If all of you people who thought putting in Tea Party candidates was such a good idea, let me ask you one question:
If they weren't in Congress, would we be having this meaningless and destructive showdown over the debt ceiling?
"Anybody but..." is a stupid way to elect your representatives, especially when it's a bloc that combines ignorance with arrogance. Too late now, though, as you're reaping what you sowed. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with it as well.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Friday, September 03, 2010
Dumbing Ourselves Down
I’m going to start by saying that this new blogging journey that the CW and I are on is an interesting one. Any blogger, or even most national opinion writers, can sit at their computers and spout. To back up your positions with factual information requires a great deal of time and research. Despite the time-suck the CW and I are determined to stay the course. If every blogger in America did the same we’d probably have better discourse in this country. Alas…
Onwards.
For whatever reason, there seems to be strong empirical evidence that Americans have surprisingly little knowledge of current political issues even as they seemingly have incredibly black and white views on political positions. Proving or disproving this beyond the empirical is a difficult, if not impossible proposition, although one can easily find enough evidence to comfortably say that Americans are woefully ignorant of political realities and facts. Examples: Barack Obama is a Muslim, who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and who the top military commander is in Afghanistan. So we (“we” being me and the CW) chose to do some research on how people today are getting their political information.
To do this, we had to make some suppositions. We started with the way news is reported, and we looked at 1) political and news magazines, 2) local and national newspapers, and 3) cable and local television news.
-Our first supposition was that news magazines (e.g., Time, U.S. News, Christian Science Monitor Weekly, Business Week, Forbes) have the most in-depth coverage of stories based on their area of interest when compared to the newspapers and TV.
-The second supposition is that both national (e.g., USA Today, Wall Street Journal) and local newspapers cover topics that are more widely varying than magazines or TV, especially local newspapers since they also are attempting to cover stories of local interest.
-By nature, if these suppositions are true (which seem reasonable that they are based on empirical evidence and common sense), then TV news reports little more than an overview of a small number of stories. Even 24/7 cable news does not spend the in-depth time on most issues, outside of opinion and tabloid shows.
-According to this synopsis by the Pew Research Center of a survey concluded in February 2009, readership of newspapers in any form has fallen among all age groups. The WWII generation (the “Greatest Generation”) dropped to 53% from 65%, and Baby Boomers dropped from 48% to 38%. Gen X & Gen Y apparently never started reading newspapers in any form, as their numbers over the same time went from 31% & 22% respectively to 26% & 21% respectively.
-During this same time period news gathered from TV sources has remained stable.
-Even for those getting their news online, online cable TV news sites (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) are visited consistently higher than the entire aggregation of local newspaper sites, which also suggests that people’s understanding of local issues, arguably more important in people’s day-to-day lives than national issues, is declining rapidly.
Pew also breaks the country down by how they get their news into Integrators, Net-Newsers, Traditionalists and Disengaged, with Traditionalists being by far the largest segment (46%). This is the only segment that is almost solely reliant on TV for their news. However, the Integrators (23%) also use TV as their main news source. Integrators are defined as those who use traditional sources (TV, magazine, newspaper) and the internet. They tend to be middle-aged Americans who are “well-educated and affluent.” This means that, taken as an aggregate, 69% of all Americans rely on TV for all or most of their news.
This might be ok if TV were a reliable source for accuracy in a “headline news” sort of mode, or if the 24/7 news channels were to take the major stories of the day and give them a journalistic analysis. But that’s not the reality of what national news coverage has become; certainly not with the cable news stations, which have become more and more politicized over time. CNN, which was once thought of as both the bastion of TV journalism and ironically as the mouthpiece of the left is now foundering as not being politicized enough, and therefore 3rd in the cable news ratings.
So if TV news is a brief overview of issues, is overtly politicized instead of being journalistically sound, is rewarded (by ratings) for assuming a political stance, and people are picking and choosing what network to watch based on their political affiliation, then the viewership is being rewarded for continuing to believe what they want to believe. Along the same line, the network or station in question is rewarded for giving their viewership “red meat” along the political lines they hold. To the medium of television news, journalism is all but dead, true dissent is dead, and by nature, the truth is dead. Yet this is what 69% of all Americans choose as their primary news source.
Is it any wonder that we are becoming more polarized and more intractable? If this climate continues, will we ever be able to compromise for the good of the country? Ask yourself, whatever you believe: can you see any point in listening tothe other side? Or do you believe that the other side is so out of touch that there’s no sense in listening to them?
Regardless of the answers, it seems reasonably clear that to have some grasp of the truth you must turn off the TV.
Onwards.
For whatever reason, there seems to be strong empirical evidence that Americans have surprisingly little knowledge of current political issues even as they seemingly have incredibly black and white views on political positions. Proving or disproving this beyond the empirical is a difficult, if not impossible proposition, although one can easily find enough evidence to comfortably say that Americans are woefully ignorant of political realities and facts. Examples: Barack Obama is a Muslim, who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and who the top military commander is in Afghanistan. So we (“we” being me and the CW) chose to do some research on how people today are getting their political information.
To do this, we had to make some suppositions. We started with the way news is reported, and we looked at 1) political and news magazines, 2) local and national newspapers, and 3) cable and local television news.
-Our first supposition was that news magazines (e.g., Time, U.S. News, Christian Science Monitor Weekly, Business Week, Forbes) have the most in-depth coverage of stories based on their area of interest when compared to the newspapers and TV.
-The second supposition is that both national (e.g., USA Today, Wall Street Journal) and local newspapers cover topics that are more widely varying than magazines or TV, especially local newspapers since they also are attempting to cover stories of local interest.
-By nature, if these suppositions are true (which seem reasonable that they are based on empirical evidence and common sense), then TV news reports little more than an overview of a small number of stories. Even 24/7 cable news does not spend the in-depth time on most issues, outside of opinion and tabloid shows.
-According to this synopsis by the Pew Research Center of a survey concluded in February 2009, readership of newspapers in any form has fallen among all age groups. The WWII generation (the “Greatest Generation”) dropped to 53% from 65%, and Baby Boomers dropped from 48% to 38%. Gen X & Gen Y apparently never started reading newspapers in any form, as their numbers over the same time went from 31% & 22% respectively to 26% & 21% respectively.
-During this same time period news gathered from TV sources has remained stable.
-Even for those getting their news online, online cable TV news sites (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) are visited consistently higher than the entire aggregation of local newspaper sites, which also suggests that people’s understanding of local issues, arguably more important in people’s day-to-day lives than national issues, is declining rapidly.
Pew also breaks the country down by how they get their news into Integrators, Net-Newsers, Traditionalists and Disengaged, with Traditionalists being by far the largest segment (46%). This is the only segment that is almost solely reliant on TV for their news. However, the Integrators (23%) also use TV as their main news source. Integrators are defined as those who use traditional sources (TV, magazine, newspaper) and the internet. They tend to be middle-aged Americans who are “well-educated and affluent.” This means that, taken as an aggregate, 69% of all Americans rely on TV for all or most of their news.
