“I’m a limousine ridin, jet flyin, kiss stealin, wheelin dealin son of a gun. Whooooo!” Ric Flair
Did you know under the Obama administration if you and your spouse die the GOVERNMENT can decide who raises your kids????!!!!!! It’s true.
TB was reading this morning about the upcoming gender testing of a South African runner competing and setting all sorts of records as a woman. I ain’t gonna lie–lady looks like a dude. But there’s no way…..is there? Also, there is a growing movement to have male sprinter Usain Bolt tested. To see if he is human. I was listening to the Dan Patrick Show the other day and they were discussing a physicist’s conclusions on the capabilities of human speed in the 100 meters from the 1990’s. Last weekend Bolt ran faster than the physicist calculated was humanly possible.
I think one of the causes of the Republican party’s collapse from 2006-2008 was that they conclusively disproved widely held public understanding of their core strengths and their primary campaign talking points–strong national defense and fiscal restraint. I’m of the opinion that if the Democrats fail on health reform they will expose the same disconnect between rhetoric and action and will consequently suffer the same electoral fate. If they fail on reform this year, how can they effectively campaign on the issue in the future? They can’t. It seems to me they better figure out how to ram something worthwhile through Congress on their own right now and take a chance on losing in 2010 and 2012 instead of playing it safe this year and losing with certainty the next two rounds.
Sean Hannity is the latest to provide national exposure to a guest comparing the Obama administration to the Nazis. In the 1950’s, Eisenhower built the interstate highway system–similar to the Nazi construction of the German autobahns. In the 1980’s Reagan engaged in an unprecedented military buildup, not unlike pre-World War II Germany. I was wondering why there was no comparison in the political reporting of those days to the Nazis and no popular movement of citizenry taking the same leap of logic. I’ve given the question careful consideration, applied all my skills of deduction, assumption and knowledge and I’ve come up with this theory. Maybe people weren’t SO FREAKIN STUPID back then!
Mike Vick is coming back to the NFL. Some people are mad. Really pissed, actually. My view–he’s paid the price set by our society and there is no reason he shouldn’t be allowed to hold a job for which he is qualified. Then again, if I were the NFL or the Philadelphia Eagles I would keep him on a, um, short leash.
Brett Favre is coming back to the NFL. Some people are mad. I can’t figure out why.
I’ve got this story forming in my head. It’s about a wrestler. The “Greatest Wrestler In The World.” I’ll call him Andre the Monolith. He has a few allies, and I’m just making these names up off the top of my head–Hulk Smith, Randy “YMCA” Savitch, and Tiny Frazo. He’s a fan favorite. He has destroyed all challengers he’s ever faced–Mexican luchadors, Middle Eastern sheiks, American fairies and dozens more. His enemies list has grown through the years and the fans are sick of hearing about them. The fans want him to destroy all these posers once and for all. Hulk, et al, have warned him its a bad idea but Andre won’t listen. There is a big pay per view coming up and there’s gonna be a battle royal. But what if all the bad guys team up on Andre? He’s had a couple of narrow escapes in the past fighting two guys at once. There was even a draw or two when he was unable to catch up with a speedy little gnat. But Andre is stronger than ever. So it’ll be one against twenty, winner take all. I can’t decide how the story will end right now.
Oh, about that Obama controlling your kids thing at the beginning. That was just to get your attention. Really, the government has been able to decide who raises your kids under all Presidents, but only if you don’t have a will. So if you are a parent you ought to have a will, if for no other reason than to make your wishes plain on who you want to raise your kids if you and your spouse die. No joke here, just free, good advice. If you have questions just drop me a line. I’ll recommend a living will too–you know, one of those death panel documents Obama thinks you should have to keep a Senator from diagnosing you from the floor of Congress.
Quote of the Day: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” –George Orwell
The Michael Steele helmed GOP is a blank stare creating machine. Politico reported yesterday (May 13, 2009) that at the next meeting–check that, the upcoming EXTRAORDINARY SPECIAL SESSION– of the Republican National Committee, a resolution rebranding the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Socialist Party” will be approved. TB thinks this is just a, um, grand idea. Of course it has the word “socialist” in it which is bad, except in areas socialism is supported by Republican legislators like in farm subsidies and highway building and postal service and even social security and medicare. But never mind that. What’s even better is that it rolls off the tongue so smoothly. The “Democratic Socialist Party” would sound far too, um, democratic. People like that. I guarantee you some RNC member’s sister or uncle or dog owns the public relations firm/ad agency that got paid a million bucks to come up with dropping the “ic” to make it sound worse. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I have no quarrel with the rebranding game personally. After all the RNC has to do something to deflect attention from the growing sentiment that their party should be renamed the PON–Party of No. Or, worse yet. the Party of “who got us in this mess in the first place.” Plus, rebranding sounds like fun. It’s kind of like that Seinfeld episode where George wanted to be called “T-bone” but instead got nicknamed “Coco.” Because he looked like Coco the monkey. A grand old party game indeed. I want to play.
