, the education systems still work pretty well. Schools serving poor kids? Not so much, mostly because the kids aren't arriving ready-to-learn in classrooms, live in chaotic households, and are often members of sub-cultures where learning isn't valued or esteemed resulting in dropout rates exceeding 50 percent. I doubt we will fix these problems by spending more on schools. District of Columbia public schools spends more per capita than any system in the country and has traditionally had some of the worst outcomes.
So what's the answer? Poor families, neighborhoods and communities need help to achieve a shift that fosters safety, health, and a love and appreciation or education. Government can do some things (like a better job of policing and expanding access to health care) that will help. But the bigger problems lie outside the realm of government and require strengthening non-governmental institutions, religious and community organizations, for instance, that can help deal with the values questions. Youth mentoring is a good example of this because it helps prepare children for opportunity by changing their beliefs about themselves and the world around them. It is only when we address these precursor or learning-readiness issues that all our other investments will begin to pay off. Otherwise, it is pouring water into a basket - it just runs right through.
In short, resentment toward the rich can feel very rewarding, and, on some level, may even be deserved. But making the rich poor does not mean you will make the poor rich or even middle class. If you take the easy way out, the way that demands nothing from those you are trying to help, you could very well end up making the problem worse not better. Proceed with caution.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
The Rise of Rahmbo
President-elect Obama has already made the most consequential appointment of his administration in choosing Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. He's one tough S.O.B., and there's been a considerable amount of teeth-gnashing and sword sharpening among Republicans over the appointment. And for good reason: Emanuel likes his Republicans al dente and is THE toughest street fighter on the other side. Not withstanding that I wouldn't come within a mile of working for this guy, his appointment is cause for rejoicing if you care about the future of the country. We need to give Obama a big, wet kiss on this one.
Three years ago when New Orleans was drying out and President Bush was sinking into the polling cellar from which he never emerged, Emanuel saw and seized his opportunity as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He started looking into swing districts and asking not what sort of Democrat would we like to see elected here but what sort of Democrat could be elected here. If we need a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat in a Southern district, let's find one. And he did. And many of those moderates won.
The lesson here is that while Emanuel is a fighter, he's just as inclined (perhaps more inclined) to fight the worst instincts of his own party as he is to fight Republicans because, above all else, he cares about winning and he knows the Democrats' message on a lot of issues is a losing message. That's why Nancy Pelosi told him he had to get in line behind the always reliable Jim Clyburn in the House leadership. She knew he would be nothing but grief to the liberal agenda she and the rest of her caucus had in mind.
Don't get me wrong. The Emanuel pick is not a victory for Republicans. He's going to drive us into the ground every chance he gets. But, with his understanding of Congress, and his sense of what's possible and what's not, he will reinforce Obama's tempermental moderation with his own policy moderation. Triangulation could make a comeback.
President-elect Obama has already made the most consequential appointment of his administration in choosing Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. He's one tough S.O.B., and there's been a considerable amount of teeth-gnashing and sword sharpening among Republicans over the appointment. And for good reason: Emanuel likes his Republicans al dente and is THE toughest street fighter on the other side. Not withstanding that I wouldn't come within a mile of working for this guy, his appointment is cause for rejoicing if you care about the future of the country. We need to give Obama a big, wet kiss on this one.
Three years ago when New Orleans was drying out and President Bush was sinking into the polling cellar from which he never emerged, Emanuel saw and seized his opportunity as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He started looking into swing districts and asking not what sort of Democrat would we like to see elected here but what sort of Democrat could be elected here. If we need a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat in a Southern district, let's find one. And he did. And many of those moderates won.
The lesson here is that while Emanuel is a fighter, he's just as inclined (perhaps more inclined) to fight the worst instincts of his own party as he is to fight Republicans because, above all else, he cares about winning and he knows the Democrats' message on a lot of issues is a losing message. That's why Nancy Pelosi told him he had to get in line behind the always reliable Jim Clyburn in the House leadership. She knew he would be nothing but grief to the liberal agenda she and the rest of her caucus had in mind.
Don't get me wrong. The Emanuel pick is not a victory for Republicans. He's going to drive us into the ground every chance he gets. But, with his understanding of Congress, and his sense of what's possible and what's not, he will reinforce Obama's tempermental moderation with his own policy moderation. Triangulation could make a comeback.
New England Republicans
Good article in today's Boston Globe about the future of New England Republicanism, basically outlining how they can be relevant again by avoiding social wedge issues and emphasizing efficiency in government, thrift in budgets, and support for the variety of civic institutions people use in their daily lives. This last is the most vague, but it seems like a kind of sociological conservatism -- using government to facilitate (rather than replace) all the "little platoons" in our lives, the institutions that make life worth living.
One key for Republican recovery should be a regional leader with national profile who works to build the Party's reputation across the six states -- a guide to recruit, fund raise, network, and campaign for candidates just within that region, coordinating with the various state committees to build a regional movement. This type of activity was common in the past. Nineteenth century politicians were often called "a leader of the Western Republicans" or "a Southern Democratic leader" as they built blocs of support for their future presidential runs and the influencing of national policy. The Party needs a leader of the New England Republicans who takes this as their special challenge.
Who could that be? Well, there are six obvious candidates based on their current positions. Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri, Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell, Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg. Another obvious candidate could be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whose successful efforts to rebuild regional Republicanism might boost toward another White House run.
The Republican Main Street Partnership should also play a major role in regional recovery -- Nancy Johnson, Charles Bass, and Warren Rudman are all board members and all New Englanders. They have chapters in Maine and New Hampshire -- why not the other four states, especially since three of those four have Republican governors?
Begin with ideas. What makes us Republican? Why are we not Democrats? Designate a regional leader and spokesperson. This is their project. Find like-minded people -- donors, campaign workers, candidates -- and recruit.
Look, it can't get much worse. Give it a whirl.
Good article in today's Boston Globe about the future of New England Republicanism, basically outlining how they can be relevant again by avoiding social wedge issues and emphasizing efficiency in government, thrift in budgets, and support for the variety of civic institutions people use in their daily lives. This last is the most vague, but it seems like a kind of sociological conservatism -- using government to facilitate (rather than replace) all the "little platoons" in our lives, the institutions that make life worth living.
One key for Republican recovery should be a regional leader with national profile who works to build the Party's reputation across the six states -- a guide to recruit, fund raise, network, and campaign for candidates just within that region, coordinating with the various state committees to build a regional movement. This type of activity was common in the past. Nineteenth century politicians were often called "a leader of the Western Republicans" or "a Southern Democratic leader" as they built blocs of support for their future presidential runs and the influencing of national policy. The Party needs a leader of the New England Republicans who takes this as their special challenge.
Who could that be? Well, there are six obvious candidates based on their current positions. Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri, Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell, Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg. Another obvious candidate could be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whose successful efforts to rebuild regional Republicanism might boost toward another White House run.
The Republican Main Street Partnership should also play a major role in regional recovery -- Nancy Johnson, Charles Bass, and Warren Rudman are all board members and all New Englanders. They have chapters in Maine and New Hampshire -- why not the other four states, especially since three of those four have Republican governors?
Begin with ideas. What makes us Republican? Why are we not Democrats? Designate a regional leader and spokesperson. This is their project. Find like-minded people -- donors, campaign workers, candidates -- and recruit.
Look, it can't get much worse. Give it a whirl.
In the mist of global huzzahs about the election of Obama, comes this ice water tsunami from the always reliably curmudgeon Peter Hitchens:
Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.
The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.
I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.
That's just the beginning.
Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.
The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.
I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.
That's just the beginning.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
That 70s Show
Apparently, a group of conservative leaders met out in the Blue Ridge to "discuss conservatism's future," and that among the attendees were Richard Viguerie, Morton Blackwell, R. Emmett Tyrrell, and Brent Bozell. Are these veterans of the 70s wars really the ones to chart the future? Is there anyone out there who wasn't involved in the Reagan Revolution of thirty years ago who can steer conservatism forward?
Don't get me wrong, these people did wonders during the Carter Administration and early 1980s. I actually attended Blackwell's Leadership Institute lo' those many years ago. But most people born after 1978, don't remember Ronald Reagan and have nothing invested in those earlier wars. Pictures from books and tales from the good old days are hardly the inspiration to action these people need. Renewing conservatism by waving "Remember Reagan" flags would be like Republicans in 1930 yelling "Remember McKinley," in 1954 saying "Remember Coolidge," or in 1986 chanting "Remember Eisenhower." History is a gentle guide, not a directive.
Conservatism needs new blood and new ideas. This may sound odd, but as a general rule, I want to see conservative leaders who don't remember 1968. If you can recall Lyndon Johnson, you're too old.
Apparently, a group of conservative leaders met out in the Blue Ridge to "discuss conservatism's future," and that among the attendees were Richard Viguerie, Morton Blackwell, R. Emmett Tyrrell, and Brent Bozell. Are these veterans of the 70s wars really the ones to chart the future? Is there anyone out there who wasn't involved in the Reagan Revolution of thirty years ago who can steer conservatism forward?
Don't get me wrong, these people did wonders during the Carter Administration and early 1980s. I actually attended Blackwell's Leadership Institute lo' those many years ago. But most people born after 1978, don't remember Ronald Reagan and have nothing invested in those earlier wars. Pictures from books and tales from the good old days are hardly the inspiration to action these people need. Renewing conservatism by waving "Remember Reagan" flags would be like Republicans in 1930 yelling "Remember McKinley," in 1954 saying "Remember Coolidge," or in 1986 chanting "Remember Eisenhower." History is a gentle guide, not a directive.
Conservatism needs new blood and new ideas. This may sound odd, but as a general rule, I want to see conservative leaders who don't remember 1968. If you can recall Lyndon Johnson, you're too old.
Friday, November 07, 2008
More From My Email In-Box
The following is a response to a friend who was very politely and kindly incredulous that a sophisticated policy wonk such as myself could find any redeeming qualities in Sarah Palin.
A couple thoughts on Sarah Palin. First, while I know a fair amount about politics and policy, my decision making process for choosing candidates is really pretty simple. I try to practice strategic voting in supporting candidates that align with those issues that I have the strongest views on: life and family issues, national security, and poverty, in that order. It isn't that Senator Obama wouldn't have checked any the boxes but he is, in my view, so radical on the first and so lacking in experience in the second, that my sympathies with him on the third just didn't and couldn't balance them out. On the other hand, I felt very comfortable with both McCain and Palin on the first two, and I think both were educable on the third. I don't think she was qualified to be president but I wasn't expecting McCain to die in office (frankly, I think he's so irrascible he will probably outlive me) and even if he had, I would have felt the country was in good enough hands with a woman of Palin's intelligence (she's very smart, you know) and grounding. It is hard being president but people tend to grow into the office quickly when they have to.
This may sound a bit "off-hand" to you, boiling decisions down to so few issues and such basic considerations. My attitudes on this grow out of long exposure to the policy process. On most issues, I would be able to generate a stack of reports of equal height and persuasiveness on both sides of any given issue. I'm not impressed with encyclopedic knowledge of issues; often that much information is a hindrence and, honestly, just about anyone of average intelligence can master that kind of work. (I know this because I'm a person of average intelligence and I've done just fine in Washington.) The most important thing in politics boils down to philosophy and prudential judgment: where does a policy issue fit within the broader philosophical frame that you make decisions by? Since I won't be able to influence many (if any) decisions a president makes, I have to make the most of my ballot and that means voting for the candidates who best reflect my own views and what I'd like to see done. Viewed through that lens, I'm entirely happy with having backed John McCain AND Sarah Palin.
The biggest mystery to me about the whole Sarah Palin kerfuffle is how much socioeconomic class seems to explain reactions to her. People who come from the working-class people (me, Mrs. Potomac, others) or are part of the working class themselves instantly recognize her as someone like them. She understands what average people with maybe a high school diploma or two-year degree (that is, about half of America) think and value: family, community, security and common sense. Like me, she seems to know that it would be far better to be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard (William F. Buckley's line) because those elites are so often divorced from reality and captive to utopian philosophies. The community organizer line was a cheap and unnecessary shot but it was driving at an important point: people who work for a living, take care of their families, serve on the PTA or with their Cub Scout troops, or are small-town mayors are the real community organizers not the social services professionals who make their living from the welfare system.
By contrast, I found that college educated people - and especially women with degrees - were driven around the bend by Sarah Palin. In her obvious religiosity, her five (!) children, her insistence that she would carry a Down child to term, her support for her pregnant teenage daughter's decision not to abort her child, and the ease with which she embraced her femininity and her career, she was in a way a living repudiation of the model that feminists have developed over the past 40 years or so. The result was a kind of rage that I didn't know existed among normally very kind and decent people. I think those are the kinds of attitudes that really drive voting behavior not the careful weighing of whether a 15% subsidy for health care is better than an 18% subsidy or vice-versa.
The following is a response to a friend who was very politely and kindly incredulous that a sophisticated policy wonk such as myself could find any redeeming qualities in Sarah Palin.
A couple thoughts on Sarah Palin. First, while I know a fair amount about politics and policy, my decision making process for choosing candidates is really pretty simple. I try to practice strategic voting in supporting candidates that align with those issues that I have the strongest views on: life and family issues, national security, and poverty, in that order. It isn't that Senator Obama wouldn't have checked any the boxes but he is, in my view, so radical on the first and so lacking in experience in the second, that my sympathies with him on the third just didn't and couldn't balance them out. On the other hand, I felt very comfortable with both McCain and Palin on the first two, and I think both were educable on the third. I don't think she was qualified to be president but I wasn't expecting McCain to die in office (frankly, I think he's so irrascible he will probably outlive me) and even if he had, I would have felt the country was in good enough hands with a woman of Palin's intelligence (she's very smart, you know) and grounding. It is hard being president but people tend to grow into the office quickly when they have to.
This may sound a bit "off-hand" to you, boiling decisions down to so few issues and such basic considerations. My attitudes on this grow out of long exposure to the policy process. On most issues, I would be able to generate a stack of reports of equal height and persuasiveness on both sides of any given issue. I'm not impressed with encyclopedic knowledge of issues; often that much information is a hindrence and, honestly, just about anyone of average intelligence can master that kind of work. (I know this because I'm a person of average intelligence and I've done just fine in Washington.) The most important thing in politics boils down to philosophy and prudential judgment: where does a policy issue fit within the broader philosophical frame that you make decisions by? Since I won't be able to influence many (if any) decisions a president makes, I have to make the most of my ballot and that means voting for the candidates who best reflect my own views and what I'd like to see done. Viewed through that lens, I'm entirely happy with having backed John McCain AND Sarah Palin.