This might be ok if TV were a reliable source for accuracy in a “headline news” sort of mode, or if the 24/7 news channels were to take the major stories of the day and give them a journalistic analysis. But that’s not the reality of what national news coverage has become; certainly not with the cable news stations, which have become more and more politicized over time. CNN, which was once thought of as both the bastion of TV journalism and ironically as the mouthpiece of the left is now foundering as not being politicized enough, and therefore 3rd in the cable news ratings.
So if TV news is a brief overview of issues, is overtly politicized instead of being journalistically sound, is rewarded (by ratings) for assuming a political stance, and people are picking and choosing what network to watch based on their political affiliation, then the viewership is being rewarded for continuing to believe what they want to believe. Along the same line, the network or station in question is rewarded for giving their viewership “red meat” along the political lines they hold. To the medium of television news, journalism is all but dead, true dissent is dead, and by nature, the truth is dead. Yet this is what 69% of all Americans choose as their primary news source.
Is it any wonder that we are becoming more polarized and more intractable? If this climate continues, will we ever be able to compromise for the good of the country? Ask yourself, whatever you believe: can you see any point in listening tothe other side? Or do you believe that the other side is so out of touch that there’s no sense in listening to them?
Regardless of the answers, it seems reasonably clear that to have some grasp of the truth you must turn off the TV.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Silent No More
My blogging absence has been purposeful. In trying to keep above the toxic rancor it seemed better to be silent than to add to the cacophony. However, there have been several occurrences that have convinced me that silence is the wrong option, and that now more than ever is the time to voice concerns and thoughts.
Because there are voluminous topics which need exploration, I’m going to consider this particular posting to be a preview of what will be written in detail over the next few weeks. So, somewhat Larry King-style and in no particular order, a smattering of topics and my POV that will be covered:
-How a segment of the population is rationalizing that the 1st Amendment, specifically the separation of church and state, can be summarily tossed out the window, and the long-term damage this does to our economy.
-The hypocrisy of newly-minted “constitutionalists” who claim to want a strict interpretation of a “dead document,” while at the same time express a desire to toss out that which they don’t like, such as the 14th Amendment.
-How a large swath of evangelical Christians are being led down a blind alley by disingenuous and dangerous “leaders” who prey on their worst fears, and what this likely means for them and for the country if they continue.
-The venom and negativity of conservatives and Republicans is matched only by the vacuum left from the lack of any positive direction or ideas they have.
-The failure of Democrats to have a unified message or to fully get behind Obama has been almost as detrimental as the negative spewing coming from the right.
-Why Obama needs to abandon his natural state of reasoned debate, as no one’s paying attention to sane dialog. Instead he must change his tactic to lay out his vision in overly simplistic terms while doggedly attacking Republicans. The question becomes whether or not he has the temperament to do so.
-The irony of the continued cry of “activist judge” as a slur against the left, while the current conservative Supreme Court has reached for decisions that are just as activist and also have the side effect of being damaging instead of merely polarizing.
-A definition of facism, since few people seem to understand exactly what that is, and why it is both more of a threat to U.S. style capitalism than socialism and also far more likely of an occurrence.
-The continued and arguably accelerating “dumbing down” of America. Everyone seems to think it’s happening, but few look in the mirror to see if they’re part of the problem or take personal responsibility to do anything about it.
-Why TV news is the single worst place to get information and, since the 24/7 news cycle is here to stay, how we must re-train ourselves in its wake.
-The rise of fringe candidates and how they disrupt or even derail governmental effectiveness.
-Racism is alive and well, only society and the right has gotten better at sending coded messages so that their followers can convince themselves that they’re not actually racist.
-Why it doesn’t matter whether you believe in climate change or not, since failure to change our energy policy will remove the United States from its perch as both the economic, military and political superpower, presuming the damage is not already irreversible.
-Why taking policies further that conservatives parrot (e.g., lower taxes, less regulations, relaxing of antitrust laws) will have a detrimental effect on the overall economy.
-An examination of how, as individuals, our personal habits have made us responsible for the mess we’re in, even though no one wants to admit or accept any blame for it; also, the way forward out it.
I will be trying to remain calm and factual. When opinion is necessary, I will strive to remove as much emotion as possible. I am not a journalist, nor an economist, nor a politician. I am just an interested observer who tries to do his homework. A good dialog would be nice, but it’s not really my aim. If I can serve in some small way to educate, inform and make someone think who otherwise is just aping buzzwords and re-hashing talking points, even if they retain their ideological position, then I will feel that this has accomplished something positive.
Because there are voluminous topics which need exploration, I’m going to consider this particular posting to be a preview of what will be written in detail over the next few weeks. So, somewhat Larry King-style and in no particular order, a smattering of topics and my POV that will be covered:
-How a segment of the population is rationalizing that the 1st Amendment, specifically the separation of church and state, can be summarily tossed out the window, and the long-term damage this does to our economy.
-The hypocrisy of newly-minted “constitutionalists” who claim to want a strict interpretation of a “dead document,” while at the same time express a desire to toss out that which they don’t like, such as the 14th Amendment.
-How a large swath of evangelical Christians are being led down a blind alley by disingenuous and dangerous “leaders” who prey on their worst fears, and what this likely means for them and for the country if they continue.
-The venom and negativity of conservatives and Republicans is matched only by the vacuum left from the lack of any positive direction or ideas they have.
-The failure of Democrats to have a unified message or to fully get behind Obama has been almost as detrimental as the negative spewing coming from the right.
-Why Obama needs to abandon his natural state of reasoned debate, as no one’s paying attention to sane dialog. Instead he must change his tactic to lay out his vision in overly simplistic terms while doggedly attacking Republicans. The question becomes whether or not he has the temperament to do so.
-The irony of the continued cry of “activist judge” as a slur against the left, while the current conservative Supreme Court has reached for decisions that are just as activist and also have the side effect of being damaging instead of merely polarizing.
-A definition of facism, since few people seem to understand exactly what that is, and why it is both more of a threat to U.S. style capitalism than socialism and also far more likely of an occurrence.
-The continued and arguably accelerating “dumbing down” of America. Everyone seems to think it’s happening, but few look in the mirror to see if they’re part of the problem or take personal responsibility to do anything about it.
-Why TV news is the single worst place to get information and, since the 24/7 news cycle is here to stay, how we must re-train ourselves in its wake.
-The rise of fringe candidates and how they disrupt or even derail governmental effectiveness.
-Racism is alive and well, only society and the right has gotten better at sending coded messages so that their followers can convince themselves that they’re not actually racist.
-Why it doesn’t matter whether you believe in climate change or not, since failure to change our energy policy will remove the United States from its perch as both the economic, military and political superpower, presuming the damage is not already irreversible.
-Why taking policies further that conservatives parrot (e.g., lower taxes, less regulations, relaxing of antitrust laws) will have a detrimental effect on the overall economy.
-An examination of how, as individuals, our personal habits have made us responsible for the mess we’re in, even though no one wants to admit or accept any blame for it; also, the way forward out it.