First, as a Mississippi State Bulldog, I am entitled to rebrand Ole Miss. Our new coach has already christened them “The School Up North.” I like that–it has accurate geographical information and delicious irony. I think his choice of the word “school” was a mistake though. People respect schools for the most part. I am going to slightly rebrand Coach Mullen’s rebranding and resolve that Ole Miss should now be called “the Terrorism Training Camp Up North.” Yeah, that’s the ticket. And instead of “Rebels”, I hereby rebrand them “militants.” (Oooooh, this reads good.)
Who’s next? How about “Country music.” From now on the fluff coming out of establishment Nashville will be known as “Twangy Pop.” Presbyterians will now be “those sinners who get out five minutes before us and clog up the line at McAllister’s.” Auto mechanics are “muggers.” The casualty insurance industry is now the “Screw You Cabal.” Fox News will be referred to as “Carrie Prejean’s Next Employer.” The Drudge Report will be called…..actually, I’m pretty satisfied with that name.
Finally, TB’s blog and email political nemesis Mad Dawg is due for rebranding. It is troubling to me that many people might see his name and mistakenly believe he is just another typical christian, scholarly Bulldog fan when in fact he is not. And the fine spirit from which he takes his name conjures fond memories of youth. Neither of these angles suit me. So he is officially, for the duration of this post rebranded as “Rebel Yell.” It’s a whisky of damn dubious lineage, the “yell” properly captures the tone of his debating style, and Rebel harkens back to his fanship of the promising football team now known as “The Terrorism Training Camp Up North fightin Militants.”
Quote of the Day: ”Behind the ostensible government lies an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” –Teddy Roosevelt
If you are interested in the state of our economy and how we are to fix it you owe it to yourself to read “The Quiet Coup” written by Simon Johnson, one of the men charged with rescuing the economies of other nations in the past decade as chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and now a professor at MIT. The article was published by “the Atlantic” and is linked here (link).
Or you can rely on my synopsis. First, as always, I wanted to know “the Atlantic’s” bias. I assumed it was a liberal magazine and it may well be. I’ve never read anything else from it. But according to my research-i-pedia the publisher is a self described “open minded neo-con.” If neo-con he is, he proved himself open minded by putting this important work by an economist experienced in the area of saving national economies into the public domain. Speaking of the economist, I have already told you his previous job title. In connection with his work for the IMF, he speaks of working with Russia, Ukraine, South Korea and Indonesia among others. He was called upon by these nations to implement procedures to save their banking systems and thus their economies at large. In the first paragraph he captures my attention by describing the IMF and himself as the last entity/person a country will turn to when there is no other recourse because they know he give them the good advice that they do not want to hear. It’s much like what lawyers do on a smaller scale each day with our own clients.
Johnson is very clear about which political party deserves the blame for the economic crisis we are in–both of them. As one reads the article, it is easy to pick out phrases or sentences that will appeal to one side of the typical political debate in America. For the right winger looking to justify his outlook there is “Almost always, countries in crisis need to learn to live within their means after a period of excess.” Classic conservative theory there–spend less than you take in. Don’t overextend. The lefty may latch onto “these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks.” TB’s disdain for and blame laid on the powerful elites is well documented and I can tell you after reading the article the first time this is the sentence that stood out most. But when you get past pithy arguments and examine facts you are forced to accept that conservative politicians do spend more than they take in and do not live within their means and at the same time liberal politicians are corrupted by the powerful elites in the same way conservatives are. Without rewriting the article, suffice it to say that Johnson posits a compelling case that President Obama’s economic team is from the same corporate lineage, subject to the same influence and making the same mistakes that President Bush’s team did. Put another way, they are all either bought off by or under the control of the financial industry. These modern day robber barons are at the root of every visible dying tree that we regular folks like to point to as the “real” cause of the crisis. Here’s an excerpt that I found telling:
Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better—in a “buck stops somewhere else” sort of way—on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership. And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for “safety and soundness” were fast asleep at the wheel.
But these various policies—lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership—had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector.
And one more excerpt:
From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.