The biggest mystery to me about the whole Sarah Palin kerfuffle is how much socioeconomic class seems to explain reactions to her. People who come from the working-class people (me, Mrs. Potomac, others) or are part of the working class themselves instantly recognize her as someone like them. She understands what average people with maybe a high school diploma or two-year degree (that is, about half of America) think and value: family, community, security and common sense. Like me, she seems to know that it would be far better to be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard (William F. Buckley's line) because those elites are so often divorced from reality and captive to utopian philosophies. The community organizer line was a cheap and unnecessary shot but it was driving at an important point: people who work for a living, take care of their families, serve on the PTA or with their Cub Scout troops, or are small-town mayors are the real community organizers not the social services professionals who make their living from the welfare system.
By contrast, I found that college educated people - and especially women with degrees - were driven around the bend by Sarah Palin. In her obvious religiosity, her five (!) children, her insistence that she would carry a Down child to term, her support for her pregnant teenage daughter's decision not to abort her child, and the ease with which she embraced her femininity and her career, she was in a way a living repudiation of the model that feminists have developed over the past 40 years or so. The result was a kind of rage that I didn't know existed among normally very kind and decent people. I think those are the kinds of attitudes that really drive voting behavior not the careful weighing of whether a 15% subsidy for health care is better than an 18% subsidy or vice-versa.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
This is a question for Dr. Potomac, since he's on the ground in DC and I'm stuck in God-forsaken fly-over country.
I can understand why Adam Putnam is out of Republican leadership on the Hill, with Roy Blount right after him. But why is John Boehner hanging on? What has he done to improve the standing, organization, or public face of the Republican Party since he's been Minority Leader? Now, I don't know the Republican leadership all that well in the House, but from what I see and hear of Eric Cantor, give him a try as the new, young face of the Party. What about Thad McCotter?
Same with the Senate -- please don't tell me Mitch McConnell is remaining as Minority Leader. And frankly, most of the Senate Republican leadership is fairly moldy. How about a fresh face, at least a face fresh to most Americans. How about Richard Burr of North Carolina? John Thune of South Dakota? John Barrasso of Wyoming?
I can understand why Adam Putnam is out of Republican leadership on the Hill, with Roy Blount right after him. But why is John Boehner hanging on? What has he done to improve the standing, organization, or public face of the Republican Party since he's been Minority Leader? Now, I don't know the Republican leadership all that well in the House, but from what I see and hear of Eric Cantor, give him a try as the new, young face of the Party. What about Thad McCotter?
Same with the Senate -- please don't tell me Mitch McConnell is remaining as Minority Leader. And frankly, most of the Senate Republican leadership is fairly moldy. How about a fresh face, at least a face fresh to most Americans. How about Richard Burr of North Carolina? John Thune of South Dakota? John Barrasso of Wyoming?
Democratic King-Makers: Dixiecrats
One considerable balm to soothe conservative anxieties about a radical legislative program coming from the Hill are conservative Southern Democrats. If the Pelosi team turn rudder hard left, those Blue Dogs either won't vote for those bills (and form a coalition with Republicans) or, if they do, will be swept out by Republicans in 2010.
The Heath Schuler Democrats hold the keys to Democratic success or failure.
One considerable balm to soothe conservative anxieties about a radical legislative program coming from the Hill are conservative Southern Democrats. If the Pelosi team turn rudder hard left, those Blue Dogs either won't vote for those bills (and form a coalition with Republicans) or, if they do, will be swept out by Republicans in 2010.
The Heath Schuler Democrats hold the keys to Democratic success or failure.
7 Victories Inside 1 Defeat
1. The election of America's first African-American president. While conservatives cannot applaud his policies, they can appreciate and embrace the historic moment of Obama's election and how it will contribute to the nation's social stability.
2. One word: cloture. The Democats' failure to reach 60 votes in the Senate means the filibuster is, theoretically, in tact. The Senate will remain able to perform is constitutional function of slowing ill-considered bills coming from a very liberal House.
3. Three words: No Al Franken. Of all the races that would inflict the most pain, the election of Al Franken to the Senate has to be very near the top. At least, we won't have to listen to that.
4. The strategic sense of Alaska Republicans. I don't believe Alaskans like voting for convicted felons. However, it probably swam into focus that if they didn't they were going to be stuck with a Democrat senator for six years. Stevens' reelection opens the way for an appointment or a special election (there are conflicting state statutes on the matter). Regardless, it will be a Republican. By the way, who's the most popular Republican in Alaska?
5. I think we've hit bottom. Conditions are unlikely to be better for Democrats or worse for Republicans for the balance of my life. The long decline that began with Hurricane Katrina and ran through the Iraq meltdown probably reached its nadir last night. How long the recovery takes will depend on the ulitmate imponderable in politics: events.
6. The victors themselves. While they are not alone in this characteristic of political parties riding an election high, the Democrats (particularly in the House) are likely to start believing their own press releases. This inevitably leads to over-reaching and in that over-reaching is the Republican come-back.
7. Cleaning out the deadwood. Some of the Senate losses were richly deserved (Elizabeth Dole, call your office.) The godlessness attack on her opponent harkened back to the 1930s. When your accomplishments and attentiveness to your state are so lacking that you are forced to reach for a despicable charge like that, it's time to go. The closeness of the presidential race in North Carolina indicates that it will continue to be a Senate battleground with good opportunities for the GOP in six years.
1. The election of America's first African-American president. While conservatives cannot applaud his policies, they can appreciate and embrace the historic moment of Obama's election and how it will contribute to the nation's social stability.
2. One word: cloture. The Democats' failure to reach 60 votes in the Senate means the filibuster is, theoretically, in tact. The Senate will remain able to perform is constitutional function of slowing ill-considered bills coming from a very liberal House.
3. Three words: No Al Franken. Of all the races that would inflict the most pain, the election of Al Franken to the Senate has to be very near the top. At least, we won't have to listen to that.
4. The strategic sense of Alaska Republicans. I don't believe Alaskans like voting for convicted felons. However, it probably swam into focus that if they didn't they were going to be stuck with a Democrat senator for six years. Stevens' reelection opens the way for an appointment or a special election (there are conflicting state statutes on the matter). Regardless, it will be a Republican. By the way, who's the most popular Republican in Alaska?
5. I think we've hit bottom. Conditions are unlikely to be better for Democrats or worse for Republicans for the balance of my life. The long decline that began with Hurricane Katrina and ran through the Iraq meltdown probably reached its nadir last night. How long the recovery takes will depend on the ulitmate imponderable in politics: events.
6. The victors themselves. While they are not alone in this characteristic of political parties riding an election high, the Democrats (particularly in the House) are likely to start believing their own press releases. This inevitably leads to over-reaching and in that over-reaching is the Republican come-back.
7. Cleaning out the deadwood. Some of the Senate losses were richly deserved (Elizabeth Dole, call your office.) The godlessness attack on her opponent harkened back to the 1930s. When your accomplishments and attentiveness to your state are so lacking that you are forced to reach for a despicable charge like that, it's time to go. The closeness of the presidential race in North Carolina indicates that it will continue to be a Senate battleground with good opportunities for the GOP in six years.
Palin for Senate
The good people of Alaska have decided to rally behind a convicted felon and re-elected Ted Stevens. Reid and McConnell have both said he is persona non grata and will be expelled from the Senate if he doesn't resign first.
Under Alaska law, a special election will be necessary to fill the seat, and there's just one Republican for the job right now: Governor Sarah Palin. With an 80 percent approval rating she would win easily. The seat would provide her with a national platform to prepare for 2012 and would fill in the soft spots in her resume -- which is kind of one big soft spot right now.
C'mon, Sarah. Let's go get all mavricky in the Senate.
The good people of Alaska have decided to rally behind a convicted felon and re-elected Ted Stevens. Reid and McConnell have both said he is persona non grata and will be expelled from the Senate if he doesn't resign first.
Under Alaska law, a special election will be necessary to fill the seat, and there's just one Republican for the job right now: Governor Sarah Palin. With an 80 percent approval rating she would win easily. The seat would provide her with a national platform to prepare for 2012 and would fill in the soft spots in her resume -- which is kind of one big soft spot right now.
C'mon, Sarah. Let's go get all mavricky in the Senate.
The Carnage
Well, it was an interesting evening but I have to say, "It could have been worse. A lot worse."
Why? It appears Saxby Chambliss has avoided a run-off in Georgia. Al Franken is 500 votes behind Norm Coleman in Minnesota with virtually all the votes in. (Not having Franken in the Senate alone is cause for rejoicing this morning.) That will be hard one to overturn in a recount since the state is so squeaky clean in its elections. And, one of the big surprises to me, Gordon Smith is leading in Oregon. In short, it appears the U.S. Chamber of Commerce blitz had its intended effect: saving Mitch McConnell and sustaining the relevance of the cloture rule in the Senate. This is setting up for a really donnybrook over the spring and summer as an antsy empowered House starts pushing through liberal bills only to see them blocked or watered down significantly in the Senate. The Founders live!
Well, it was an interesting evening but I have to say, "It could have been worse. A lot worse."
Why? It appears Saxby Chambliss has avoided a run-off in Georgia. Al Franken is 500 votes behind Norm Coleman in Minnesota with virtually all the votes in. (Not having Franken in the Senate alone is cause for rejoicing this morning.) That will be hard one to overturn in a recount since the state is so squeaky clean in its elections. And, one of the big surprises to me, Gordon Smith is leading in Oregon. In short, it appears the U.S. Chamber of Commerce blitz had its intended effect: saving Mitch McConnell and sustaining the relevance of the cloture rule in the Senate. This is setting up for a really donnybrook over the spring and summer as an antsy empowered House starts pushing through liberal bills only to see them blocked or watered down significantly in the Senate. The Founders live!
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
We''ll Meet Again
Let's say goodbye with a smile, dear,
Just for a while, dear, we must part.
Don't let the parting upset you,
I'll not forget you, sweetheart.
We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when,
But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.
Keep smiling through, just like you always do,
'Til the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away.
So will you please say hello to the folks that I know,
Tell them I won't be long.
They'll be happy to know that as you saw me go,
I was singing this song.
After the rain comes the rainbow,
You'll see the rain go, never fear,
We two can wait for tomorrow,
Goodbye to sorrow, my dear.
Let's say goodbye with a smile, dear,
Just for a while, dear, we must part.
Don't let the parting upset you,
I'll not forget you, sweetheart.
We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when,
But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.
Keep smiling through, just like you always do,
'Til the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away.
So will you please say hello to the folks that I know,
Tell them I won't be long.
They'll be happy to know that as you saw me go,
I was singing this song.
After the rain comes the rainbow,
You'll see the rain go, never fear,
We two can wait for tomorrow,
Goodbye to sorrow, my dear.
The View from the Old Dominion
It was similar to what Doc described in Indiana: a large, friendly, orderly crowd for the early voting. The restaurant we went to for breakfast was jammed with "I VOTED" stickers; lots of energy and excitement in the room. No matter how it turns out, this is an important day in the history of the country.
Little Miss Potomac, Sr., went with me to vote and got a lesson on how to behave - and not behave - while waiting to vote. There was a couple of washed-up '60s radicals standing behind us offering color commentary on the many and manifest failures of John McCain. Evidently, their chief reason for voting for Senator Obama was that McCain's health care plan was "specific" enough. Right.
I will surprise no one by saying how much I enjoy voting. Here we are, the most important, successful nation the world has ever known conducting a peaceful transfer of power. Passions run high but they turn into ballots rather than bullets. We really are the last best hope of man on earth.
It was similar to what Doc described in Indiana: a large, friendly, orderly crowd for the early voting. The restaurant we went to for breakfast was jammed with "I VOTED" stickers; lots of energy and excitement in the room. No matter how it turns out, this is an important day in the history of the country.
Little Miss Potomac, Sr., went with me to vote and got a lesson on how to behave - and not behave - while waiting to vote. There was a couple of washed-up '60s radicals standing behind us offering color commentary on the many and manifest failures of John McCain. Evidently, their chief reason for voting for Senator Obama was that McCain's health care plan was "specific" enough. Right.
I will surprise no one by saying how much I enjoy voting. Here we are, the most important, successful nation the world has ever known conducting a peaceful transfer of power. Passions run high but they turn into ballots rather than bullets. We really are the last best hope of man on earth.
Smooth voting in Indiana this morning at the dim hour of 6:10am. There was a healthy line, but nothing surprising. The whole process took about 20 minutes. Everyone was in good spirits except for one grumpy man who, seeing the line, walked out and declared to poll workers he'd come back later. Somehow I think the line will be longer later today.
Hearing the pundits this morning, it looks like we have the choice of several historic parallels. Will we see:
A repeat of 1996, a solid Democratic victory?
A repeat of 1964, a Democratic landslide?
A repeat of 1976, a Democratic squeaker?
A repeat of 1948, a poll defying victory?
I'm betting on something between '76 and '96?
Hearing the pundits this morning, it looks like we have the choice of several historic parallels. Will we see:
A repeat of 1996, a solid Democratic victory?
A repeat of 1964, a Democratic landslide?
A repeat of 1976, a Democratic squeaker?
A repeat of 1948, a poll defying victory?
I'm betting on something between '76 and '96?
Monday, November 03, 2008
Saturday, November 01, 2008
The Hard-Bitten Reporter's Latest
The hedonists’ reckoning
By Christopher Caldwell
Published: October 31 2008 18:14 | Last updated: October 31 2008 18:14
We are in for a time of austerity. Are we ready for it? The US Department of Commerce has just released its advance third-quarter gross domestic product figures. They do not look good. The economy contracted over the past three months, due to the deepest fall in consumer spending since the Carter administration. Disposable income fell 8.7 per cent. This is an international downturn. Shop sales in the UK fell for the sixth month in a row in September, according to the British Retail Consortium. The European Commission announced that consumer confidence in the eurozone was the lowest in 15 years.
We should worry less about the bigness of our problems than about the smallness of our character. We are out of practice at handling a world of repossessed cars, hand-me-down clothes and cancelled vacations and graduation parties. For many decades, people were steeled against recession by a knowledge that things could be a lot worse. Britain had memories of postwar rationing. In the US, 8m people were unemployed throughout the 1930s. Even people in their mid-40s may remember Edward Heath’s three-day week and Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech.
Most people, though, are too young to remember that stuff. Perhaps that is why we are in the mess we are in. The US has not had a deep nationwide recession since at least 1981-82. The present consumer pessimism has not been equalled since December 1974, just after the Nixon resignation, when the US was still reeling from the oil embargo and President Ford was exhorting citizens to wear buttons that said “whip inflation now”. The youngest Americans who can remember the difficulty of paying for their children’s college education under such circumstances are approaching 70.