I will be trying to remain calm and factual. When opinion is necessary, I will strive to remove as much emotion as possible. I am not a journalist, nor an economist, nor a politician. I am just an interested observer who tries to do his homework. A good dialog would be nice, but it’s not really my aim. If I can serve in some small way to educate, inform and make someone think who otherwise is just aping buzzwords and re-hashing talking points, even if they retain their ideological position, then I will feel that this has accomplished something positive.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
I've Had Enough
There comes a point when one has had enough with both sides of the aisle. Ok...there comes a point when THE CENTRIST DUDE has had enough with both sides of the aisle. And those not in an aisle as well.
Can we reintroduce some sanity?
Tea Partiers:
If you're really taking "fiscally conservative" as your mantra, then put our expenditures in Afghanistan and and Iraq on the table. If balancing the fiscal budget is truly your cause, and you cannot acknowledge the drain on our federal budget that comes from those conflicts and at least enter into a debate about how to better spend our defense dollars, then it's very difficult to believe that you're sincere. And therefore, the logical conlusion is that you only care about fiscal restraint for things you don't agree with, but are fine with pouring it down a sinkhole for things that you like. And by the way, that doesn't make you any different than most individuals, much less infer that you're special or justifying of a "movement." That is why there's so much hue and cry that all your bluster is covering for a bunch of anti-Democrat, anti-Obama, and/or anti-black white people who won't voice their true views in public.
Democrats/liberals:
Have you figured out yet that the country hasn't suddenly bought into your way of thinking? That maybe 2008 was more anti-Republican/anti-Bush than pro-anything-you believe? The country doesn't want the federal government to solve all of our woes.
You have missed a golden opportunity to be viewed as the adults in the national conversation. While Republicans did nothing but obstruct, which may I remind you was your tactic when you were the minority party, instead of rising above it and taking your case to the public you seemed to be more interested in pushing your agenda forward at all costs. Yes, we have problems in this country that need solutions, and some are so big that the federal government is the only plausible largesse available. But politics is the art of the possible, not the art of ram-it-down-their-throat, even if you are convinced that your beliefs are correct. By the way, that conviction doesn't separate you from anyone else.
If you can't bring the conversation back to the center, then you are as much of the problem as that which you rail against. Centrists and independents do matter. Quit shouting louder from your corner.
Republicans/conservatives:
Wow. How short your memory is. And how big of a pox you have left on this country. Do you realize that you got rightly butt-whipped in 2008? So don't confusing the current animosity towards Democrats as an acceptance of your agenda. Quite frankly, you're way more lost than the two entities above. You seem to have no road map out of the mess you have largely created, other than "Democrats suck." You rail against big government, but can't show how the lack of government is going to help people who you seem to be hell-bent on leaving in the lurch. Government won't solve all our ills, but get a grip: lack of government won't solve them either.
You won't or can't acknowledge how much damage has been done by your conservative Supreme Court (let's just start with the ruling that corporations have rights on par with individuals when it comes to political contributions), and the destruction of our political standing with respect to the rest of the world. In fact, you are so clueless that you demonize our President as being on an "apology tour," like we don't actually have issues to answer for. And now you suddenly think the country is coming around to your way of thinking? I would laugh if it weren't so sad how clueless you actually are.
Yes, there does need to be a "re-start" button, but I'm not referring to the health care debate. The best scenario would be to explode both parties, but that obviously isn't going to happen. So the next thing to do is to start eliminating incumbents until we have a plurality that understands a few things:
We have a fiscal deficit that badly needs to be addressed, but we also have investments that need to be made that can't just be put off. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that investing in our infrastructure, mass transportation, green energy and other industries of the future is a bad thing? If you own a company, would you stick your head in the sand and ignore new markets and improving your products? No, unless you're not very bright. You'd understand that is the key to being relevant and growing. This country is no different. If you don't get the concept of "spending money to make money", then you're truly stupid.
We have systemic greed on Wall Street that is a major part of our landscape, and it needs to be checked. There are bad people who want to break rules. That's what antitrust is all about. That's what regulation is for. Yes, in the late 70s we had too much regulation and too much bureaucracy. The pendulum has swung. Recognize it.
Our health care system is in ruins, and only those who have their heads in the sand can't see that. On several levels: loss of work force, cost of medical treatment, cost of insurance, an aging populous, this current "system" stands to wreck our country faster than Social Security, taxes, terrorists, or any competing cause. If we don't address it, it's going to be horribly ironic that the America we think we know will be destroyed by a social issue that right-wingers refused to acknowledge. Get off your high horse and bring solutions to the table. (And by the way, the most plausible solution here is to make health care insurance the responsibility of individuals, not employers. But like so many things, we all know that's not going to happen, either.)
You might still be an environmental skeptic or believe that climate change is bogus. Fine. But at least acknowledge that there's a ridiculous amount of money to be made in being on the forefront of "green" energy. This is the next dotcom boom. So why would you rail against it? And while we're on the subject, can those of you on the right please drop the "China and India aren't playing nice" talk as justification for doing nothing? Using that logic, if m neighbor doesn't take care of his yard I'm supposed to let mine go as well. That's got to be in the running for the single stupidest argument ever made.
While there is plenty of blame to go around, it's the current crop Republicans who disappoint and disgust me the most. I'm absolutely amazed at how quickly right-wing politics have become the safe harbor for nutcases and lunatics. I don't hear the constant chatter of crazy talk from the left any more; it's all coming from the right. What happened? How, without my views significantly shifting, has the landscape changed to a place where in my world "Republican" equals Nut Job? Democrats circa 1979 = Republicans circa 2010. If you're a Republican or conservative, you might want to think about that. I haven't fundamentally changed. But you certainly have.
As for the voters, if we really want change and for Washington to be once more about public service, then quit thinking your current congressional rep or senators are doing you any favors. Vote 'em all out. Dick Lugar and Lloyd Doggett aren't helping the cause, either, so why keep them around? Vote against every incumbent, starting with the primaries this week. Time to put the fear of God into any currently elected office holder. That's the only way anyone's going to start working for the good of the country.
Can we reintroduce some sanity?
Tea Partiers:
If you're really taking "fiscally conservative" as your mantra, then put our expenditures in Afghanistan and and Iraq on the table. If balancing the fiscal budget is truly your cause, and you cannot acknowledge the drain on our federal budget that comes from those conflicts and at least enter into a debate about how to better spend our defense dollars, then it's very difficult to believe that you're sincere. And therefore, the logical conlusion is that you only care about fiscal restraint for things you don't agree with, but are fine with pouring it down a sinkhole for things that you like. And by the way, that doesn't make you any different than most individuals, much less infer that you're special or justifying of a "movement." That is why there's so much hue and cry that all your bluster is covering for a bunch of anti-Democrat, anti-Obama, and/or anti-black white people who won't voice their true views in public.
Democrats/liberals:
Have you figured out yet that the country hasn't suddenly bought into your way of thinking? That maybe 2008 was more anti-Republican/anti-Bush than pro-anything-you believe? The country doesn't want the federal government to solve all of our woes.
