Currier and Ives
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)