The US is not the same country it was the last time people had to tighten their belts. It has changed socially, economically and demographically. The range of problems has widened and the range of solutions has narrowed. Back in the 1970s, there were relatively few people with credit cards and hardly any who were “maxed out” on half a dozen. But the US now has $2,600bn (€2,000bn, £1,600bn) in outstanding non-mortgage debt, and The New York Times recently reported that 5.5 per cent of outstanding credit card debt had been written off by card issuers as losses. Indications are that the credit card problem in Britain is considerably worse.
Many of the arrangements and institutions that got Americans through the 1970s are gone. It is not often remembered how socialistic the US was in those days. It was a disguised socialism, administered by huge corporations, but it was socialism. The flabbiness and misrule of American companies was a kind of insulation. No one mentions it now, not even in the heat of an election campaign. Republicans fear telling voters that things of value have indeed been stripped from them in recent decades, just as Democrats warned. Democrats fear telling voters that heavy-handed socialism is indeed their ideal, just as Republicans warned.
Many avenues out of adversity have been closed. This crisis started because people were unable to keep borrowing on their houses – especially in places such as Phoenix and Las Vegas, where home valuations are down by a third. Financial institutions have cleverly lobbied to protect themselves from a predictable headlong rush of unvetted, unsecured borrowers into credit card debt.
The US Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 steered troubled borrowers away from Chapter 11 into Chapter 7 bankruptcies, which are more expensive to file for and carry a longer-lasting stigma. In the UK, the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act may allow increasing use of “charging orders” – that is, court-imposed post facto attaching of security to loans that were contracted as unsecured.
In many countries it is becoming easier for banks to share information on clients, permitting such practices as “universal default”, whereby a borrower who misses payments on one debt can have his interest rates raised on others. So where is the nest egg of last resort that will get us through this emergency? In the US, it is in the 401(k)s and other private retirement funds set up to replace old corporate pensions.
If people engage in the financial equivalent of burning their furniture for firewood, the politics of western countries will turn invidious and populist. As the first outlines of the Treasury department’s plan to bail out troubled mortgage-holders emerged this week, there was an understandable public anger at payoffs to people who made bad decisions and spent on vacations the money they ought to have spent on their mortgages.
For quite a while, we lived unapologetically as rich people. We even patted ourselves on the back for it. If poverty causes so many social ills, then luxury ought to cure them, right? If you want to cut misery and social unrest you should let people go shopping. If you want to be “tough on the causes of crime”, let me have that flat-screen television.
As E.F. Schumacher wrote in his classic diatribe, Small Is Beautiful, in 1973: “This dominant modern belief has an almost irresistible attraction, as it suggests that the faster you get one desirable thing the more securely do you attain another. It is doubly attractive because it completely bypasses the whole question of ethics.” It turns out you cannot do that. So here we are, stuck in some dismal, minatory, moralistic, pre-information age fable. For a long while, banks lent and people borrowed as if we were living in an era of post-ethical hedonism. Now we face a reckoning as if we never left the era of neither-a-borrower-nor-a-lender-be.
The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard
The hedonists’ reckoning
By Christopher Caldwell
Published: October 31 2008 18:14 | Last updated: October 31 2008 18:14
We are in for a time of austerity. Are we ready for it? The US Department of Commerce has just released its advance third-quarter gross domestic product figures. They do not look good. The economy contracted over the past three months, due to the deepest fall in consumer spending since the Carter administration. Disposable income fell 8.7 per cent. This is an international downturn. Shop sales in the UK fell for the sixth month in a row in September, according to the British Retail Consortium. The European Commission announced that consumer confidence in the eurozone was the lowest in 15 years.
We should worry less about the bigness of our problems than about the smallness of our character. We are out of practice at handling a world of repossessed cars, hand-me-down clothes and cancelled vacations and graduation parties. For many decades, people were steeled against recession by a knowledge that things could be a lot worse. Britain had memories of postwar rationing. In the US, 8m people were unemployed throughout the 1930s. Even people in their mid-40s may remember Edward Heath’s three-day week and Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech.
Most people, though, are too young to remember that stuff. Perhaps that is why we are in the mess we are in. The US has not had a deep nationwide recession since at least 1981-82. The present consumer pessimism has not been equalled since December 1974, just after the Nixon resignation, when the US was still reeling from the oil embargo and President Ford was exhorting citizens to wear buttons that said “whip inflation now”. The youngest Americans who can remember the difficulty of paying for their children’s college education under such circumstances are approaching 70.
The US is not the same country it was the last time people had to tighten their belts. It has changed socially, economically and demographically. The range of problems has widened and the range of solutions has narrowed. Back in the 1970s, there were relatively few people with credit cards and hardly any who were “maxed out” on half a dozen. But the US now has $2,600bn (€2,000bn, £1,600bn) in outstanding non-mortgage debt, and The New York Times recently reported that 5.5 per cent of outstanding credit card debt had been written off by card issuers as losses. Indications are that the credit card problem in Britain is considerably worse.
Many of the arrangements and institutions that got Americans through the 1970s are gone. It is not often remembered how socialistic the US was in those days. It was a disguised socialism, administered by huge corporations, but it was socialism. The flabbiness and misrule of American companies was a kind of insulation. No one mentions it now, not even in the heat of an election campaign. Republicans fear telling voters that things of value have indeed been stripped from them in recent decades, just as Democrats warned. Democrats fear telling voters that heavy-handed socialism is indeed their ideal, just as Republicans warned.
Many avenues out of adversity have been closed. This crisis started because people were unable to keep borrowing on their houses – especially in places such as Phoenix and Las Vegas, where home valuations are down by a third. Financial institutions have cleverly lobbied to protect themselves from a predictable headlong rush of unvetted, unsecured borrowers into credit card debt.
The US Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 steered troubled borrowers away from Chapter 11 into Chapter 7 bankruptcies, which are more expensive to file for and carry a longer-lasting stigma. In the UK, the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act may allow increasing use of “charging orders” – that is, court-imposed post facto attaching of security to loans that were contracted as unsecured.
In many countries it is becoming easier for banks to share information on clients, permitting such practices as “universal default”, whereby a borrower who misses payments on one debt can have his interest rates raised on others. So where is the nest egg of last resort that will get us through this emergency? In the US, it is in the 401(k)s and other private retirement funds set up to replace old corporate pensions.
If people engage in the financial equivalent of burning their furniture for firewood, the politics of western countries will turn invidious and populist. As the first outlines of the Treasury department’s plan to bail out troubled mortgage-holders emerged this week, there was an understandable public anger at payoffs to people who made bad decisions and spent on vacations the money they ought to have spent on their mortgages.
For quite a while, we lived unapologetically as rich people. We even patted ourselves on the back for it. If poverty causes so many social ills, then luxury ought to cure them, right? If you want to cut misery and social unrest you should let people go shopping. If you want to be “tough on the causes of crime”, let me have that flat-screen television.
As E.F. Schumacher wrote in his classic diatribe, Small Is Beautiful, in 1973: “This dominant modern belief has an almost irresistible attraction, as it suggests that the faster you get one desirable thing the more securely do you attain another. It is doubly attractive because it completely bypasses the whole question of ethics.” It turns out you cannot do that. So here we are, stuck in some dismal, minatory, moralistic, pre-information age fable. For a long while, banks lent and people borrowed as if we were living in an era of post-ethical hedonism. Now we face a reckoning as if we never left the era of neither-a-borrower-nor-a-lender-be.
The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard
John Zogby: Most Irresponsible Pollster in America
He does this every two or four years. He finds some data set that will allow him to generate a headline about how the race has suddenly "tightened" to generate publicity for his firm. In the 1996 New York Senate race, he gave such numbers to the New York Post which was more than happy to run a headline saying "AL STORMS BACK!" just before Schumer decapitated D'Amato on election day.
This man lacks a firm sense of shame.
He does this every two or four years. He finds some data set that will allow him to generate a headline about how the race has suddenly "tightened" to generate publicity for his firm. In the 1996 New York Senate race, he gave such numbers to the New York Post which was more than happy to run a headline saying "AL STORMS BACK!" just before Schumer decapitated D'Amato on election day.
This man lacks a firm sense of shame.
A Driving Tour of Fairfax County With Three Days to Go
Mrs. Potomac and I were out running errands across a wide swath of Fairfax County this morning and a couple things popped out. First, the McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden presences in the county seem roughly equal, which is what makes this place one of the pre-eminent purple areas of the country. People talk about the Beltway mentality all the time but really, you need only get an inch outside the actual Beltway before this place feels like Illinois or another state where people pay more attention to their SUVs and jetskis than they do to politics. Heartening, in a way.
What really stood out with me this morning was our drive through a somewhat horsey area of the near-Beltway-abroad, land of what seems like a million gargantuan faux-estates. In Freddy and Fredricka, Mark Helprin talks about how "overdone" upper-middle class America is and how one day all that black granite counter top is going to windup in a dumpster when people come to their senses. (Are we there yet, Mr. Helprin?)
A surprising number of these places are sporting Obama-Biden signs, giving lie to the notion that people vote their economic interests. Quite the contrary, these folks seem committed to the notion of class suicide in supporting the Wealth Spreader Team. I asked a rather hard-bitten political journalist why this was, and he replied that "the numbers have just gotten so big" so that items like federal income and investment taxes are no longer interesting. I think it goes a bit beyond that. It seems to me that in addition to wealth liberating people from the consequences of their own decisions, there's a secondary factor about upward mobility relating to the life of mind. When one is no longer confronted with meaningful material limits, one is free to pursue existential angst to the fullest. Just as the nouveau-riche have stuffed their houses with over-sized furniture, they now fill their minds with ideas they regard as being equally "big" - redefining marriage, abortion rights, multi-culti social sensibilities. Barack Obama.
It could be that hard times tend will put paid to ideas that are so irrational and insubstantial that they can't sustain hungry people. I don't wish for those hard times but they seem to come to each of us in one form or another whether we wish for them or not. Perhaps at the next quadrennial political cycle, when "hope" has run its course, some of the basic truths about life, community, economcis, family and children will reassert themselves. The cost - real cost, measured in damaged lives - is likely to be high. The rich will avoid it mostly, insulated as they are by a thick wad of cash they frequently use to bail themselves out of their day dreams. The poor, as always, will be left to pick up the tab for ideas that never work and, at the same time, never fully lose their allure.
Mrs. Potomac and I were out running errands across a wide swath of Fairfax County this morning and a couple things popped out. First, the McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden presences in the county seem roughly equal, which is what makes this place one of the pre-eminent purple areas of the country. People talk about the Beltway mentality all the time but really, you need only get an inch outside the actual Beltway before this place feels like Illinois or another state where people pay more attention to their SUVs and jetskis than they do to politics. Heartening, in a way.
What really stood out with me this morning was our drive through a somewhat horsey area of the near-Beltway-abroad, land of what seems like a million gargantuan faux-estates. In Freddy and Fredricka, Mark Helprin talks about how "overdone" upper-middle class America is and how one day all that black granite counter top is going to windup in a dumpster when people come to their senses. (Are we there yet, Mr. Helprin?)
A surprising number of these places are sporting Obama-Biden signs, giving lie to the notion that people vote their economic interests. Quite the contrary, these folks seem committed to the notion of class suicide in supporting the Wealth Spreader Team. I asked a rather hard-bitten political journalist why this was, and he replied that "the numbers have just gotten so big" so that items like federal income and investment taxes are no longer interesting. I think it goes a bit beyond that. It seems to me that in addition to wealth liberating people from the consequences of their own decisions, there's a secondary factor about upward mobility relating to the life of mind. When one is no longer confronted with meaningful material limits, one is free to pursue existential angst to the fullest. Just as the nouveau-riche have stuffed their houses with over-sized furniture, they now fill their minds with ideas they regard as being equally "big" - redefining marriage, abortion rights, multi-culti social sensibilities. Barack Obama.
It could be that hard times tend will put paid to ideas that are so irrational and insubstantial that they can't sustain hungry people. I don't wish for those hard times but they seem to come to each of us in one form or another whether we wish for them or not. Perhaps at the next quadrennial political cycle, when "hope" has run its course, some of the basic truths about life, community, economcis, family and children will reassert themselves. The cost - real cost, measured in damaged lives - is likely to be high. The rich will avoid it mostly, insulated as they are by a thick wad of cash they frequently use to bail themselves out of their day dreams. The poor, as always, will be left to pick up the tab for ideas that never work and, at the same time, never fully lose their allure.
Death of the Rockefeller Republicans?
The Boston Globe prints an interesting article this morning about the disappearance of Republicanism from New England, pointing to the embattled Christopher Shays of CT as the political equivalent of the passenger pigeon. The fact that the Republicans are becoming regionalized is hardly a startling new fact. The flip of the "Solid South" began in the 1960s (just as LBJ predicted).
But what has always bothered me about these complaints is that calling these people "Rockefeller Republicans" is like saying John McCain has Whiggish tendencies -- the arcane reference to Rocky, who died thirty years ago, doesn't resonate outside university lecture halls and plucks the late New York governor and those like him entirely out of their mid-twentieth century context. You might as well say Dewey Republicanism is also dead, along with Eisenhower Republicanism, and Stassen Republicanism. Most Americans will say, "who?"
In addition, bemoaning the loss of a certain type of Republican avoids the obvious question (which the Globe barely touches), what made these people Republican? Here is what the paper says:
The "Rockefellers" are generally known for being tight-fisted with the public's money, for strong environmental policies, and for holding liberal views on social issues. They generally favor abortion rights and keeping religion out of politics, two points of disagreement with the GOPs religious right.
Outside being "tight-fisted" with money, how are these people any different from Democrats? Voters in a booth like choices. When they see parties that both have "strong environmental policies" (whatever that means), are liberal on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and exhibit a general discomfort with any whiff of religion in politics, the party system collapses. If there is no difference between a Democrat and Republican candidate, outside slogans and personality, one party will fold and a new one emerge that offers voters real choices. Just ask the Federalists in 1820, or the Whigs in 1856. Put another way, Rockefeller Republicanism died because it began to mirror the emerging liberal Democratic Party of the 1960s and 1970s that preferred George McGovern to Scoop Jackson. Stinginess with tax revenue wasn't enough.
So what kind of Republicanism will play in Blue America? I think the question is wrong. We should be asking, what kind of conservatism will play in Blue America? For too long "conservative" has equaled the Chamber of Commerce, strip malls, McMansions, and a host of libertarian policies that prefer economic growth to the preservation of families, communities, and all the "little platoons" of our lives. "Damn the torpedoes" economic growth conserves nothing. If Republicans want to begin winning bicoastal votes, stop telling people all their problems will be solved if the Capital Gains tax is 15% and start proposing policies meant to foster a humane society -- a politics, economy, and society of human scale. Democrats don't offer this. Republicans can.