You have missed a golden opportunity to be viewed as the adults in the national conversation. While Republicans did nothing but obstruct, which may I remind you was your tactic when you were the minority party, instead of rising above it and taking your case to the public you seemed to be more interested in pushing your agenda forward at all costs. Yes, we have problems in this country that need solutions, and some are so big that the federal government is the only plausible largesse available. But politics is the art of the possible, not the art of ram-it-down-their-throat, even if you are convinced that your beliefs are correct. By the way, that conviction doesn't separate you from anyone else.
If you can't bring the conversation back to the center, then you are as much of the problem as that which you rail against. Centrists and independents do matter. Quit shouting louder from your corner.
Republicans/conservatives:
Wow. How short your memory is. And how big of a pox you have left on this country. Do you realize that you got rightly butt-whipped in 2008? So don't confusing the current animosity towards Democrats as an acceptance of your agenda. Quite frankly, you're way more lost than the two entities above. You seem to have no road map out of the mess you have largely created, other than "Democrats suck." You rail against big government, but can't show how the lack of government is going to help people who you seem to be hell-bent on leaving in the lurch. Government won't solve all our ills, but get a grip: lack of government won't solve them either.
You won't or can't acknowledge how much damage has been done by your conservative Supreme Court (let's just start with the ruling that corporations have rights on par with individuals when it comes to political contributions), and the destruction of our political standing with respect to the rest of the world. In fact, you are so clueless that you demonize our President as being on an "apology tour," like we don't actually have issues to answer for. And now you suddenly think the country is coming around to your way of thinking? I would laugh if it weren't so sad how clueless you actually are.
Yes, there does need to be a "re-start" button, but I'm not referring to the health care debate. The best scenario would be to explode both parties, but that obviously isn't going to happen. So the next thing to do is to start eliminating incumbents until we have a plurality that understands a few things:
We have a fiscal deficit that badly needs to be addressed, but we also have investments that need to be made that can't just be put off. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that investing in our infrastructure, mass transportation, green energy and other industries of the future is a bad thing? If you own a company, would you stick your head in the sand and ignore new markets and improving your products? No, unless you're not very bright. You'd understand that is the key to being relevant and growing. This country is no different. If you don't get the concept of "spending money to make money", then you're truly stupid.
We have systemic greed on Wall Street that is a major part of our landscape, and it needs to be checked. There are bad people who want to break rules. That's what antitrust is all about. That's what regulation is for. Yes, in the late 70s we had too much regulation and too much bureaucracy. The pendulum has swung. Recognize it.
Our health care system is in ruins, and only those who have their heads in the sand can't see that. On several levels: loss of work force, cost of medical treatment, cost of insurance, an aging populous, this current "system" stands to wreck our country faster than Social Security, taxes, terrorists, or any competing cause. If we don't address it, it's going to be horribly ironic that the America we think we know will be destroyed by a social issue that right-wingers refused to acknowledge. Get off your high horse and bring solutions to the table. (And by the way, the most plausible solution here is to make health care insurance the responsibility of individuals, not employers. But like so many things, we all know that's not going to happen, either.)
You might still be an environmental skeptic or believe that climate change is bogus. Fine. But at least acknowledge that there's a ridiculous amount of money to be made in being on the forefront of "green" energy. This is the next dotcom boom. So why would you rail against it? And while we're on the subject, can those of you on the right please drop the "China and India aren't playing nice" talk as justification for doing nothing? Using that logic, if m neighbor doesn't take care of his yard I'm supposed to let mine go as well. That's got to be in the running for the single stupidest argument ever made.
While there is plenty of blame to go around, it's the current crop Republicans who disappoint and disgust me the most. I'm absolutely amazed at how quickly right-wing politics have become the safe harbor for nutcases and lunatics. I don't hear the constant chatter of crazy talk from the left any more; it's all coming from the right. What happened? How, without my views significantly shifting, has the landscape changed to a place where in my world "Republican" equals Nut Job? Democrats circa 1979 = Republicans circa 2010. If you're a Republican or conservative, you might want to think about that. I haven't fundamentally changed. But you certainly have.
As for the voters, if we really want change and for Washington to be once more about public service, then quit thinking your current congressional rep or senators are doing you any favors. Vote 'em all out. Dick Lugar and Lloyd Doggett aren't helping the cause, either, so why keep them around? Vote against every incumbent, starting with the primaries this week. Time to put the fear of God into any currently elected office holder. That's the only way anyone's going to start working for the good of the country.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Our Selective Ideological Memories
I’m sure most people recognize this scenario:
New president, following an increasingly unpopular regime, is elected in a major electoral referendum as the populous wants a directional change for the country. Quickly, the new administration moves to reverse the course of the past several years and completely change the federal government’s focus. A massive stimulus package is passed within the first 100 days. The government steps in to dismantle and remake a sector of the transportation industry, to the hue and cry of a segment of the population, and it brings claims of government overreach. The President goes on the offensive to reclaim America’s prestige in the world and undoing the damage done by the previous administration, revamping relationships with both allies and enemies, and reclaiming the mantle of world leadership. The President has strong weapons: he is charismatic, a world-class orator with an easy smile and a disarming personality. Even his detractors can’t help but find him likeable, though they strongly disagree with his policies.
But…after a year and alarmingly mounting debts, the popular tide begins to turn. Congress, formerly seeming to be just a pawn doing the administration’s bidding, now has its eye on the midterm elections, and with the mood of the country casting doubt begins to buck the administration. Reforms that the President deems vital to finishing the job that he started are thwarted by Congress, usually with the excuse that the country’s deficits are already too big, and both the House and Senate routinely block further changes to any existing programs. Unemployment runs over 10% for 9 months, and that’s only among those who haven’t given up looking for work. Predictably, the midterm elections are a bloodbath for the President’s party, rolling back all of the gains made on his coattails in his election year.
Surprisingly to some, this scenario isn’t a hypothetical about Obama, but is a recounting of Reagan’s first two years in office.
If you’re like most Americans, and especially most Republicans, the details of the days from January 1981 to December 1982 are largely forgotten; only the ultimate result of the Reagan years are in most people’s memory banks.
What Reagan did isn’t really that different from what Obama is doing. Reagan’s version of the Recovery Act was to cut the crushing income taxes the country was under across the board (the top tax rate was initially cut from 70% to 50%, while the middle class also received huge tax relief), but the net result was the same: money went to the economic stimulus at the expense of the federal government’s coffers, meaning that the government had a huge budget shortfall. Reagan fired the PATCO workers in what was deemed an unprecedented federal intervention and abuse of power (and arguably putting the air transportation industry’s safety in jeopardy for a time period). Even with the decreased federal coffers, Reagan felt it essential to ratchet up the country’s spending on defense in an attempt to outspend the Soviet Union and ultimately end the Cold War, but at a price that was astronomical (and with no guarantee of success at the time).
The point is this: remember what actually transpired during the Reagan years, and if you don’t remember, do a little research. This isn’t just about the ideological debate of larger government vs. smaller government, but about economic reality and what is best for the needs of the country. What ailed the country in 1980 was overregulation of business and high federal taxes. That can hardly be argued to be the case now, yet we’re in just as severe of an economic crisis. What Obama proposes is essentially the same formula: deliver a huge injection of money into the economy, which drives up the nation’s debt; make a sweeping investment in parts of the economy seen as necessary for long-term survival, which drives the deficit up further still, all in the expectation that the changes will be cheaper in the long run than doing nothing and will ultimately bring new economic growth.