When the word “overreaching” is used, it can lose its meaning without context. That second excerpt is the context in which the accusation of Wall Street’s “overreaching” can be understood. The article contends that above all else our economy has been left in the hands of an ultra-powerful oligarchy who have no agenda save their own enrichment, and that their actions, whether done under the auspices of Democratic or Republican initiatives are the cause of our current predicament.
In his conclusion, Johnson browbeats the Obama administration for lacking the political courage to do what is necessary to end the current crisis and open the way for true recovery in the future. Republicans will enjoy this part. But what he says must be done will turn that pleasure on its head–nationalize the banks, a truly left wing idea. Only temporarily though. Once the lending markets recover the banks should be sold back to private entities and then the final step must be taken. There must be no more institution that is too big to fail. They have to be broken up. If genius is defined as the measure of how much someone agrees with you, then I can confer that status on Johnson for his description of this: “The Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus evokes FDR, but what we need to imitate here is Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting.” Eric Cantor, Haley, Jeb? Are you listening? Barack, Joe, Geithner? Dare we hope?
If I’ve done a poor job inspiring you to read this on your own, let me add that the alternatives to breaking the oligarchy, according to Johnson are more than a little frightening. If you think the state of things is just a slightly increased, but normal downturn, the article argues forcefully that you are wrong and that the worst may be yet to come. Is it right? I can’t answer that. But going back to my day job and the way I think in it, if I were trying a case where the issue of what is to become of our economy was before a jury, the first thing I would do would be to hire the most knowledgeable and experienced expert I could find and get his opinions. This Johnson guy looks like one of the experts I’d be likely to call.
Quote of the Day: “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” –Mark Twain
TB’s been thinking about the state of politics in America lately, and trying to set aside my ingrained bias against the Republican Party to consider objectively what they can do to resurrect their fortunes. Today’s party shift by Senator Specter in particular got me thinking about what has become of the party that only six years ago was generally believed to be in the midst of an extended, if not permanent period of majority. My task as an uninvited, uncompensated and unsympathetic consultant is not to re-hash what led the GOP to this point, but to offer a blueprint for how they might regain relevance on the national scene.
I start with the premise that current Republican leadership has revealed only one plan so far. That is to simplify their message, reinforce their traditional conservative tenets of fiscal responsibility and strong national security, and remain confident that the Democrats are screwing things up so badly that if they do nothing they will be perfectly placed to regain power in 2012. That may well happen, but (a) it may not and (b) it may not be as bad as what the Bush era is currently considered. It is natural that Republicans would favor this plan because it is essentially what Democrats did to take over in the first place. I don’t think the circumstances are similar enough between now and 2000 for that plan to succeed however, and so I offer an alternative that involves putting the “Old” back in GOP–a return to their roots.
Before determining where they should go, Republicans need to take a step back and see how the world has changed since 1980. First, there are a few issues that Republicans like to focus on that they have already won. Tax rates for the wealthy are not 70% or even 50% any more and have not been for longer than half the electorate can even recall, and are unlikely to ever return anywhere near those levels. The second amendment is safe. Really, it is. Probably a third or more Democrats in Congress are unelectable if they turn against the NRA. And finally, the whole country is now “pro-military” save for a few far left enclaves. There will be no drastic cuts to the military the way there were in the 1970’s. After these big generational victories, comes the stalemate issue–abortion. Neither the pro-choicers nor the pro-lifers are going to get the result they want so this battle has been reduced to small scale changes depending on who’s in charge at any given time. The changes do not justify the resources nor the political capital invested to fight for or against. Finally, the GOP needs to realize that they have lost the fight on what used to be called “family values” but now is called “gay marriage.” There are still many battles left over gay marriage, but the same way I can tell you by late in the first quarter each year that Mississippi State is going to lose to LSU I can tell you this issue is lost. The other major lost issues for the right are keeping the status quo on health care and energy/climate change policy. Most people want health care and big business can’t compete internationally without it. And most people think global warming is a threat while virtually all Americans want to gain energy independence from the Arabs.
With all of the above in mind, here’s my advice to the plank writers of the Republican platform:
Take a few pages out of the Democratic plan. The Democrats engage in internecine warfare on a regular basis and it often weakens them on certain issues. However they seldom spend more than a few days beating wayward Dems or even Blue Dogs over the head, and they are strengthened in the long run. They have a bigger tent. They may resent their conservative leaning brethren, but they don’t crucify them the way the Republicans do their dwindling number of left leaning members. Republicans need a few yankees, even if they have little in common with the southern base of the party. And they need to put California or New York back in play in presidential politics if for no other reason than to cost the Democrats a little money in exchange for all those electoral votes.