That should be the task of the next two years, after Tuesday's gnashing of teeth.
The Boston Globe prints an interesting article this morning about the disappearance of Republicanism from New England, pointing to the embattled Christopher Shays of CT as the political equivalent of the passenger pigeon. The fact that the Republicans are becoming regionalized is hardly a startling new fact. The flip of the "Solid South" began in the 1960s (just as LBJ predicted).
But what has always bothered me about these complaints is that calling these people "Rockefeller Republicans" is like saying John McCain has Whiggish tendencies -- the arcane reference to Rocky, who died thirty years ago, doesn't resonate outside university lecture halls and plucks the late New York governor and those like him entirely out of their mid-twentieth century context. You might as well say Dewey Republicanism is also dead, along with Eisenhower Republicanism, and Stassen Republicanism. Most Americans will say, "who?"
In addition, bemoaning the loss of a certain type of Republican avoids the obvious question (which the Globe barely touches), what made these people Republican? Here is what the paper says:
The "Rockefellers" are generally known for being tight-fisted with the public's money, for strong environmental policies, and for holding liberal views on social issues. They generally favor abortion rights and keeping religion out of politics, two points of disagreement with the GOPs religious right.
Outside being "tight-fisted" with money, how are these people any different from Democrats? Voters in a booth like choices. When they see parties that both have "strong environmental policies" (whatever that means), are liberal on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and exhibit a general discomfort with any whiff of religion in politics, the party system collapses. If there is no difference between a Democrat and Republican candidate, outside slogans and personality, one party will fold and a new one emerge that offers voters real choices. Just ask the Federalists in 1820, or the Whigs in 1856. Put another way, Rockefeller Republicanism died because it began to mirror the emerging liberal Democratic Party of the 1960s and 1970s that preferred George McGovern to Scoop Jackson. Stinginess with tax revenue wasn't enough.
So what kind of Republicanism will play in Blue America? I think the question is wrong. We should be asking, what kind of conservatism will play in Blue America? For too long "conservative" has equaled the Chamber of Commerce, strip malls, McMansions, and a host of libertarian policies that prefer economic growth to the preservation of families, communities, and all the "little platoons" of our lives. "Damn the torpedoes" economic growth conserves nothing. If Republicans want to begin winning bicoastal votes, stop telling people all their problems will be solved if the Capital Gains tax is 15% and start proposing policies meant to foster a humane society -- a politics, economy, and society of human scale. Democrats don't offer this. Republicans can.
That should be the task of the next two years, after Tuesday's gnashing of teeth.
Friday, October 31, 2008
This is the kind of thing that wants me to let out a primal scream about the religious left. It is ahistorical in its view, irrational, unbalanced, bursting at the seams to create analogies that don't exist, and self-serving politically all at the same time. Jim Wallis would be very proud.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Sign of the Times
There's some rumbling among DC Republicans about "the polls are wrong; the models are over-sampling Democrats; cellphone users don't vote; the moon is in Aquarius," etc., etc. Let's set aside that polls (with the exception of network exit polls of actual voters which aren't worth the computer screens they appear on) are notoriously accurate, not in exact outcomes but giving one the general sense of the race. Let's set aside that the polls this year seem to correspond rather exactly with the sense of momentum and interest in the race. (My office is next to Judiciary Square in Washington where one would, if one were a citizen of the District of Columbia, would go to vote early. The lines have been 1.5 to 2 hours long in a jurisdiction that is notable for its lack of impact on presidential elections, and I don't think these voters are standing in line for McCain.)
Setting all these things aside, the argument for the closeness of the race would be a lot more persuasive if it were reflected by the campaign schedules of the candidates. It seems to me that it is entirely consistent with the public polling that both candidates are campaigning almost exclusively in states that President Bush won in 2004: Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, etc. Of recent note, Barak Obama campaigned this week in the Shenandoah Valley, Harrisonburg to be exact. Any guesses how long it has been since a Democratic presidential candidate visited Harrisonburg? Answer: 148 years ago when Stephen Douglas came through.
That Obama has moved that far down his Virginia target list (not Fairfax County, not Hampton Roads, not even Richmond) is an indication just how empty the talk about bad polling is.
There's some rumbling among DC Republicans about "the polls are wrong; the models are over-sampling Democrats; cellphone users don't vote; the moon is in Aquarius," etc., etc. Let's set aside that polls (with the exception of network exit polls of actual voters which aren't worth the computer screens they appear on) are notoriously accurate, not in exact outcomes but giving one the general sense of the race. Let's set aside that the polls this year seem to correspond rather exactly with the sense of momentum and interest in the race. (My office is next to Judiciary Square in Washington where one would, if one were a citizen of the District of Columbia, would go to vote early. The lines have been 1.5 to 2 hours long in a jurisdiction that is notable for its lack of impact on presidential elections, and I don't think these voters are standing in line for McCain.)
Setting all these things aside, the argument for the closeness of the race would be a lot more persuasive if it were reflected by the campaign schedules of the candidates. It seems to me that it is entirely consistent with the public polling that both candidates are campaigning almost exclusively in states that President Bush won in 2004: Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, etc. Of recent note, Barak Obama campaigned this week in the Shenandoah Valley, Harrisonburg to be exact. Any guesses how long it has been since a Democratic presidential candidate visited Harrisonburg? Answer: 148 years ago when Stephen Douglas came through.
That Obama has moved that far down his Virginia target list (not Fairfax County, not Hampton Roads, not even Richmond) is an indication just how empty the talk about bad polling is.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
My Scary Halloween Costume
I've decided I will give the neighborhood children a lesson in politics and economics this Halloween by dressing as a wealth-spreader. The costume is a simple, bureaucrat gray suit, starched white shirt and blue tie. When I answer the door, rather than dropping candy into the bags of the little darlings, I will apply a carefully developed protocol for determining whether the child or children have too much or too little candy. I will carefully balance questions such as the cost and complexity of their costume (indicating whether they come from a poor, middle income, or affluent family) as well as whether they appear, to my eye, to be at the appropriate spot on the weight distribution curve for a child of their height. The effort and enthusiaism involved in constume design, relative door-to-door strategies, and vocal delivery of the traditional "trick-or-treat" greeting will not be taken into account as such considerations are inherently unfair when one considers the varying socio-economic backgrounds of the children.
Having applied my protocol, instead of adding to the total pool of available candy from my own resourcs, I will, rather, redistribute the candy among the bags to assure the most just balance of candy products among the neighborhood children taking special note of the mix of chocolate and non-chocolate items. Chocolate is more desirable and must, therefore, be rationed more carefully.
I'm sure the children will appreciate the justice of this system and the superior outcomes it produces within the community of children who consume candy, and I anticipate that next year, the lines of children at our house on Halloween will be longer than ever!
I've decided I will give the neighborhood children a lesson in politics and economics this Halloween by dressing as a wealth-spreader. The costume is a simple, bureaucrat gray suit, starched white shirt and blue tie. When I answer the door, rather than dropping candy into the bags of the little darlings, I will apply a carefully developed protocol for determining whether the child or children have too much or too little candy. I will carefully balance questions such as the cost and complexity of their costume (indicating whether they come from a poor, middle income, or affluent family) as well as whether they appear, to my eye, to be at the appropriate spot on the weight distribution curve for a child of their height. The effort and enthusiaism involved in constume design, relative door-to-door strategies, and vocal delivery of the traditional "trick-or-treat" greeting will not be taken into account as such considerations are inherently unfair when one considers the varying socio-economic backgrounds of the children.
Having applied my protocol, instead of adding to the total pool of available candy from my own resourcs, I will, rather, redistribute the candy among the bags to assure the most just balance of candy products among the neighborhood children taking special note of the mix of chocolate and non-chocolate items. Chocolate is more desirable and must, therefore, be rationed more carefully.
I'm sure the children will appreciate the justice of this system and the superior outcomes it produces within the community of children who consume candy, and I anticipate that next year, the lines of children at our house on Halloween will be longer than ever!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Food for Democratic Thought
Once every so often, a New York Times reporter says something useful. This is one of those times. For all my Obama-supporting friends, just bear this in mind as you take the reins of power in January: in this environment, things can turn on a dime. The failure to govern from and for the center of American politics invites backlash, as this article so ably points out.
Once every so often, a New York Times reporter says something useful. This is one of those times. For all my Obama-supporting friends, just bear this in mind as you take the reins of power in January: in this environment, things can turn on a dime. The failure to govern from and for the center of American politics invites backlash, as this article so ably points out.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Vileness in America
This is the kind of thing to make you believe that regardless of the consequences, voting for Senator Obama just might be a moral duty. It is difficult to comprehend this kind of sentiment in America.
This is the kind of thing to make you believe that regardless of the consequences, voting for Senator Obama just might be a moral duty. It is difficult to comprehend this kind of sentiment in America.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Beware the Bathwater
The forthcoming electoral deluge is already laying the groundwork for electoral reaction a few years down the road. The liberal commentariat has been chaffing under the burden of the center-right quality of the American electorate, since, oh, say, President Kennedy's short term of office, and even then it had to accept the idea of what looks today suspiciously like supply-side tax cuts. Johnson was pretty good, they usually say, except for that Vietnam War thingy he got tangled up in. On the whole, the Johnson Administration, from the liberal view point, was just about right on domestic policy and the great tide of social welfare programs it produced. Since then, even when Democrats won, they had to be satisfied with the half-measures of the Carter and Clinton presidencies. (By the way, is it just me, or does Bill Clinton's presidency look better by the minute? All that careful triangulation looks quite acceptable compared to what's coming down the road after January 20.)
E.J. Dionne looks at the coming November 4 wave constitutes an implosion of the GOP and a fundamental re-writing of the laws of American political gravity. The brave new dawn of American liberalism is at hand.
Maybe. But I would caution these folks that drinking one's own bathwater is disgusting and unhealthy. We are in the midst of one of the great economic dramas of American history and those who see anything but fog in this situation are kidding themselves. The American character, with its inherent skepticism of solutions emanating from central government, remains very much intact. Hence the public's decisive rejection of the bailout package by a 3-to-1 margin in opinion polling. And, is it just me, or do others have a growing sense the public policy toolbag might be just about empty? There has to be a limit to what government, whose asset is the American economy, can borrow and spend to ameliorate the condition of the financial system and, coming soon to a life near yours, the real economy of production and consumption. I suspect we are closer to end than the start of that amelioration process.
In this light, what, exactly is President Obama going to do? People can't eat his rhetoric, no matter how sweet and beautiful it is and the rest of the cupboard is bare. Raise taxes? No, that invites disaster and Hoover's lesson has not escaped even committed redistributionists. Higher spending? I think we have or will shortly reach some sort of ceiling in that department. What, then?
One thing is for certain. Look for a very hasty withdrawal from Iraq and a scaling back of the Afghanistan operations as budget imperatives meet philosphical predisposition. We are cursed to live in interesting times.
The forthcoming electoral deluge is already laying the groundwork for electoral reaction a few years down the road. The liberal commentariat has been chaffing under the burden of the center-right quality of the American electorate, since, oh, say, President Kennedy's short term of office, and even then it had to accept the idea of what looks today suspiciously like supply-side tax cuts. Johnson was pretty good, they usually say, except for that Vietnam War thingy he got tangled up in. On the whole, the Johnson Administration, from the liberal view point, was just about right on domestic policy and the great tide of social welfare programs it produced. Since then, even when Democrats won, they had to be satisfied with the half-measures of the Carter and Clinton presidencies. (By the way, is it just me, or does Bill Clinton's presidency look better by the minute? All that careful triangulation looks quite acceptable compared to what's coming down the road after January 20.)
E.J. Dionne looks at the coming November 4 wave constitutes an implosion of the GOP and a fundamental re-writing of the laws of American political gravity. The brave new dawn of American liberalism is at hand.
Maybe. But I would caution these folks that drinking one's own bathwater is disgusting and unhealthy. We are in the midst of one of the great economic dramas of American history and those who see anything but fog in this situation are kidding themselves. The American character, with its inherent skepticism of solutions emanating from central government, remains very much intact. Hence the public's decisive rejection of the bailout package by a 3-to-1 margin in opinion polling. And, is it just me, or do others have a growing sense the public policy toolbag might be just about empty? There has to be a limit to what government, whose asset is the American economy, can borrow and spend to ameliorate the condition of the financial system and, coming soon to a life near yours, the real economy of production and consumption. I suspect we are closer to end than the start of that amelioration process.
In this light, what, exactly is President Obama going to do? People can't eat his rhetoric, no matter how sweet and beautiful it is and the rest of the cupboard is bare. Raise taxes? No, that invites disaster and Hoover's lesson has not escaped even committed redistributionists. Higher spending? I think we have or will shortly reach some sort of ceiling in that department. What, then?
One thing is for certain. Look for a very hasty withdrawal from Iraq and a scaling back of the Afghanistan operations as budget imperatives meet philosphical predisposition. We are cursed to live in interesting times.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Time to Buy GOP
The Republican Party is like a great American standard - say IBM - that has fallen on hard times. A few engineering errors, a bad marketing plan, the arrival of Microsoft all seem to herald the collapse of an institution. The thing is that political markets are just as brutal and efficient as any other. The company, in this case a political party, has tremendous underlying assets including a still-whopping market share of between 40 and 50 percent of the public on a normal election day. Sales are down right now but just wait. The shiny new company on the market is the equivalent of the Dutch tulip market: irrationally inflated and built on ideas that not only haven't stood the test of time they have been decisively rejected by a half century of experience. Excessive taxation and government regulation of the economy and pie-in-the-sky foreign policy didn't just become good ideas because their alternatives, rampant spending, excessive deregulation and neoconservative Wilsonianism, turned out to create dangerous overhangs.
It is just a matter of time before some enterprising young executive will come along to pick up the pieces of the badly damaged but inherently valuable GOP and figure out how to make the company climb back toward its historical average. President Obama is going to provide a very valuable assist. Circumstances, logic, and the truth about economics and a hard, cruel world will do the rest.
Buy GOP. There's nowhere to go but up.
The Republican Party is like a great American standard - say IBM - that has fallen on hard times. A few engineering errors, a bad marketing plan, the arrival of Microsoft all seem to herald the collapse of an institution. The thing is that political markets are just as brutal and efficient as any other. The company, in this case a political party, has tremendous underlying assets including a still-whopping market share of between 40 and 50 percent of the public on a normal election day. Sales are down right now but just wait. The shiny new company on the market is the equivalent of the Dutch tulip market: irrationally inflated and built on ideas that not only haven't stood the test of time they have been decisively rejected by a half century of experience. Excessive taxation and government regulation of the economy and pie-in-the-sky foreign policy didn't just become good ideas because their alternatives, rampant spending, excessive deregulation and neoconservative Wilsonianism, turned out to create dangerous overhangs.