I’m not going to take up space belaboring the obvious differences; I find the similarities more striking. It’s simply ironic that many of the same people who loved Reagan’s solution decry Obama’s now, even though the consequences of Reagan’s policies are exactly what they claim to fear today. The only difference is a belief that what methodology worked then is the same methodology that should be applied now, even though the details and problems have changed.
A little ideological agnosticism and a bit more pragmatism might do a large part of the country a great deal of good.
New president, following an increasingly unpopular regime, is elected in a major electoral referendum as the populous wants a directional change for the country. Quickly, the new administration moves to reverse the course of the past several years and completely change the federal government’s focus. A massive stimulus package is passed within the first 100 days. The government steps in to dismantle and remake a sector of the transportation industry, to the hue and cry of a segment of the population, and it brings claims of government overreach. The President goes on the offensive to reclaim America’s prestige in the world and undoing the damage done by the previous administration, revamping relationships with both allies and enemies, and reclaiming the mantle of world leadership. The President has strong weapons: he is charismatic, a world-class orator with an easy smile and a disarming personality. Even his detractors can’t help but find him likeable, though they strongly disagree with his policies.
But…after a year and alarmingly mounting debts, the popular tide begins to turn. Congress, formerly seeming to be just a pawn doing the administration’s bidding, now has its eye on the midterm elections, and with the mood of the country casting doubt begins to buck the administration. Reforms that the President deems vital to finishing the job that he started are thwarted by Congress, usually with the excuse that the country’s deficits are already too big, and both the House and Senate routinely block further changes to any existing programs. Unemployment runs over 10% for 9 months, and that’s only among those who haven’t given up looking for work. Predictably, the midterm elections are a bloodbath for the President’s party, rolling back all of the gains made on his coattails in his election year.
Surprisingly to some, this scenario isn’t a hypothetical about Obama, but is a recounting of Reagan’s first two years in office.
If you’re like most Americans, and especially most Republicans, the details of the days from January 1981 to December 1982 are largely forgotten; only the ultimate result of the Reagan years are in most people’s memory banks.
What Reagan did isn’t really that different from what Obama is doing. Reagan’s version of the Recovery Act was to cut the crushing income taxes the country was under across the board (the top tax rate was initially cut from 70% to 50%, while the middle class also received huge tax relief), but the net result was the same: money went to the economic stimulus at the expense of the federal government’s coffers, meaning that the government had a huge budget shortfall. Reagan fired the PATCO workers in what was deemed an unprecedented federal intervention and abuse of power (and arguably putting the air transportation industry’s safety in jeopardy for a time period). Even with the decreased federal coffers, Reagan felt it essential to ratchet up the country’s spending on defense in an attempt to outspend the Soviet Union and ultimately end the Cold War, but at a price that was astronomical (and with no guarantee of success at the time).
The point is this: remember what actually transpired during the Reagan years, and if you don’t remember, do a little research. This isn’t just about the ideological debate of larger government vs. smaller government, but about economic reality and what is best for the needs of the country. What ailed the country in 1980 was overregulation of business and high federal taxes. That can hardly be argued to be the case now, yet we’re in just as severe of an economic crisis. What Obama proposes is essentially the same formula: deliver a huge injection of money into the economy, which drives up the nation’s debt; make a sweeping investment in parts of the economy seen as necessary for long-term survival, which drives the deficit up further still, all in the expectation that the changes will be cheaper in the long run than doing nothing and will ultimately bring new economic growth.
I’m not going to take up space belaboring the obvious differences; I find the similarities more striking. It’s simply ironic that many of the same people who loved Reagan’s solution decry Obama’s now, even though the consequences of Reagan’s policies are exactly what they claim to fear today. The only difference is a belief that what methodology worked then is the same methodology that should be applied now, even though the details and problems have changed.
A little ideological agnosticism and a bit more pragmatism might do a large part of the country a great deal of good.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Centrist Dude Manifesto
Because I’ve heard from both sides about how wacky I’ve been in the past few months (note my blurb that resides right above this posting) I think it’s time for me to state for everyone what I do and do not believe. I am neither a socialist nor a monarchist, neither a fascist or a communist, and certainly neither a Democrat or a Republican. So it’s time for a personal manifesto of my political beliefs --
One of my fiercest fights has always been for personal liberty, and the biggest concern being laws that destroy it, because once taken away personal liberty never returns. Gay marriage laws, seat belt laws, helmet laws…these might please special interests but they are bad laws. The government is supposed to protect me from others, not from myself.
The second soapbox I’ve been on all of my adult life and much of my teenage years is the use of energy and our ostrich-like approach. We saw that OPEC could bring us to our knees in the early 70s. What have we learned? Apparently zero. Driving a big-ass SUV that gets 12mpg in the city is wasteful, destructive, irresponsible, and quite frankly feeds the machine abroad. And don’t tell me “that’s all I can fit in comfortably” or “but I can haul so much.” Sit in my Matrix and tell my 6’3” frame that you don’t have room. Watch me bring home a tree. I get 30mpg. We had a station wagon that got 20-25mpg. We brought 3 trees home in it once.
The main point is that we have had ample time to wean ourselves off of foreign oil and we’ve neither had the will nor the foresight to do it. This doesn’t even mention the damage to the planet. Which leads me to:
Global warming/climate change, whatever you want to call it, it’s a reality. Most people that rail against the concept are invested in maintaing the status quo, or they simply don’t want to take any personal responsibility to change their habits. Note that all of the major scientific communities in the world are alarmed by climate change and are in general agreement with the causes and changes that are happening. Advocacy scientists don’t count, folks; if Exxon paid for the research and it contradicts an independent study who do you think is likely to be telling the truth? We're hearing from people who have invested their lives in the pursuit of scientific truth and have a hell of a lot of schooling. Think of the scientists you know; they're an odd bunch but motivated by the search for truth on an almost religious level. I think they know what they’re talking about, and we should listen to them.
I am all for fiscal responsibility. Way for it. And one of the things I always expected the Republicans to do would be to watch my nation’s pocketbook, maybe even too much. ("So you’ve been out of work and you can’t feed your family? Too bad, maggot!") Yet, the Neocons believed only in tax cuts; they never met a spending bill they didn’t like, domestic or foreign. Unless it was against their religious beliefs, of course. And you know what? The party faithful bought it. So long as “their guy” was spending the money, deficits didn’t matter (remember Dick Cheney saying that exact quote?) and it all went to things the faithful liked…like faith-based initiatives, a two-front war, and “No Child Left Behind.” Ok, NCLB became an unfunded mandate that bankrupted the education budget of several states, but you get the point.
Conversely, the typical 70s Democrat who stereotypically couldn’t accept personal responsibility for any group….not my people, either.