Collect their winnings on the issues on which Republicans have traditionally excelled. Drop guns down a few notches in importance. Re-focus on national security by advocating smart spending on new technology and a smaller, more mobile and efficient force. Highlight programs that need to be canned and others that are underfunded. Push for the establishment of a commission similar to the one that closed bases all over the country in the 1990’s to lead this effort. Try to make defense spending have a greater positive impact on domestic stimulus. And establish a civilian jobs division under the control of the Army. One of the undeniable modern uses of military force is to stabilize and rebuild conquered states, what used to be called “nation building”. One of the lessons of Iraq is that it cost too much to pay Halliburton to do all the building, cooking, public relations, teaching, and whatever other non-fighting tasks were necessary. Use the pool of Americans who want to serve their country or even those that just want military benefits but don’t want to carry a gun. It will make the military more cost effective and during times of peace this civilian force can be deployed in areas of need in the US or abroad. And though part of what I’m describing involves fiscal discipline, take that a step further and drastically limit earmarks from your membership. Set a cap, like the salary cap in the NFL, per Representative or Senator. Do this and either the Democrats follow suit and the whole country benefits or they don’t and you have a great issue for the next election cycle.
Take their lumps. The religious right ain’t goin nowhere. It’s time to embrace civil unions for gays if not marriage outright. In fact, if enough states hurry up and pass civil union legislation it might be enough to stop the gay marriage momentum. And figure out a way to support universal health care. Maybe let the government pay for new medical educations or pay off student loans of doctors in exchange for a set number of pro bono days in service of the poor. Maybe push for dollar for dollar tax credits for all medical expenses for everyone making less than $250,000 a year. Maybe shorten the amount of time a drug company or medical device manufacturer can hold a patent. Hell I can’t do it all for them, but all of these ideas at least in some way are consistent with traditional conservative values and I’m sure the think tanks could come up with some more. On global warming, just ignore it and focus instead on alternative energy business stimulation. Business support is where Republicans are best. Help people and companies make money in wind and solar and be amazed at the way the climate issues will resolve on their own.
Finally, get out front on a couple of things. Neither party wants to really address immigration, for different reasons. The left is afraid of alienating minorities and the right doesn’t want to deprive business of the benefits of cheap labor. It will hurt, but this issue is waiting to be won and all it will take is support for enforcement of existing laws and harsh penalties for businesses that exploit this illegal labor supply. Success for corporate America is good, but it must not be seen to come at the expense of citizens and with the help of politicians. Republicans also need to dust off the old Teddy Roosevelt model and update his trustbusting ways to address the problem of overly powerful multi-nationals. They need to drop the mantra that all government is bad and recognize areas where it can be used wisely and with restraint. Bring back the Bull Moose, I say, and save the Gipper for when he’s needed again.
There are plenty of other issues that are important, but my research shows these to be the ones with the most potential to recapture the portion of the electorate turned off by niche wedge issues, religious hypocrisy and profligate spending by both parties. Maybe Republicans are right in their current policy positions. At the very least maybe they won’t change their feelings on the inside. But to regain their lost stature, this is a blueprint, errr redprint for success.
I know that a lot of you who read my blog are either conservative or lean conservative and I’m interested in your thoughts on how the Republicans can regain their strength. I genuinely tried to brainstorm a new course that I thought upheld conservative values while moving them a bit toward the center. My bias is acknowledged from the start, but I endeavored to approach the issue as objectively as possible.
So let’s hear it. Am I completely off base or on to something? Is it the prevailing view that the Republican Party is handling things well already or do you agree they need a new game plan? Are you at all concerned, as I am, that the GOP is becoming a regional party and entrenching themselves as a solid bloc in opposition to the rest of the country? Or is this just a swing of the pendulum which is reaching its zenith to the left?