It is just a matter of time before some enterprising young executive will come along to pick up the pieces of the badly damaged but inherently valuable GOP and figure out how to make the company climb back toward its historical average. President Obama is going to provide a very valuable assist. Circumstances, logic, and the truth about economics and a hard, cruel world will do the rest.
Buy GOP. There's nowhere to go but up.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Why I'm a Republican
My oldest daughter, let's call her Miss Potomac, Sr., asked me two pointed questions this morning on the way to school. First, what's a neo-conservative? Second, why are you one?
I've got a checkered political past. My first political involvement was to hang a Mondale-Ferraro sign on my dorm window as an undergrad. My second political involvement was to be a volunteer on the campaign of a Republican senator from my home state. Go figure.
I gradually got myself straightened out politically when three central themes became fixed points in my political decision making. I'm one of those compassionate conservatives with a strong belief in the dignity of the human person, and it just so happens that that particular concern extends to women and their unborn children. Democrats were caught in the grip of an individual rights mania that made reasonable discussion impossible. Second, and by extension, I'd like to see poor Americans get off the islands of poverty they inhabit and join the mainstream of American life. To be sure, poor Americans own a large share in their own problems but still, it would be nice if we organized our relief efforts in such a way that maximized the chance to empower as many as possible. One of my main beefs with the Democratic party was its resolute insistence that, since American society was so unjust, it didn't matter whether our anti-poverty programs worked as long as we spent more money every year to salve our consciences. Results matter, I decided, more than the moral satisfaction of punishing American taxpayers with programs that wasted their money.
Finally, and I'm late-comer to this issue, national security. Apropos the above discussion about the guilty nature of American society, for many years I shared a wide-spread belief among Democrats of the moral equivalency between American society and the Soviet Union. The Soviet system couldn't be thought of as worse; that was moral imperialism. On the other hand, there was no degree of self-criticism that was excessive for a right-thinking liberal to direct toward his own country. I shook most of this off in the late-1980s and early 1990s but it was completely stripped away by the events of September 11, 2001. America is an exceptional and an essential nation and the world would, and will, be much worse off without us. Whatever the problems with our system, and there are many, they pale to insignificance when one imagines a world without us left to the tender mercies of the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians and Iranians. Order is a tenuous thing and we are the Federal Reserve of order and security.
There it is. My complete political philosophy to date. It serves me well.
My oldest daughter, let's call her Miss Potomac, Sr., asked me two pointed questions this morning on the way to school. First, what's a neo-conservative? Second, why are you one?
I've got a checkered political past. My first political involvement was to hang a Mondale-Ferraro sign on my dorm window as an undergrad. My second political involvement was to be a volunteer on the campaign of a Republican senator from my home state. Go figure.
I gradually got myself straightened out politically when three central themes became fixed points in my political decision making. I'm one of those compassionate conservatives with a strong belief in the dignity of the human person, and it just so happens that that particular concern extends to women and their unborn children. Democrats were caught in the grip of an individual rights mania that made reasonable discussion impossible. Second, and by extension, I'd like to see poor Americans get off the islands of poverty they inhabit and join the mainstream of American life. To be sure, poor Americans own a large share in their own problems but still, it would be nice if we organized our relief efforts in such a way that maximized the chance to empower as many as possible. One of my main beefs with the Democratic party was its resolute insistence that, since American society was so unjust, it didn't matter whether our anti-poverty programs worked as long as we spent more money every year to salve our consciences. Results matter, I decided, more than the moral satisfaction of punishing American taxpayers with programs that wasted their money.
Finally, and I'm late-comer to this issue, national security. Apropos the above discussion about the guilty nature of American society, for many years I shared a wide-spread belief among Democrats of the moral equivalency between American society and the Soviet Union. The Soviet system couldn't be thought of as worse; that was moral imperialism. On the other hand, there was no degree of self-criticism that was excessive for a right-thinking liberal to direct toward his own country. I shook most of this off in the late-1980s and early 1990s but it was completely stripped away by the events of September 11, 2001. America is an exceptional and an essential nation and the world would, and will, be much worse off without us. Whatever the problems with our system, and there are many, they pale to insignificance when one imagines a world without us left to the tender mercies of the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians and Iranians. Order is a tenuous thing and we are the Federal Reserve of order and security.
There it is. My complete political philosophy to date. It serves me well.
A Question of Race
In my soundings among Democrats, there is tremendous nervousness, a sense that victory is imminent but that the train might, at the last minute, jump the track. As one friend said, "It's happened to us before, you know." A good point, that.
At the base of this nervousness, I think, is the fear that America is so deeply racist that a giant "Bradley effect" is about to put McCain in the White House. As the Ombudsman has noted, the idea that the only reason one could possibly find to vote against Obama is his race is patently ridiculous. Even if one were inclined to vote against Obama because of race, there are scores of reasons to vote against him (abortion, for instance) and for McCain (abortion, for instance) before one ever gets to the race issue.
I think Obama will win in large part because of his race. Legions of white voters are so anxious to prove they aren't racist that they are willing to overlook the rather considerable gaps in Obama's experience and a highly questionable political philosophy. In addition, I suspect the turnout among African-Americans will be nothing short of astounding in support of the first black man to have a serious chance of holding the nation's highest office. Moreover, the man's race is probably the best conservative argument for electing him. As John O'Sullivan noted last spring, the election of a black man to the White House would have a stablizing effect on American society in that it would be a coda on the nation's troubled racial history. Race may be a factor in this election but, on balance, it will do far more to help Obama than to hurt him.
In my soundings among Democrats, there is tremendous nervousness, a sense that victory is imminent but that the train might, at the last minute, jump the track. As one friend said, "It's happened to us before, you know." A good point, that.
At the base of this nervousness, I think, is the fear that America is so deeply racist that a giant "Bradley effect" is about to put McCain in the White House. As the Ombudsman has noted, the idea that the only reason one could possibly find to vote against Obama is his race is patently ridiculous. Even if one were inclined to vote against Obama because of race, there are scores of reasons to vote against him (abortion, for instance) and for McCain (abortion, for instance) before one ever gets to the race issue.
I think Obama will win in large part because of his race. Legions of white voters are so anxious to prove they aren't racist that they are willing to overlook the rather considerable gaps in Obama's experience and a highly questionable political philosophy. In addition, I suspect the turnout among African-Americans will be nothing short of astounding in support of the first black man to have a serious chance of holding the nation's highest office. Moreover, the man's race is probably the best conservative argument for electing him. As John O'Sullivan noted last spring, the election of a black man to the White House would have a stablizing effect on American society in that it would be a coda on the nation's troubled racial history. Race may be a factor in this election but, on balance, it will do far more to help Obama than to hurt him.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Joe Biden: God's Gift to the Next Four Years
He really is living up to his billing as an eight-cylinder, dual-carb gaffe machine. Vroom! Vroom-vroom!! Today's offering is of the "if you elect Barak, I guarantee some tin-horn dictator will toss the world into a Cuban missile-style crisis just to see if he's as weak as he looks" variety. I think we can anticipate that this wasn't in David Axelrod's script for the VP and that it will be one of those things that kind of seeps into the Red state bloodstream over the next few days. Gallup notes that there's been a slight shift away from McCain among men. Joe's probably taken care of that problem.
It won't be enough, of course. Short of an actual foreign policy crisis (where is Bin Laden's election day greeting?) nothing would be. But I think we can all look forward to at least four years of Joe Biden hopping around with his foot in his mouth. He's a full employment program for the late night comics.
He really is living up to his billing as an eight-cylinder, dual-carb gaffe machine. Vroom! Vroom-vroom!! Today's offering is of the "if you elect Barak, I guarantee some tin-horn dictator will toss the world into a Cuban missile-style crisis just to see if he's as weak as he looks" variety. I think we can anticipate that this wasn't in David Axelrod's script for the VP and that it will be one of those things that kind of seeps into the Red state bloodstream over the next few days. Gallup notes that there's been a slight shift away from McCain among men. Joe's probably taken care of that problem.
It won't be enough, of course. Short of an actual foreign policy crisis (where is Bin Laden's election day greeting?) nothing would be. But I think we can all look forward to at least four years of Joe Biden hopping around with his foot in his mouth. He's a full employment program for the late night comics.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Today, at a gathering of the bright lights of my workplace division, I served up
Creole Contentment*
1 pony cognac
1 pony of madeira
1/2 pony maraschino (The original recipe calls for a pony but the author of the book recommends half that amount and increasing the cognac, which worked well for me as I has plenty of cognac and was cleanng out the maraschino bottle.)
dash of orange bitters ( lacking orange bitters and figuring that it was supposed to be a New Orleans cocktail after all I used Peychaud's.)
Stir or shake with ice. Serve up in a manhattan glass garnished with maraschino cherries.
I can attest that, while not Creole, I am very contented indeed.
* From The Gentleman's Companion (Vol II): Being an Exotic Drinking Book. I'm no gentleman, but the book is a hoot and a half.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Style Editor has not been posting because she has been trying to ignore the world.
This technique hasn't gotten her very far, except in the expansion of her drinking habits.
She recommends the Jack Rose
1 1/2 oz applejack
1 tsp grenadine
juice of 1/2 a lime
Shake with ice. Serve up in a manhattan glass with a lime twist if you want swank, without the twist if you just want to get to the business at hand.
Have another.
File this under the obvious and the ominous:
Hawaii's governor scraps their seven month old universal child care system because the state can't afford it. Wow, really? Here's the money line:
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."
Shocking! People stopped paying for something they could otherwise get for free?
Put this in the context of a Democratic uber-majority next year and their yearning for some kind of universal health care plan ... and a $1 trillion dollar deficit ... and people wanting to get something for free rather than paying ...
Hawaii's governor scraps their seven month old universal child care system because the state can't afford it. Wow, really? Here's the money line:
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."
Shocking! People stopped paying for something they could otherwise get for free?
Put this in the context of a Democratic uber-majority next year and their yearning for some kind of universal health care plan ... and a $1 trillion dollar deficit ... and people wanting to get something for free rather than paying ...
Thursday, October 16, 2008
McCain Surge or Dead-Cat Bounce?
Today's Gallup tracking poll has Obama's lead down to two points among likely voters -- as those voters have traditionally been defined and screened. Gallup's second model, which attempts to adjust for heightened voter interest among young people and minorities, has Obama with a six point lead which is identical to his lead among registered voters. All the interviews with voters were completed prior to last night's debate.
Two notes of caution. First, we're entering into that final period of volatility just before people go to the polls where voters are giving both candidates that last look so polling numbers will shift around some. Second, despite the apparent closing at the national level, McCain is playing defense in so many Red states, I've lost track and is being buried in those states by his opponent's financial advantage. As much as I love Joe the plumber, I think it will take more than that to blunt the Democrats' drive to the goal line.
The final analysis: dead-cat bounce.
Today's Gallup tracking poll has Obama's lead down to two points among likely voters -- as those voters have traditionally been defined and screened. Gallup's second model, which attempts to adjust for heightened voter interest among young people and minorities, has Obama with a six point lead which is identical to his lead among registered voters. All the interviews with voters were completed prior to last night's debate.
Two notes of caution. First, we're entering into that final period of volatility just before people go to the polls where voters are giving both candidates that last look so polling numbers will shift around some. Second, despite the apparent closing at the national level, McCain is playing defense in so many Red states, I've lost track and is being buried in those states by his opponent's financial advantage. As much as I love Joe the plumber, I think it will take more than that to blunt the Democrats' drive to the goal line.
The final analysis: dead-cat bounce.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
More From the Neighborhood Email Chain
One of my Obama-supporting neighbors sent this Bill Ayers apologia around.
Here's my response, written but not sent to keep the neighborhood peace:
Before we all give Bill Ayers a great, big group hug take a gander at this. Mr. Ayers convicts himself more eloquently than anyone else ever could. And note the publication date: 9/11/01. One of the planes, as I recall, hit the Pentagon and killed a couple hundred people. Do you suppose Ayers was appalled at the idea of Islamic terrorists trying to finish the job he started all those years ago? Or did he exult in the attempted smashing of the U.S. military's nerve center? I really do wonder, and I also wonder why Senator Obama would associate with him in any way even if they don't "pal around."
But, for the sake of this exchange, let's say I agree with the idea that McCain's effort to link Obama and Ayers is ridiculous and that their association says nothing about Obama's political pedigree, his view of the country he asks to lead, and his sense of America's place in and contributions to the world, all of which is possible. In fact, one of the things that commends Obama to me as a potential president is his utter pragmatism about throwing old cronies like Ayers and Wright under the bus when his associations with them get uncomfortable. It gives me hope he will be far more hard-headed and practical than his record would otherwise indicate.
Setting all the Obama-related considerations aside, I still want an apology, the more abject the better, from Bill Ayers and the rest of the Weather Underground. These folks, in their zeal to bring their very peculiar vision of heaven to earth, abandoned the democratic process for domestic terrorism. Rather than apologize for their crimes, Ayers and his wife seem to revel in them. It is one of the glories of living in a free country that people like Ayers are allowed to roam the streets and spout their nonsense. But we shouldn't lionize an unrepentant criminal and terrorist. That would be more ridiculous, and far more dangerous, than a whole evening full of John McCain ads.
One of my Obama-supporting neighbors sent this Bill Ayers apologia around.
Here's my response, written but not sent to keep the neighborhood peace:
Before we all give Bill Ayers a great, big group hug take a gander at this. Mr. Ayers convicts himself more eloquently than anyone else ever could. And note the publication date: 9/11/01. One of the planes, as I recall, hit the Pentagon and killed a couple hundred people. Do you suppose Ayers was appalled at the idea of Islamic terrorists trying to finish the job he started all those years ago? Or did he exult in the attempted smashing of the U.S. military's nerve center? I really do wonder, and I also wonder why Senator Obama would associate with him in any way even if they don't "pal around."
But, for the sake of this exchange, let's say I agree with the idea that McCain's effort to link Obama and Ayers is ridiculous and that their association says nothing about Obama's political pedigree, his view of the country he asks to lead, and his sense of America's place in and contributions to the world, all of which is possible. In fact, one of the things that commends Obama to me as a potential president is his utter pragmatism about throwing old cronies like Ayers and Wright under the bus when his associations with them get uncomfortable. It gives me hope he will be far more hard-headed and practical than his record would otherwise indicate.