To further this, I believe in the Ayn Rand concept of “personal greed is good” but only to a point. There are unscrupulous people in the world who aren’t in it for their own gain by the rules, but rather will lie, cheat, steal and seriously damage others. Pure capitalism is fine if we all are on the same page, but to not recognize that oversight is required (like referees in sporting events) is just silly. Yes, we’ve had too much regulation in the past. Usually it’s regulation about the wrong things for the wrong reasons. But we’ve seen basic regulations removed to the point to where it’s almost every person for themselves and Caveat Emptor seems like a quaint little poem.
Regulation is not a dirty word. It is often the only protection between you and Bernard Madoff, the difference between your portfolio thriving and an abnormally large investment in Enron, between your insurance company deciding to operate as a hedge fund or arbitrarily denying your life-saving surgery. It doesn’t take a genius to know when regulation is silly (all fire extinguishers must be between 3’8” and 4’2” from the floor or you get fined) and when the regulations are common sense. Right now, common sense has been zoned out. We’re way past the pendulum point.
The federal government is too large, too bloated, and too bureaucratic, but that doesn’t mean that it has no role. It’s the sledgehammer in the tool arsenal. You pull it out sparingly, but when you do pull it out don’t be afraid to whack away, and understand that there’s a lot of residual damage and the edges aren’t nice and neat. That’s because it’s a sledgehammer, not a chisel. And I do believe that now is the time to use the sledgehammer, because the time it will take to recover and the damage that will happen if we don’t re-open the faucet is greater than the damage we’ll wreak by banging open the wall to unstop the leak & get the water flowing again.
The Supreme Court is there for a reason, and it’s not to passively sit by. They are to render judgements when there is no clear direction by the law. That’s why the issue has come through the appellate courts in the first place. This does mean that sometimes they will, in effect, create law by creating precedent rulings. This whole “activist judges argument” quite frankly is pushed by people who do not apparently understand what the role of the judiciary is at its most basic level.
Both parties find a messiah every so often, then don’t really understand his (and someday her) message in the context of the time. So Democrats worship FDR and take his emergency save-the-country programs and turn them into public policy for 30 years. Republicans worship Reagan and take his lower taxes and keep-government-out-of-your-lives message past the point of relevancy. This is wrong, but this will happen again. That doesn’t mean that FDR or Reagan were wrong. They were right for their time, and it's not their fault that they eventually begat LBJ and GWB. (Maybe the problem is Texas presidents. But that’s not my point.)
Our system is flawed, like all systems and people. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong system nor that the world is coming to an end. However, blind following of ideologies is cute but childish. No ideology covers every contingency, and sometimes you have to take drastic measures to re-right the train. We all agree that murder is wrong, but we can all come up with a scenario that justifies killing someone. So why can’t we do the same with our governmental system? Why can neither side see that there really are evil people in the world across the spectrum? To the left I say: that person might not be a misunderstood pauper, they might just be a terrorist. To the right I say: that investment banker was actually exploiting and circumventing the system with no regard for anyone else and that makes him a criminal. It’s all the same in that they’re still evil. Neither Ayn Rand nor Ghandi have THE answer. Nor does anyone else. Ideology as a guide with a strong dose of pragmatism as a rudder is a much more effective way to enter into any situation.
I’ve held roughly these same beliefs for the last 30 years or so. If I'm guilty of anything it's not having a singular ideology and someone else to preach it to me. Maybe you can understand how I have come to the same conclusions as President Obama. We need to infuse capital into the system, but not in handouts. Rather, they should be investments in our future. This means investing in our educational system like we did in the 50s, rebuilding our infrastructure to give the country a competitive advantage (like that wacky liberal Eisenhower), overhauling our energy economy to give us independence over our own lives again AND to build a brand-new economy….just like that ideologue FDR electrifying the rural Midwest and crazy Kennedy with his silly space program. Last time I looked, all of those paid major dividends.
And for the record, much of this crisis was caused by arrogant white-collar executives who, now that they’ve seriously screwed up, STILL don’t want to give up power.
Other things that have nothing to do with “manifesto”, but are instructive as to where I lie on the political spectrum:
Best President in my lifetime? Ronald Reagan. He was the right man for the time. No, his administration didn’t cut spending, which was a cornerstone of his entire smaller government argument, and would have solidified him as maybe the 2nd best President behind Lincoln or 3rd behind FDR. Unfortunately, that gave Democrats fodder for years to poke holes in his administration, and on the other side led Dick Cheney to famously and regrettably utter the phrase “Deficits don’t really matter.”
Worst President in my lifetime? Well, GWB has come remarkably close, but it’s probably still Jimmy Carter. He neither inspired confidence nor had good policy. He was simply a reaction to Nixon, which turned out to be horrific. Reflection over the next few years may make me change that, because Bush has sent us on a path that might prove to be more disastrous than we know. For the record, both are admirable human beings. That doesn’t make them good Presidents. And no, regardless of how quickly we pull out of the economic crisis, history will not be kind to W.
2nd best? Eek. My choices are LBJ, Nixon, Ford, GHB, Clinton. Sadly, I have to say that it’s a toss-up between Clinton & Nixon, with both having serious flaws. You might see a glimpse of why I have a bit more faith in Obama.
If you are only listening to pundits and news sources that believe as you do, and you’re only soliciting opinions from people in your socioeconomic strata, regardless of where that strata lies, then you’re part of the problem of divisiveness in this country. You’re not educating yourself, and you’re not helping make things better. All you’ve done is join a club.
Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner deserve each other. Sadly, we deserve neither of them. West Chester OH and San Francisco should both be ashamed and vote these two divisive, petty, vindictive losers out. But given the polarized and ideologically blind demographics of both communities, that probably won’t happen. And that, too, is sad.
My summation is this: I believe in capitalism and democracy. I also recognize that there are times that both have failings. That doesn’t mean that we abandon either, but we do need to recognize that both need tweaking from time to time, and maybe more importantly, sometimes things get so out of control that you need to temporarily throw the book out.
We must make America stronger by being more independent (e.g., controlling our own energy resources) but by also understanding that we cannot be an island. The world is looking to us for leadership, and if we create a void someone WILL come to fill it, and it might not be a someone we want to see. With leadership comes great responsibility, so any actions we take had best be considered carefully, and not just shot from the hip. Unless, of course, the situation dictates that we don’t have time to deliberate.
In other words, give me the smartest guy in the room who’s got a definite direction. I don’t give a flying you-know-what which side of the aisle he comes from.
One of my fiercest fights has always been for personal liberty, and the biggest concern being laws that destroy it, because once taken away personal liberty never returns. Gay marriage laws, seat belt laws, helmet laws…these might please special interests but they are bad laws. The government is supposed to protect me from others, not from myself.
The second soapbox I’ve been on all of my adult life and much of my teenage years is the use of energy and our ostrich-like approach. We saw that OPEC could bring us to our knees in the early 70s. What have we learned? Apparently zero. Driving a big-ass SUV that gets 12mpg in the city is wasteful, destructive, irresponsible, and quite frankly feeds the machine abroad. And don’t tell me “that’s all I can fit in comfortably” or “but I can haul so much.” Sit in my Matrix and tell my 6’3” frame that you don’t have room. Watch me bring home a tree. I get 30mpg. We had a station wagon that got 20-25mpg. We brought 3 trees home in it once.