Setting all the Obama-related considerations aside, I still want an apology, the more abject the better, from Bill Ayers and the rest of the Weather Underground. These folks, in their zeal to bring their very peculiar vision of heaven to earth, abandoned the democratic process for domestic terrorism. Rather than apologize for their crimes, Ayers and his wife seem to revel in them. It is one of the glories of living in a free country that people like Ayers are allowed to roam the streets and spout their nonsense. But we shouldn't lionize an unrepentant criminal and terrorist. That would be more ridiculous, and far more dangerous, than a whole evening full of John McCain ads.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Questions for the Ombudsman
I have heard the Ombudsman hold forth eloquently on the nature of true conservatism. He has made the point repeatedly to me (a political practitioner and occasional trench warrior) that real conservatism is non-ideological. Traditionally, conservatives like, say, George Washington, were foxes (who knew many things) rather than hedgehogs (who knew one big thing.) Conservatism, I gathered from his eloquent discourses, is not about grand schemes but about the application of sound prudential judgment against the problems of the day. Conservatism, in short, is about conserving rather than preserving.
First question, have I correctly summarized, Mr. Ombudsman, your well-informed view?
If I am correct, my second question relates to how this view of conservatism applies in the context of the current financial crisis. My ears are ringing from the complaints of DC-based conservative movement types about the bailout bill and Treasury interventions to address Freddie, Fannie, AIG, Bear Sterns, etc. Conservatives tell me these interventions will ultimately destroy economic freedom, and that it would be better to go through Depression 2.0 than risk that kind of loss. The hedgehog believes economic meltdown can be survived; the loss of economic liberty cannot.
The fox view, using the Ombudsman's interpretive frame, might lead to a very different set of conclusions. The abstract commitment to economic liberty might yield to prudential concerns about the impact of economic free-fall on democratic capitalism's crowning achievement, the modern financial system. It might also be concerned with the threat such a collapse would pose to social and political stability here and abroad. The fox might have an appreciation for the subtle turns of mind emanating from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury seeking to head-off panic and restore the flow of credit that, left unchecked, could strangle a $14 trillion economy.
Mr. Ombudsman, which of these views is truly conservative?
I have heard the Ombudsman hold forth eloquently on the nature of true conservatism. He has made the point repeatedly to me (a political practitioner and occasional trench warrior) that real conservatism is non-ideological. Traditionally, conservatives like, say, George Washington, were foxes (who knew many things) rather than hedgehogs (who knew one big thing.) Conservatism, I gathered from his eloquent discourses, is not about grand schemes but about the application of sound prudential judgment against the problems of the day. Conservatism, in short, is about conserving rather than preserving.
First question, have I correctly summarized, Mr. Ombudsman, your well-informed view?
If I am correct, my second question relates to how this view of conservatism applies in the context of the current financial crisis. My ears are ringing from the complaints of DC-based conservative movement types about the bailout bill and Treasury interventions to address Freddie, Fannie, AIG, Bear Sterns, etc. Conservatives tell me these interventions will ultimately destroy economic freedom, and that it would be better to go through Depression 2.0 than risk that kind of loss. The hedgehog believes economic meltdown can be survived; the loss of economic liberty cannot.
The fox view, using the Ombudsman's interpretive frame, might lead to a very different set of conclusions. The abstract commitment to economic liberty might yield to prudential concerns about the impact of economic free-fall on democratic capitalism's crowning achievement, the modern financial system. It might also be concerned with the threat such a collapse would pose to social and political stability here and abroad. The fox might have an appreciation for the subtle turns of mind emanating from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury seeking to head-off panic and restore the flow of credit that, left unchecked, could strangle a $14 trillion economy.
Mr. Ombudsman, which of these views is truly conservative?
The State of the Race
It will come as a shock to almost nobody when I say, "It's over." By my count, Obama will win with at least 375 electoral votes by sweeping the Northeast, industrial Midwest, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. He will also make serious inroads in the GOP's Southern base by capturing Virginia, North Carolina and Florida and I wouldn't take Georgia completely off the table either. It appears that about a million Senate seats are going down, too. I haven't had time to look at the House races but Murphy's Law is sure to be broadly applied.
The Democrats will have, gulp, the White House and a working majority on Capitol Hill for the first time since, gulp, Jimmy Carter. I need to go lay down.
It will come as a shock to almost nobody when I say, "It's over." By my count, Obama will win with at least 375 electoral votes by sweeping the Northeast, industrial Midwest, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. He will also make serious inroads in the GOP's Southern base by capturing Virginia, North Carolina and Florida and I wouldn't take Georgia completely off the table either. It appears that about a million Senate seats are going down, too. I haven't had time to look at the House races but Murphy's Law is sure to be broadly applied.
The Democrats will have, gulp, the White House and a working majority on Capitol Hill for the first time since, gulp, Jimmy Carter. I need to go lay down.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Defender of the Old North
The Fourteenth President of the United States, Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire, died on this day in 1869. Pierce aficionados are few and far between, but the Man from Hillsborough deserves a better fate. A hard-working Bowdoin graduate and one of New England's finest attorneys, Pierce came to the presidency in an impossible time. He tried to conserve the Union, the Constitution, and the laws when Americans showed alarmingly little attention to all three.
Historians have long written on the Old South. But Pierce embodied and defended the Old North, the Jeffersonian North of small towns and small farms pushed aside by Whig (and then Republican) industrial cities and factories. As the country descended into Civil War, he turned to drink and died in Concord, NH this day.
The Fourteenth President of the United States, Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire, died on this day in 1869. Pierce aficionados are few and far between, but the Man from Hillsborough deserves a better fate. A hard-working Bowdoin graduate and one of New England's finest attorneys, Pierce came to the presidency in an impossible time. He tried to conserve the Union, the Constitution, and the laws when Americans showed alarmingly little attention to all three.
Historians have long written on the Old South. But Pierce embodied and defended the Old North, the Jeffersonian North of small towns and small farms pushed aside by Whig (and then Republican) industrial cities and factories. As the country descended into Civil War, he turned to drink and died in Concord, NH this day.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
St. Marie Church in Manchester, New Hampshire, circa 1907
St. Marie Church was built in the 1890s by Monsignor Pierre Hevey of St. Hyacinthe, Quebec. He was ordained in 1857, came to Lewiston, Maine in the 1870s, and eventually to Manchester in the early 1880s. A small Catholic enclave rose around St. Marie's over the next two decades, including a hospital, orphanage, rectory, and school. In addition, Monsignor Hevey is widely credited with founding the first credit union in the U.S. in 1908. He died in March 1909.
St. Marie Church was built in the 1890s by Monsignor Pierre Hevey of St. Hyacinthe, Quebec. He was ordained in 1857, came to Lewiston, Maine in the 1870s, and eventually to Manchester in the early 1880s. A small Catholic enclave rose around St. Marie's over the next two decades, including a hospital, orphanage, rectory, and school. In addition, Monsignor Hevey is widely credited with founding the first credit union in the U.S. in 1908. He died in March 1909.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Phew, I'm Awake
Judging by the focus group's (aka Mrs. Potomac's) reaction, I'd say Our Sarah had a pretty good night. She was real and down-to-earth and, in the words of the Weekly Standard, "smart as hell." Biden was just about what you'd expect from a senator with 32 years experience: well-versed and smooth. But (and it's a big one) he was talking to Ifill, with all the Sunday morning talk show glibness we'd expect, while Our Sarah, doggonit-Joe-say-it-ain't-so, was talking to America.
The CBS focus group called it for Obama; Fox's went overwhelmingly for Palin. Let's see if the polls go bounce in the night.
Judging by the focus group's (aka Mrs. Potomac's) reaction, I'd say Our Sarah had a pretty good night. She was real and down-to-earth and, in the words of the Weekly Standard, "smart as hell." Biden was just about what you'd expect from a senator with 32 years experience: well-versed and smooth. But (and it's a big one) he was talking to Ifill, with all the Sunday morning talk show glibness we'd expect, while Our Sarah, doggonit-Joe-say-it-ain't-so, was talking to America.
The CBS focus group called it for Obama; Fox's went overwhelmingly for Palin. Let's see if the polls go bounce in the night.
Why Am I At School Without My Pants?
I've been having this recurring dream that Sarah Palin turned out to be well...not so smart. In my dream, she does interview after interview with Katie Couric where she, well, blathers mindlessly. And it just keeps going and going and you think, "I'm never going to get out of this dream", and there are six or seven or eight interviews, each one worse than the one before. It's horrible.
Except that I am beginning to wonder whether it really is a dream. Maybe it's true. Maybe the smart, articulate woman I remember from the Republican convention a few weeks ago (can it only have been a few weeks?) has had her body taken over by a high school cheerleader who can't name ONE Supreme Court decision that concerns her other than Roe v. Wade and thinks that a "narrow maritime border" between Alaska and Russia equates to foreign policy experience.
No, that can't be it. I'm going to wake up NOW, and Sarah, our Sarah, the crusading governor of Alaska, will be kicking Joe Biden so hard that his foot will finally pop out his mouth.
Please, somebody, wake me up!
I've been having this recurring dream that Sarah Palin turned out to be well...not so smart. In my dream, she does interview after interview with Katie Couric where she, well, blathers mindlessly. And it just keeps going and going and you think, "I'm never going to get out of this dream", and there are six or seven or eight interviews, each one worse than the one before. It's horrible.
Except that I am beginning to wonder whether it really is a dream. Maybe it's true. Maybe the smart, articulate woman I remember from the Republican convention a few weeks ago (can it only have been a few weeks?) has had her body taken over by a high school cheerleader who can't name ONE Supreme Court decision that concerns her other than Roe v. Wade and thinks that a "narrow maritime border" between Alaska and Russia equates to foreign policy experience.
No, that can't be it. I'm going to wake up NOW, and Sarah, our Sarah, the crusading governor of Alaska, will be kicking Joe Biden so hard that his foot will finally pop out his mouth.
Please, somebody, wake me up!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
From the Neighborhood E-Mail Chain
Our purple neighborhood has been debating the financial meltdown. Here's my contribution.
I think it is pretty silly to look for a single explanation (or party) responsible for inflating the housing market and the current mess on Wall Street. Who's to blame? Just about everyone. Greenspan, trying to find his way through the post-9/11period, held rates too low for too long and that's the main cause of the bubble. Both parties pursued home ownership as way to promote family and social stability without asking whether low-income families would be able to keep up with no-money-down, adjustable-rate mortgages. Clinton pushed homeownership and so did Bush, if anything, even more aggressively. Who benefited from low rates and loose lending practices? Just about everyone. I know we did. Our house on Capitol Hill tripled in value in three years allowing us to sell and move to the idyll of Northern Virginia where the public schools, fed by massive, bubble-driven increases in property tax revenues, are doing amazing things with special needs children like our son.
And when I look around the neighborhood, it's large, beautiful new houses and renovations as far as the eye can see. Where did the money for that come from? The Bubble.
My point (and I do have one) is that the problem of greed and wishful thinking isn't "out there" (the Republicans, the Democrats, the poor, the rich) it lies with hundreds of millions of people each pursuing what he or she thought was in their own interests and being aided and abetted by both major political parties. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
One final thought: I've been in the public policy biz for over 20 years. The debate on Friday evening was just about the best presidential debate I have ever seen with two serious, earnestly committed candidates of great (if very different) experience. Each, in his own way, was wrestling with how to talk about serious problems and significant differences in philosophy and approach while remaining civil. I think we best honor these two men and the incredible sacrifices they and their families are making on our behalf by trying to do the same. It has been a rough 20 years. Time to learn again how to disagree without being disagreeable with one another.
Our purple neighborhood has been debating the financial meltdown. Here's my contribution.
I think it is pretty silly to look for a single explanation (or party) responsible for inflating the housing market and the current mess on Wall Street. Who's to blame? Just about everyone. Greenspan, trying to find his way through the post-9/11period, held rates too low for too long and that's the main cause of the bubble. Both parties pursued home ownership as way to promote family and social stability without asking whether low-income families would be able to keep up with no-money-down, adjustable-rate mortgages. Clinton pushed homeownership and so did Bush, if anything, even more aggressively. Who benefited from low rates and loose lending practices? Just about everyone. I know we did. Our house on Capitol Hill tripled in value in three years allowing us to sell and move to the idyll of Northern Virginia where the public schools, fed by massive, bubble-driven increases in property tax revenues, are doing amazing things with special needs children like our son.
And when I look around the neighborhood, it's large, beautiful new houses and renovations as far as the eye can see. Where did the money for that come from? The Bubble.
My point (and I do have one) is that the problem of greed and wishful thinking isn't "out there" (the Republicans, the Democrats, the poor, the rich) it lies with hundreds of millions of people each pursuing what he or she thought was in their own interests and being aided and abetted by both major political parties. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
One final thought: I've been in the public policy biz for over 20 years. The debate on Friday evening was just about the best presidential debate I have ever seen with two serious, earnestly committed candidates of great (if very different) experience. Each, in his own way, was wrestling with how to talk about serious problems and significant differences in philosophy and approach while remaining civil. I think we best honor these two men and the incredible sacrifices they and their families are making on our behalf by trying to do the same. It has been a rough 20 years. Time to learn again how to disagree without being disagreeable with one another.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Martin Hutchinson lays it all out here, in much greater detail.
An investment bubble is created, with too much money chasing too many bad investments (and too few good ones). It pops and the market radically dips. First, the air comes out of unhealthily inflated stocks, companies with share prices far away from an actual measure of their earnings. But people/brokerages are so leveraged, they sell off the healthy stocks and liquidate their portfolios. And another crash occurs, this time hurting the good businesses.
Pain spreads, and President X convenes leading industrialists and employers at the White House and gets them to agree not to lay off workers. Wages must be kept high and employment cannot dip, advises the president. We need those workers to spend their paychecks. Businesses consent for a while, until earnings dip so far they break their word and massive layoffs occur.
Government debt increases as spending remains high (and goes higher as the feds try to "prime the pump") and tax receipts decline precipitously. Congress gets spooked by red ink on the books and passes massive tax increases, which the president signs. With less money in private pockets -- less private money for spending, saving, investing, which is always more efficiently allocated than public money -- the economy slows further.
Populists in Congress call for tariff increases to protect suffering American industry from witheringly cheap foreign competition, and a massive protectionist bill is passed, rolling back the expansion of international trade and global markets that has been progressing for decades. Tough times are exported.
People can't pay their mortgages and banks foreclose. Congress steps in to prevent foreclosures. Banks are unable to recoup their losses and fail by the droves, taking deposits with them. Those who can take their money out of banks and put it into hard assets like gold. Gold is safe as compared to the uncertainty of equities, but in the wider context of investment, gold buying is akin to burying your money in a Mason jar in the backyard.
The Dow loses 80%+ of its value in four years.
That was 1929-1932. Or was it?
An investment bubble is created, with too much money chasing too many bad investments (and too few good ones). It pops and the market radically dips. First, the air comes out of unhealthily inflated stocks, companies with share prices far away from an actual measure of their earnings. But people/brokerages are so leveraged, they sell off the healthy stocks and liquidate their portfolios. And another crash occurs, this time hurting the good businesses.
Pain spreads, and President X convenes leading industrialists and employers at the White House and gets them to agree not to lay off workers. Wages must be kept high and employment cannot dip, advises the president. We need those workers to spend their paychecks. Businesses consent for a while, until earnings dip so far they break their word and massive layoffs occur.
Government debt increases as spending remains high (and goes higher as the feds try to "prime the pump") and tax receipts decline precipitously. Congress gets spooked by red ink on the books and passes massive tax increases, which the president signs. With less money in private pockets -- less private money for spending, saving, investing, which is always more efficiently allocated than public money -- the economy slows further.
Populists in Congress call for tariff increases to protect suffering American industry from witheringly cheap foreign competition, and a massive protectionist bill is passed, rolling back the expansion of international trade and global markets that has been progressing for decades. Tough times are exported.
People can't pay their mortgages and banks foreclose. Congress steps in to prevent foreclosures. Banks are unable to recoup their losses and fail by the droves, taking deposits with them. Those who can take their money out of banks and put it into hard assets like gold. Gold is safe as compared to the uncertainty of equities, but in the wider context of investment, gold buying is akin to burying your money in a Mason jar in the backyard.
The Dow loses 80%+ of its value in four years.
That was 1929-1932. Or was it?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Bad News. Traveling Fast.
This is one strange fall. The Europeans, who spent last week smuggly suggesting that only Americans have a problem in their banking sector, appear about to be about to get a taste. Hope folks on the Hill are paying attention to the pitter-patter of threatening economic news from across the sea.
This is one strange fall. The Europeans, who spent last week smuggly suggesting that only Americans have a problem in their banking sector, appear about to be about to get a taste. Hope folks on the Hill are paying attention to the pitter-patter of threatening economic news from across the sea.
One Morninng-After Thought
The Obama team seems a little to content to jump to the conclusion that the debate was a tie and that tie's go to the one who is currently leading in the polls. Like it or not, Obama has some hurdles to clear to persuade the public that he's ready. If you accept the premise that last night was a tie (I don't -- McCain won by demonstrating that as a 72-year-old man he has the judgment, experience and ferocious energy required to be president RIGHT NOW) it wouldn't be enough to put a very close race to bed. He hasn't closed the deal yet (same problem as in the primary) and his performance last night left those nagging doubts about temperment and experience unanswered.
The question is: how can McCain regain his momentum?
The Obama team seems a little to content to jump to the conclusion that the debate was a tie and that tie's go to the one who is currently leading in the polls. Like it or not, Obama has some hurdles to clear to persuade the public that he's ready. If you accept the premise that last night was a tie (I don't -- McCain won by demonstrating that as a 72-year-old man he has the judgment, experience and ferocious energy required to be president RIGHT NOW) it wouldn't be enough to put a very close race to bed. He hasn't closed the deal yet (same problem as in the primary) and his performance last night left those nagging doubts about temperment and experience unanswered.
The question is: how can McCain regain his momentum?
No-Spin Zone
The partisans are out trying to tell you who won. This is the best summary from the most objective source I have found thus far.
The partisans are out trying to tell you who won. This is the best summary from the most objective source I have found thus far.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Best Presidential Debate -- Ever
This is a very substantive exchange. In depth, clarifying and vigorous. I never could stand watching Bush debate because it was always like a circus: would the guy fall off the high-wire? This debate is between the old bull champion and the nimble challenger.
Like I said. The best. We are a fortunate nation to have men of this calibur running.
This is a very substantive exchange. In depth, clarifying and vigorous. I never could stand watching Bush debate because it was always like a circus: would the guy fall off the high-wire? This debate is between the old bull champion and the nimble challenger.
Like I said. The best. We are a fortunate nation to have men of this calibur running.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
True Patriotism
Careful readers will remember that when Senator Obama was asked why he didn't wear a flag pin (BTW, does he or doesn't he?) he talked about how true patriotism didn't involve anything prosaic as sporting the nation's colors on his lapel. Real patriotism, he said, was "speaking out on issues."
So, I guess doing the job you are being paid to do as a Senator from Illinois is not real patriotism. Neither is weighing in on a trillion dollar bailout of the financial system. These, I'm afraid, are mere "distractions" (Senator Obama LOVES that word and applies it quite discriminately: it means any idea or argument he finds inconvenient) from the real patriotism of "speaking out on the issues" through campaign appearances and 30-second attack ads.
Has anyone broken the news to Senator Obama that the presidency and public responsibilities involves something other than writing memoirs? And, that if you want to write memoirs that other people want to read, you have to do interesting and important things like doing some of the hard intellectual and leadership work involved in teasing out whether we are on the precipice of a new Great Depression and if so what can we do to prevent it?
I've got just the title for him, "Dreams From My Candidate".
Careful readers will remember that when Senator Obama was asked why he didn't wear a flag pin (BTW, does he or doesn't he?) he talked about how true patriotism didn't involve anything prosaic as sporting the nation's colors on his lapel. Real patriotism, he said, was "speaking out on issues."
So, I guess doing the job you are being paid to do as a Senator from Illinois is not real patriotism. Neither is weighing in on a trillion dollar bailout of the financial system. These, I'm afraid, are mere "distractions" (Senator Obama LOVES that word and applies it quite discriminately: it means any idea or argument he finds inconvenient) from the real patriotism of "speaking out on the issues" through campaign appearances and 30-second attack ads.
Has anyone broken the news to Senator Obama that the presidency and public responsibilities involves something other than writing memoirs? And, that if you want to write memoirs that other people want to read, you have to do interesting and important things like doing some of the hard intellectual and leadership work involved in teasing out whether we are on the precipice of a new Great Depression and if so what can we do to prevent it?
I've got just the title for him, "Dreams From My Candidate".
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
US History according to Joe Biden:
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
Um, no. The television was yet a dream in the eye of American consumers, and Herbert Hoover had been elected less than a year before. But hell, Al Gore invented the internet and John McCain invented Blackberries, why couldn't FDR have invented TV?
I hear Abe Lincoln sent out the Emancipation Proclamation by text message too.
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
Um, no. The television was yet a dream in the eye of American consumers, and Herbert Hoover had been elected less than a year before. But hell, Al Gore invented the internet and John McCain invented Blackberries, why couldn't FDR have invented TV?
I hear Abe Lincoln sent out the Emancipation Proclamation by text message too.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Six of the top ten most wealthy members of Congress are Democrats, with John Kerry leading the way. Feinstein, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Rockefeller right behind.
Party of the People.
Party of the People.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
I actually prefer Doc's version; "There's a Wildness in God's Mercy" sounds theologically right-on to me.
Tonight I had a related disconcerting song experience: three or four kids sang their pre-meal prayers, something like "We thank you God! For our food!" to the tune of the Indiana Jones theme. Innovative, I guess.
Tonight I had a related disconcerting song experience: three or four kids sang their pre-meal prayers, something like "We thank you God! For our food!" to the tune of the Indiana Jones theme. Innovative, I guess.
Have you ever noticed that "Lift High the Cross" sounds remarkably like "Oh Canada?"
Lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim...
Oh Canada, our home and native land...
And I always thought "There's a Wideness in God's Mercy" was actually "There's a Wildness in God's Mercy."
Whoah! Look Out! Here it comes!
Lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim...
Oh Canada, our home and native land...
And I always thought "There's a Wideness in God's Mercy" was actually "There's a Wildness in God's Mercy."
Whoah! Look Out! Here it comes!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Hoping for the Worst
In the valley-of-the-shadow-of-death days of the Iraq war Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (always good for a laugh) rather famously said the Iraq war was lost. In fact, it was disconcerting during the bad old days to wake up to headlines in which the Reid, Pelosi and others felt compelled to point out just how badly things were going and how our paramount need was for a hasty withdrawal from the Iraq quagmire. In spite of the improved situation in Iraq, this particular Democratic meme even today hasn't quite dried up. As one pithy commentator put it, the Democrats are "objectively pro-Al Qaeda" in rooting for the country's enemies.
This week, with a thousand point drop in the stock market and massive federal intervention to prop up the financial architecture of the world's greatest economy, I been wondering whether the Democratic Party and its nominee are "objectively pro-Great Depression." One senses that Obama's team is enjoying the spectacle of the meltdown a bit too much. Savings are being wiped out, after all, companies destroyed and the livelihoods of millions put at risk. Is it really just a political issue? Give me lipstick on a pig any day (inflating the trivial) compared to seeking political advantage over the collapse of the world's largest insurance company and one the world's most important brokerage houses (trivializing the critical.) Is there any price, the loss of a war or economic catastrophe, for instance, that would be excessive to win this election? I guess that's why The Onion calls their election page, "War for the White House."
Of course, this tendency to hope for the worst underlines a key problem Democrats have in the country at large, namely, the sinking feeling that when they add up the debits and credits of America, things don't quite reach a positive balance. In fact, among Democrats, one suspects that there's quite a different concept of America and its place in the world. A 200-year constitutional order, 100-fold increases in living standards every 100 years, the rule of law, expanding civil rights for women and minorities, the liberation of the world periodically from assorted tyrants and would-be tyrants these seem to be invisible or at least obscured substantially by the nation's failings. The nation has failings, no doubt. I keep a list in my back pocket although the items on my list probably aren't the same items on your average Democrat's. But I also know that to fix these problems would be to press toward perfection, and perfection is one of those qualities (in people or countries) that always recedes.
In the valley-of-the-shadow-of-death days of the Iraq war Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (always good for a laugh) rather famously said the Iraq war was lost. In fact, it was disconcerting during the bad old days to wake up to headlines in which the Reid, Pelosi and others felt compelled to point out just how badly things were going and how our paramount need was for a hasty withdrawal from the Iraq quagmire. In spite of the improved situation in Iraq, this particular Democratic meme even today hasn't quite dried up. As one pithy commentator put it, the Democrats are "objectively pro-Al Qaeda" in rooting for the country's enemies.
This week, with a thousand point drop in the stock market and massive federal intervention to prop up the financial architecture of the world's greatest economy, I been wondering whether the Democratic Party and its nominee are "objectively pro-Great Depression." One senses that Obama's team is enjoying the spectacle of the meltdown a bit too much. Savings are being wiped out, after all, companies destroyed and the livelihoods of millions put at risk. Is it really just a political issue? Give me lipstick on a pig any day (inflating the trivial) compared to seeking political advantage over the collapse of the world's largest insurance company and one the world's most important brokerage houses (trivializing the critical.) Is there any price, the loss of a war or economic catastrophe, for instance, that would be excessive to win this election? I guess that's why The Onion calls their election page, "War for the White House."
Of course, this tendency to hope for the worst underlines a key problem Democrats have in the country at large, namely, the sinking feeling that when they add up the debits and credits of America, things don't quite reach a positive balance. In fact, among Democrats, one suspects that there's quite a different concept of America and its place in the world. A 200-year constitutional order, 100-fold increases in living standards every 100 years, the rule of law, expanding civil rights for women and minorities, the liberation of the world periodically from assorted tyrants and would-be tyrants these seem to be invisible or at least obscured substantially by the nation's failings. The nation has failings, no doubt. I keep a list in my back pocket although the items on my list probably aren't the same items on your average Democrat's. But I also know that to fix these problems would be to press toward perfection, and perfection is one of those qualities (in people or countries) that always recedes.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
How to Defuse the Blackberry Mess
Very simple. McCain goes on Letterman and while he's joshing and answering questions with the host he keeps looking down at his watch. Letterman asks whether he has somewhere else he needs to be and McCain says, "I have an appointment with Al Gore in a few minutes. We need to fix the Internet." Laughs all around, McCain gets points for a sense of humor about himself Gore could never demonstrate because he doesn't have.
They can thank me later.
Very simple. McCain goes on Letterman and while he's joshing and answering questions with the host he keeps looking down at his watch. Letterman asks whether he has somewhere else he needs to be and McCain says, "I have an appointment with Al Gore in a few minutes. We need to fix the Internet." Laughs all around, McCain gets points for a sense of humor about himself Gore could never demonstrate because he doesn't have.
They can thank me later.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
A Breath of Fresh Air
Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children's Zone appeared yesterday with Terri Gross on the always annoying, Fresh Air. Canada's group serves about 8,000 kids in a 97-block catchment in Harlem with a pre-K-through-high school program that is integrated with a wide-range of support services that kids in poverty typically need. At one point in the interview, Gross began to weigh-in on the question of whether HCZ's kids were being subjected to that boogeyman of the professional education lobby, the standardized test. In her breathy and breathless way, Gross bemoaned the way these tests stifle teacher and student creativity and get in the way of "real" learning. Don't you think it's awful, she asked, that teachers must "teach to the test?"
Canada paused and then said words to the effect, "I only wish they were teaching to the test. Right now, they don't seem be teaching much of anything." He then went on to make the case for standards and how the tests re-inject some rigor into urban public education. Marvelous. Hear it all here.
Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children's Zone appeared yesterday with Terri Gross on the always annoying, Fresh Air. Canada's group serves about 8,000 kids in a 97-block catchment in Harlem with a pre-K-through-high school program that is integrated with a wide-range of support services that kids in poverty typically need. At one point in the interview, Gross began to weigh-in on the question of whether HCZ's kids were being subjected to that boogeyman of the professional education lobby, the standardized test. In her breathy and breathless way, Gross bemoaned the way these tests stifle teacher and student creativity and get in the way of "real" learning. Don't you think it's awful, she asked, that teachers must "teach to the test?"
Canada paused and then said words to the effect, "I only wish they were teaching to the test. Right now, they don't seem be teaching much of anything." He then went on to make the case for standards and how the tests re-inject some rigor into urban public education. Marvelous. Hear it all here.
Two Days, Two Mistakes, The Race Is On
It is amazing the difference 36 hours can make in a presidential contest. The Obama team has definitely shown resliency by cleverly taking advantage of McCain missteps on the economy and his staff's overreaching on technology issues. Of course, McCain is right about the economic fundamentals: the melting of the Wall Street wax-works bears little immediate relationship to Main Street business and the underlying assets of the American economy (particularly its human capital and infrastructure) are in place. But when the market loses 500 points? Let's just say the messaging was off.
More inexplicable is the "McCain's the inventor of the Blackberry comment." Yeah, just like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote the specs for the Internet. Why did they feel like they needed to respond to accusation that McCain can't write his own emails? I liked their first answer: because his broken fingers and hands, leftovers from Hanoi, make it laborious to do so. He wishes he could write emails. He forwent that skill in service to his country.