The main point is that we have had ample time to wean ourselves off of foreign oil and we’ve neither had the will nor the foresight to do it. This doesn’t even mention the damage to the planet. Which leads me to:
Global warming/climate change, whatever you want to call it, it’s a reality. Most people that rail against the concept are invested in maintaing the status quo, or they simply don’t want to take any personal responsibility to change their habits. Note that all of the major scientific communities in the world are alarmed by climate change and are in general agreement with the causes and changes that are happening. Advocacy scientists don’t count, folks; if Exxon paid for the research and it contradicts an independent study who do you think is likely to be telling the truth? We're hearing from people who have invested their lives in the pursuit of scientific truth and have a hell of a lot of schooling. Think of the scientists you know; they're an odd bunch but motivated by the search for truth on an almost religious level. I think they know what they’re talking about, and we should listen to them.
I am all for fiscal responsibility. Way for it. And one of the things I always expected the Republicans to do would be to watch my nation’s pocketbook, maybe even too much. ("So you’ve been out of work and you can’t feed your family? Too bad, maggot!") Yet, the Neocons believed only in tax cuts; they never met a spending bill they didn’t like, domestic or foreign. Unless it was against their religious beliefs, of course. And you know what? The party faithful bought it. So long as “their guy” was spending the money, deficits didn’t matter (remember Dick Cheney saying that exact quote?) and it all went to things the faithful liked…like faith-based initiatives, a two-front war, and “No Child Left Behind.” Ok, NCLB became an unfunded mandate that bankrupted the education budget of several states, but you get the point.
Conversely, the typical 70s Democrat who stereotypically couldn’t accept personal responsibility for any group….not my people, either.
To further this, I believe in the Ayn Rand concept of “personal greed is good” but only to a point. There are unscrupulous people in the world who aren’t in it for their own gain by the rules, but rather will lie, cheat, steal and seriously damage others. Pure capitalism is fine if we all are on the same page, but to not recognize that oversight is required (like referees in sporting events) is just silly. Yes, we’ve had too much regulation in the past. Usually it’s regulation about the wrong things for the wrong reasons. But we’ve seen basic regulations removed to the point to where it’s almost every person for themselves and Caveat Emptor seems like a quaint little poem.
Regulation is not a dirty word. It is often the only protection between you and Bernard Madoff, the difference between your portfolio thriving and an abnormally large investment in Enron, between your insurance company deciding to operate as a hedge fund or arbitrarily denying your life-saving surgery. It doesn’t take a genius to know when regulation is silly (all fire extinguishers must be between 3’8” and 4’2” from the floor or you get fined) and when the regulations are common sense. Right now, common sense has been zoned out. We’re way past the pendulum point.
The federal government is too large, too bloated, and too bureaucratic, but that doesn’t mean that it has no role. It’s the sledgehammer in the tool arsenal. You pull it out sparingly, but when you do pull it out don’t be afraid to whack away, and understand that there’s a lot of residual damage and the edges aren’t nice and neat. That’s because it’s a sledgehammer, not a chisel. And I do believe that now is the time to use the sledgehammer, because the time it will take to recover and the damage that will happen if we don’t re-open the faucet is greater than the damage we’ll wreak by banging open the wall to unstop the leak & get the water flowing again.
The Supreme Court is there for a reason, and it’s not to passively sit by. They are to render judgements when there is no clear direction by the law. That’s why the issue has come through the appellate courts in the first place. This does mean that sometimes they will, in effect, create law by creating precedent rulings. This whole “activist judges argument” quite frankly is pushed by people who do not apparently understand what the role of the judiciary is at its most basic level.
Both parties find a messiah every so often, then don’t really understand his (and someday her) message in the context of the time. So Democrats worship FDR and take his emergency save-the-country programs and turn them into public policy for 30 years. Republicans worship Reagan and take his lower taxes and keep-government-out-of-your-lives message past the point of relevancy. This is wrong, but this will happen again. That doesn’t mean that FDR or Reagan were wrong. They were right for their time, and it's not their fault that they eventually begat LBJ and GWB. (Maybe the problem is Texas presidents. But that’s not my point.)
Our system is flawed, like all systems and people. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong system nor that the world is coming to an end. However, blind following of ideologies is cute but childish. No ideology covers every contingency, and sometimes you have to take drastic measures to re-right the train. We all agree that murder is wrong, but we can all come up with a scenario that justifies killing someone. So why can’t we do the same with our governmental system? Why can neither side see that there really are evil people in the world across the spectrum? To the left I say: that person might not be a misunderstood pauper, they might just be a terrorist. To the right I say: that investment banker was actually exploiting and circumventing the system with no regard for anyone else and that makes him a criminal. It’s all the same in that they’re still evil. Neither Ayn Rand nor Ghandi have THE answer. Nor does anyone else. Ideology as a guide with a strong dose of pragmatism as a rudder is a much more effective way to enter into any situation.
I’ve held roughly these same beliefs for the last 30 years or so. If I'm guilty of anything it's not having a singular ideology and someone else to preach it to me. Maybe you can understand how I have come to the same conclusions as President Obama. We need to infuse capital into the system, but not in handouts. Rather, they should be investments in our future. This means investing in our educational system like we did in the 50s, rebuilding our infrastructure to give the country a competitive advantage (like that wacky liberal Eisenhower), overhauling our energy economy to give us independence over our own lives again AND to build a brand-new economy….just like that ideologue FDR electrifying the rural Midwest and crazy Kennedy with his silly space program. Last time I looked, all of those paid major dividends.
And for the record, much of this crisis was caused by arrogant white-collar executives who, now that they’ve seriously screwed up, STILL don’t want to give up power.
Other things that have nothing to do with “manifesto”, but are instructive as to where I lie on the political spectrum:
Best President in my lifetime? Ronald Reagan. He was the right man for the time. No, his administration didn’t cut spending, which was a cornerstone of his entire smaller government argument, and would have solidified him as maybe the 2nd best President behind Lincoln or 3rd behind FDR. Unfortunately, that gave Democrats fodder for years to poke holes in his administration, and on the other side led Dick Cheney to famously and regrettably utter the phrase “Deficits don’t really matter.”
Worst President in my lifetime? Well, GWB has come remarkably close, but it’s probably still Jimmy Carter. He neither inspired confidence nor had good policy. He was simply a reaction to Nixon, which turned out to be horrific. Reflection over the next few years may make me change that, because Bush has sent us on a path that might prove to be more disastrous than we know. For the record, both are admirable human beings. That doesn’t make them good Presidents. And no, regardless of how quickly we pull out of the economic crisis, history will not be kind to W.
2nd best? Eek. My choices are LBJ, Nixon, Ford, GHB, Clinton. Sadly, I have to say that it’s a toss-up between Clinton & Nixon, with both having serious flaws. You might see a glimpse of why I have a bit more faith in Obama.