Presidential races are like two teams pushing against the same door. These mistakes moved the door a couple inches Obama's way. Too bad.
It is amazing the difference 36 hours can make in a presidential contest. The Obama team has definitely shown resliency by cleverly taking advantage of McCain missteps on the economy and his staff's overreaching on technology issues. Of course, McCain is right about the economic fundamentals: the melting of the Wall Street wax-works bears little immediate relationship to Main Street business and the underlying assets of the American economy (particularly its human capital and infrastructure) are in place. But when the market loses 500 points? Let's just say the messaging was off.
More inexplicable is the "McCain's the inventor of the Blackberry comment." Yeah, just like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote the specs for the Internet. Why did they feel like they needed to respond to accusation that McCain can't write his own emails? I liked their first answer: because his broken fingers and hands, leftovers from Hanoi, make it laborious to do so. He wishes he could write emails. He forwent that skill in service to his country.
Presidential races are like two teams pushing against the same door. These mistakes moved the door a couple inches Obama's way. Too bad.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Why the Swift Boats Won't Sink McCain
It is amazing how clumsy liberals can be in attempting adapt conservative campaign tactics. A new independent ad out has someone who knew McCain during the war saying that being a POW is no qualification to be president and that McCain's temper is a disqualification. Cue the sound of speeding Swift Boats coming in for a kill.
Here's what they don't understand: it wasn't what John Kerry did during the war that made him vulnerable to the Swift Boat ads. He was a decorated war veteran with citations for valor under fire. All to the good. It was what John Kerry did after the war -- undermining the war effort, protesting the war, lying about returning his medals -- that fatally undermined the appeal of his service to the country. What made the charges of his contemporaries from the 1960s so compelling is that they were consistent with the Kerry the country came to know in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Nothing that happened to Kerry justified in the public mind his actions that a lot of voters regarded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. So John McCain was tortured and partially disabled by his captors and that made him...cranky? Rather than undermining the public's admiration of McCain, this actually might help reinforce it.
It is amazing how clumsy liberals can be in attempting adapt conservative campaign tactics. A new independent ad out has someone who knew McCain during the war saying that being a POW is no qualification to be president and that McCain's temper is a disqualification. Cue the sound of speeding Swift Boats coming in for a kill.
Here's what they don't understand: it wasn't what John Kerry did during the war that made him vulnerable to the Swift Boat ads. He was a decorated war veteran with citations for valor under fire. All to the good. It was what John Kerry did after the war -- undermining the war effort, protesting the war, lying about returning his medals -- that fatally undermined the appeal of his service to the country. What made the charges of his contemporaries from the 1960s so compelling is that they were consistent with the Kerry the country came to know in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Nothing that happened to Kerry justified in the public mind his actions that a lot of voters regarded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. So John McCain was tortured and partially disabled by his captors and that made him...cranky? Rather than undermining the public's admiration of McCain, this actually might help reinforce it.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Minnesota Swings
A new poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates International (PSRAI) released this morning shows McCain and Obama all tied up in Minnesota at 45 percent each among likely voters. The previous poll, by the thoroughly unreliable Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota, had Obama up by 12. PSRAI polled over a thousand adults which is a very large sample for a state survey. Of further interest is the fact that in the context of McCain's growth, the undecideds are basically unchanged meaning that McCain is effectively stealing Obama votes.
Read more here.
A new poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates International (PSRAI) released this morning shows McCain and Obama all tied up in Minnesota at 45 percent each among likely voters. The previous poll, by the thoroughly unreliable Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota, had Obama up by 12. PSRAI polled over a thousand adults which is a very large sample for a state survey. Of further interest is the fact that in the context of McCain's growth, the undecideds are basically unchanged meaning that McCain is effectively stealing Obama votes.
Read more here.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Importance of Hating Earmarks
Gail Collins is in high tut-tut mode over the earmark question. She makes the quite correct point that earmarked projects account for an infintessimal amount of the federal budget and are therefore very much below the concern of anyone who's "serious" about dealing with the real federal spending problems, Social Security, Medicare and the rest of the entitlement state.
Not quite, actually. Earmarks are the "broken windows" of the federal budget process. Their proliferation in recent years has been a product of, and a prod to, a general lack of seriousness about bringing the federal budget back into balance. Does anyone believe that a Congress and Administration incapable of saying no to trivialities of individual member projects will somehow acquire the career-threatening virtue necessary to reign-in the entitlement hydra? Talk about not serious. Seems to me that just as arresting turnstile jumpers and squeegee men were Guiliani's first steps toward restoring order on the streets of New York, so putting a big dent in earmarking might be the very tonic needed to reinject a modicum of seriousness in the federal budget-making process.
McCain has put his finger on a very important principle in his war against earmarks. They are a symptom and symbol of a much deeper problem in the Republic: a dwindling in the self-restraint that makes self-government possible. This is an excellent place for reform to begin.
Respond to drpotomac@gmail.com
Gail Collins is in high tut-tut mode over the earmark question. She makes the quite correct point that earmarked projects account for an infintessimal amount of the federal budget and are therefore very much below the concern of anyone who's "serious" about dealing with the real federal spending problems, Social Security, Medicare and the rest of the entitlement state.
Not quite, actually. Earmarks are the "broken windows" of the federal budget process. Their proliferation in recent years has been a product of, and a prod to, a general lack of seriousness about bringing the federal budget back into balance. Does anyone believe that a Congress and Administration incapable of saying no to trivialities of individual member projects will somehow acquire the career-threatening virtue necessary to reign-in the entitlement hydra? Talk about not serious. Seems to me that just as arresting turnstile jumpers and squeegee men were Guiliani's first steps toward restoring order on the streets of New York, so putting a big dent in earmarking might be the very tonic needed to reinject a modicum of seriousness in the federal budget-making process.
McCain has put his finger on a very important principle in his war against earmarks. They are a symptom and symbol of a much deeper problem in the Republic: a dwindling in the self-restraint that makes self-government possible. This is an excellent place for reform to begin.
Respond to drpotomac@gmail.com
Judith Warner, The Haidt Research, etc.
I must say I found the Judith Warner piece that Dr. Potomac mentions below to be somewhat bizarre. As an academic with, uh, very different metaphysical and political opinions than most of my colleagues, I am used to not just meeting but being with very different types of people. Ms. Warner, on the other hand, obviously felt way outside that ol' comfort zone.
An article by Haidt featuring his research was linked to by the all-powerful Arts & Letters Daily, which if you like ideas, you should make your home page. The Chief Crunchy Con, our friend Rod Dreher (well, not really friend, but the Doc and once chatted with him, though we were surrounded by two hundred of our closest friends at the time) had an interesting post on it, and led me to an online test you can take that will provide Haidt with some more datapoints, and perhaps provide you with some self-awareness. So far I have taken only two of the tests, and am proving to be a really bizarre outlier.
I should also note that Rod seems to be in the midst of a great deal of conflict over Our Sarah, stemming from her interviews with Charlie Gibson, or Uncle Sourpuss as I shall now think of him (myself, I can't wait to get some half-moon reading classes so I can stare with pursed lips at my erring undergrads; maybe I can get a pair with clear glass). This is, I imagine, not so much as the interview was disastrous qua interview, as that Rod finds the interview disastrous because Our Sarah actually said things that John McCain would say as well; reminding Rod that he does believe that John McCain is a dangerous Neo-conservative looking for a chance to throw the legions into battle, or something.
Thus does the beautiful glow of torrid love-affair die. Sigh. Well, he'll always have Dayton.
For those of us who like Our Sarah and who haven't stopped talking about Iraq since an actual counterinsurgency policy with a possibility of victory was implemented, well, we can feel uncomfortable with Sarah's awkwardness, but that's about it.
I must say I found the Judith Warner piece that Dr. Potomac mentions below to be somewhat bizarre. As an academic with, uh, very different metaphysical and political opinions than most of my colleagues, I am used to not just meeting but being with very different types of people. Ms. Warner, on the other hand, obviously felt way outside that ol' comfort zone.
An article by Haidt featuring his research was linked to by the all-powerful Arts & Letters Daily, which if you like ideas, you should make your home page. The Chief Crunchy Con, our friend Rod Dreher (well, not really friend, but the Doc and once chatted with him, though we were surrounded by two hundred of our closest friends at the time) had an interesting post on it, and led me to an online test you can take that will provide Haidt with some more datapoints, and perhaps provide you with some self-awareness. So far I have taken only two of the tests, and am proving to be a really bizarre outlier.
I should also note that Rod seems to be in the midst of a great deal of conflict over Our Sarah, stemming from her interviews with Charlie Gibson, or Uncle Sourpuss as I shall now think of him (myself, I can't wait to get some half-moon reading classes so I can stare with pursed lips at my erring undergrads; maybe I can get a pair with clear glass). This is, I imagine, not so much as the interview was disastrous qua interview, as that Rod finds the interview disastrous because Our Sarah actually said things that John McCain would say as well; reminding Rod that he does believe that John McCain is a dangerous Neo-conservative looking for a chance to throw the legions into battle, or something.
Thus does the beautiful glow of torrid love-affair die. Sigh. Well, he'll always have Dayton.
For those of us who like Our Sarah and who haven't stopped talking about Iraq since an actual counterinsurgency policy with a possibility of victory was implemented, well, we can feel uncomfortable with Sarah's awkwardness, but that's about it.
From Whence the Anger Comes
More on the theme of who-gets-whom between liberals and conservatives.
For those of us who can’t tap into those yearnings, it seems the Palin faithful are blind – to the contradictions between her stated positions and the truth of the policies she espouses, to the contradictions between her ideology and their interests. But Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, argues in an essay this month, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind.
Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.
Perhaps that’s why the conservatives can so successfully get under liberals’ skin. And why liberals need to start working harder at breaking through the empathy barrier.
Read the whole piece here.
More on the theme of who-gets-whom between liberals and conservatives.
For those of us who can’t tap into those yearnings, it seems the Palin faithful are blind – to the contradictions between her stated positions and the truth of the policies she espouses, to the contradictions between her ideology and their interests. But Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, argues in an essay this month, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind.
Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.
Perhaps that’s why the conservatives can so successfully get under liberals’ skin. And why liberals need to start working harder at breaking through the empathy barrier.
Read the whole piece here.
Just What is a "Likely Voter"?
Gallup issued some interesting details on its polling methodology yesterday. "Registered voters," they say, are those who give a positive repsonse to the question of whether they are "registered to vote in their presinct or election district." This is the number that Gallup most frequently reports which split 50 percent for Mcain to 46 percent for Obama in the most recent report.
Gallup went on to say that it has spent decades refining its "likely voter" model. Respondents are asked a battery of questions about "past voting, current interest in the election, and self-reported interest in voting." The questions are extensive and detailed. Among these voters, McCain led 54 percent to 44 percent. That would be a landslide of Reagnesque proportions.
In the run-up to the 2004 election, Gallup's likely voter model was quite predictive. In the final poll before balloting, Gallup found Bush behind Kerry by 2 percent, 48 percent to 46 percent among registered voters. Among likely voters, Bush led by 2 percent, 49 percent to 47 percent. Bush won by 2.5 percent which would seem to indicate that Gallup's models have fairly strong predictive value.
Gallup notes that one thing it's poll might have difficulty picking up is rapid expansion of the voting public, and they further note the Obama campaign is promising to turn young people out in droves. Maybe. But as James Carville says, there's a name for candidates who rely on the youth vote: loser.
Bottom line: keep an eye on the Gallup Poll.
Gallup issued some interesting details on its polling methodology yesterday. "Registered voters," they say, are those who give a positive repsonse to the question of whether they are "registered to vote in their presinct or election district." This is the number that Gallup most frequently reports which split 50 percent for Mcain to 46 percent for Obama in the most recent report.
Gallup went on to say that it has spent decades refining its "likely voter" model. Respondents are asked a battery of questions about "past voting, current interest in the election, and self-reported interest in voting." The questions are extensive and detailed. Among these voters, McCain led 54 percent to 44 percent. That would be a landslide of Reagnesque proportions.
In the run-up to the 2004 election, Gallup's likely voter model was quite predictive. In the final poll before balloting, Gallup found Bush behind Kerry by 2 percent, 48 percent to 46 percent among registered voters. Among likely voters, Bush led by 2 percent, 49 percent to 47 percent. Bush won by 2.5 percent which would seem to indicate that Gallup's models have fairly strong predictive value.
Gallup notes that one thing it's poll might have difficulty picking up is rapid expansion of the voting public, and they further note the Obama campaign is promising to turn young people out in droves. Maybe. But as James Carville says, there's a name for candidates who rely on the youth vote: loser.
Bottom line: keep an eye on the Gallup Poll.
The Ohio Poll
The University of Cincinnati issued its poll yesterday showing McCain with a 48 to 44percent lead over Obama. Two significant sub-findings bear noting. First, 23 percent of respondents indicated that they could change their minds before election day, which is a fairly big number in a Palin-polarized electorate and a measure of how cross-pressured the electorate is due to the struggling Ohio economy. Second, in an indication that Obama's white working class and women issues are far from behind him, the poll found that over twice as many Democrats (11 percent) are crossing over to support McCain as Republicans (5 percent)are ready to vote for Obama.
The University of Cincinnati issued its poll yesterday showing McCain with a 48 to 44percent lead over Obama. Two significant sub-findings bear noting. First, 23 percent of respondents indicated that they could change their minds before election day, which is a fairly big number in a Palin-polarized electorate and a measure of how cross-pressured the electorate is due to the struggling Ohio economy. Second, in an indication that Obama's white working class and women issues are far from behind him, the poll found that over twice as many Democrats (11 percent) are crossing over to support McCain as Republicans (5 percent)are ready to vote for Obama.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Peter Robinson with Andrew Klavan
Uncommon Knowledge, the webisodes in which Peter Robinson speaks with some notable is always interesting, but this current series of interviews with Andrew Klavan is particularly fascinating to me. Why? Well, for one, I know about Tom Wolfe, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, etc., etc., but Klavan is a new face and a new mind, and it's a delight to be introduced to him. For another, I agree with him, and find him very provocative. All of the webisodes are good, but especially this one, which in many ways I believe harmonizes with the foundational ideas behind all the members of this blog. Watch, to paraphrase, them all.
Uncommon Knowledge, the webisodes in which Peter Robinson speaks with some notable is always interesting, but this current series of interviews with Andrew Klavan is particularly fascinating to me. Why? Well, for one, I know about Tom Wolfe, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, etc., etc., but Klavan is a new face and a new mind, and it's a delight to be introduced to him. For another, I agree with him, and find him very provocative. All of the webisodes are good, but especially this one, which in many ways I believe harmonizes with the foundational ideas behind all the members of this blog. Watch, to paraphrase, them all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)