If you are only listening to pundits and news sources that believe as you do, and you’re only soliciting opinions from people in your socioeconomic strata, regardless of where that strata lies, then you’re part of the problem of divisiveness in this country. You’re not educating yourself, and you’re not helping make things better. All you’ve done is join a club.
Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner deserve each other. Sadly, we deserve neither of them. West Chester OH and San Francisco should both be ashamed and vote these two divisive, petty, vindictive losers out. But given the polarized and ideologically blind demographics of both communities, that probably won’t happen. And that, too, is sad.
My summation is this: I believe in capitalism and democracy. I also recognize that there are times that both have failings. That doesn’t mean that we abandon either, but we do need to recognize that both need tweaking from time to time, and maybe more importantly, sometimes things get so out of control that you need to temporarily throw the book out.
We must make America stronger by being more independent (e.g., controlling our own energy resources) but by also understanding that we cannot be an island. The world is looking to us for leadership, and if we create a void someone WILL come to fill it, and it might not be a someone we want to see. With leadership comes great responsibility, so any actions we take had best be considered carefully, and not just shot from the hip. Unless, of course, the situation dictates that we don’t have time to deliberate.
In other words, give me the smartest guy in the room who’s got a definite direction. I don’t give a flying you-know-what which side of the aisle he comes from.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Stop the Crazy Talk
The rhetoric coming from both sides is unbelievable. I’ve got an incredulous friend on one side who can’t believe that I could even suggest that Obama will be anything other than the most glorious thing to ever grace the Oval Office. I’ve got another alarmist friend on the other side who seems to think that Democratic rule will turn us into 1917 Russia, or at least 2002 France. And everyone else seems to be generally lining up in some varying degree in one camp or the other.
People, please. Obama is neither the second coming of Jesus nor the Antichrist. He does not possess the keys to the land of Utopia, nor does he have an inside track into the 7th circle of hell. We will not be forced into a One World Order, and he probably won’t re-establish the U.S. as the Most Powerful Country In the World. He is not going to fall under Nancy Pelosi’s power, nor will he be eaten for dinner by Putin and Medvedev.
Here’s the reality: the Obama administration is being left something of a scorched earth. You know this already, but it might be good to see it all laid out again –
-a recession that could spiral into a depression
-banks unwilling or unable to lend money as they try to save themselves
-manufacturing industries screaming for help lest they go belly up and take large segments of the economy with them
-state and city governments that have been trying to ‘make do’ for years seeing visions of bankruptcy
-unemployment threatening to hit levels last seen in the late 70s
-a health care system that can charitably be called inadequate and dysfunctional
-an unpopular war in Iraq that he’s pledged to end, but that we can’t just run away from
-a possibly unwinnable war in Afghanistan that is seen as something we can’t turn our backs on
-an international reputation where allies no longer trust America as a financial symbol or as a beacon of goodness
-a national debt that is threatening to top $13 trillion, much of which is borrowed from a country that is looking to unseat us as the pre-eminent world power
-an economy that relies heavily on a natural resource that largely comes from countries that are either hostile politically or in danger of a power shift to more unfriendly regimes, and we have no backup plan
-mortgage defaults that do not seem to be slowing down
-a national infrastructure that has been neglected for years and is now starting to crumble
And this doesn’t even take into account the extra monies already committed by the Bush administration in the form of “stimulus packages,” the increased size of the federal government, the oncoming retirement of the baby boomers and the strain on the Social Security system, Israel, Russia, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad, immigration reform, gay rights, abortion, potential Supreme Court nominees, the airline industry….need I go on?
Anyone that can look at that list and predict a rousingly successful presidency is so optimistic that Pollyana is calling you a nutcase to your face.
But make no mistake: Obama has shown himself to have the temperament, the vision, the organizational ability, a great ability to spot and attract talent, and the leadership skills to be someone who can make sense out of the mess we’re in and at least point the country in the direction out of the morass. It’s not about what he’s “accomplished” with respect to governmental legislation. All you have to do is look at what he accomplished and the way that he did so with his assault on the presidency, with all the odds stacked against him, to know that he has more than a fighting chance to see his way through.
Malcolm Forbes wrote a commentary about Ronald Reagan after he was elected but before he took office that struck me in 1980 and still resonates now. “He will neither be the savior that his followers believe him to be, nor the demon that his detractors expect him to be. In a way, he will disappoint them both.” That seems to be sage advice when one views the Obama presidency from this vantage point.
People, please. Obama is neither the second coming of Jesus nor the Antichrist. He does not possess the keys to the land of Utopia, nor does he have an inside track into the 7th circle of hell. We will not be forced into a One World Order, and he probably won’t re-establish the U.S. as the Most Powerful Country In the World. He is not going to fall under Nancy Pelosi’s power, nor will he be eaten for dinner by Putin and Medvedev.
Here’s the reality: the Obama administration is being left something of a scorched earth. You know this already, but it might be good to see it all laid out again –
-a recession that could spiral into a depression
-banks unwilling or unable to lend money as they try to save themselves
-manufacturing industries screaming for help lest they go belly up and take large segments of the economy with them
-state and city governments that have been trying to ‘make do’ for years seeing visions of bankruptcy
-unemployment threatening to hit levels last seen in the late 70s
-a health care system that can charitably be called inadequate and dysfunctional
-an unpopular war in Iraq that he’s pledged to end, but that we can’t just run away from
-a possibly unwinnable war in Afghanistan that is seen as something we can’t turn our backs on
-an international reputation where allies no longer trust America as a financial symbol or as a beacon of goodness
-a national debt that is threatening to top $13 trillion, much of which is borrowed from a country that is looking to unseat us as the pre-eminent world power
-an economy that relies heavily on a natural resource that largely comes from countries that are either hostile politically or in danger of a power shift to more unfriendly regimes, and we have no backup plan
-mortgage defaults that do not seem to be slowing down
-a national infrastructure that has been neglected for years and is now starting to crumble
And this doesn’t even take into account the extra monies already committed by the Bush administration in the form of “stimulus packages,” the increased size of the federal government, the oncoming retirement of the baby boomers and the strain on the Social Security system, Israel, Russia, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad, immigration reform, gay rights, abortion, potential Supreme Court nominees, the airline industry….need I go on?
Anyone that can look at that list and predict a rousingly successful presidency is so optimistic that Pollyana is calling you a nutcase to your face.
But make no mistake: Obama has shown himself to have the temperament, the vision, the organizational ability, a great ability to spot and attract talent, and the leadership skills to be someone who can make sense out of the mess we’re in and at least point the country in the direction out of the morass. It’s not about what he’s “accomplished” with respect to governmental legislation. All you have to do is look at what he accomplished and the way that he did so with his assault on the presidency, with all the odds stacked against him, to know that he has more than a fighting chance to see his way through.
Malcolm Forbes wrote a commentary about Ronald Reagan after he was elected but before he took office that struck me in 1980 and still resonates now. “He will neither be the savior that his followers believe him to be, nor the demon that his detractors expect him to be. In a way, he will disappoint them both.” That seems to be sage advice when one views the Obama presidency from this vantage point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