Quote of the Day: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.” –Oliver Wendell Holmes
TB is at peace with the fact that in politics it is often forced on officials and voters alike to take inconsistent positions on certain issues and use an inconsistent methodology in arriving at those positions. I’m still struggling with the fact that so few people recognize their own, or their party’s own inconsistencies, and I am completely disgusted that the so-called analysts and pundits in the corporate media refuse to address these issues at all. A couple of examples from recent news stories I’ve been following:
AIG. My God how I loathe that company and all associated with it. I especially hate the way it made/makes my brain matter splatter onto my laptop. Here’s the deal….Republicans love the big insurance companies and pass law after law and appoint judge after judge to help them make obscene profits….then one day, AIG goes belly up….only to be bailed out by the Bush administration with the full support of the Democratic leadership not to mention TB because the company is “too big to fail” …..then AIG gets bailed out again by the Obama administration with the support of a Democratic Congress….and even though its too big to fail no politician or pundit can be found who will call for antitrust provisions to be applied to them….then Republican opinion makers and theorists begin to scream about how the flagship company of their most favored constituency should be allowed to fail…..then AIG takes bailout money and spends 165 million big ones to pay its fat cat executives, almost ALL Republicans, I’d bet my last derivative on…..then EVERYONE for one day hollers bloody murder…..then the Republican talkers decide these execs deserve their money because its communism to deny them, even though if we’d let the company go bankrupt like they wanted not only would these m-f’ers not get their bonuses they’d be out on the street….then some execs pay the money back but one dude writes a self-martyring letter to the New York Times about how it’s BS that he doesn’t get his 3/4 of a million so he quits, never considering that he’d have gotten jack squat if the company had gone bankrupt, never considering that the wealth he “generated” was possible in part because other parts of the company were leveraged to the hilt on derivative trades….at some point the Democrats try to pass an idiotic tax on the bonus money they approved in the first place….all the while no one in government will level with the American people about the true state of the problem, leaving us to take Olberman or Limbaugh’s word for it, or the travesty that is CNN, or to scour the web for you tube videos of some congressman accidentally telling CSPAN that we were within a few hours of martial law on the day of the first bailout….all to say nothing of AIG head rat Ed Liddy who transformed Allstate from the “Good Hands” to the “Boxing Gloves” (their words, not mine)…..excuse me while I get a rag….
Eminent domain and good ole Haley, friend of the people…..of course, only the people once known as the bourbons….but I digress….eminent domain is the legal manner in which the government takes your land, pays you the value it decides the land has and does something with it for the public good…..historically for roads, bridges, electric lines….but in recent years has come to include taking your land to give to Nissan or some company like it so they will build their plant and bring jobs…. and there has been a backlash among the non-bourbons of the world so that many states have passed laws to prevent this, never considering that the jobs and tax base can transform an entire community for the better….but then only at the cost of depriving someone of their land rights which can be a slippery slope….so Mississippi passes a bill with near universal legislative support to prevent the state from taking your land to give to a private entity even though no other state so desperately needs the type of jobs that come from these incentives…..but Haley vetoes the bill and a group of Senators, including some from both parties change their votes and uphold Haley’s veto….and he never considers the conflict between this behavior and his constant carping about “big, intrusive government”….and while Republicans are all for giving a big corporation, such as an auto manufacturer huge incentives, otherwise known as free money, to build a factory (something TB favors) they are completely opposed to giving an auto manufacturer loans that must be paid back in order to keep existing facilities open (TB also favors this) and are oblivious to the conflict in their positions….meanwhile the bill Haley rightly but for all the wrong reasons vetoed could easily have been re-written to provide a windfall to the eminently domained landowner relative in scope to the benefit being conferred on the business and the community but that would be more complex….and if we try to address complex issues in the political world of the 21st century….you guessed it……our heads will explode.
Senator Chris Dodd.
Apropos of nothing, certainly not because I’d like my head to stay intact or anything like that, but I’m wondering what the denizens of the TB universe think about the question of marijuana legalization. I read where it was among the most commonly submitted questions to the White House web page in advance of Obama’s virtual town hall this week.
Quote of the Day “While I understand that Sen. Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus.” –Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader in a passionate? rebuke of Joe Lieberman’s role in the recent Presidential campaign
A hot topic of debate and speculation in the news this week centers around what the Senate Democrats should do with Joe Lieberman in light of his support for John McCain’s presidential campaign. Lieberman has a long, reliable history of voting on the progressive side of domestic issues. He has gotten more publicity however for his hawkish war views and support for Bush/Neocon foreign policy positions. In schoolboy terms, what has happened is one crowd’s long-time, close and loyal friend has shamed himself. What’s worse is he did it in furtherance of the goals of the rival crowd, one to which he does not now and never will fit. He doesn’t want to switch cliques and the opposite clique really only wants him around so they can stick it in the eye of their rivals. But his old pals may not want him on their side anymore unless he is sufficiently punished and humbled in retribution for his crimes. There is now much wrangling about which Senatorial chores Lieberman can keep as one of the old gang–whether he gets to keep wearing a uniform and be the school crossing guard or whether he’s relegated to cleaning erasers during P.E.
Since the Dems are having trouble coming up with something appropriate, here’s a few sanctions inspired by those my asshole runnin buddies used on one another through the years. They were harsh enough to punish, yet reasonable enough to keep the offending ARB from bolting for a rival, less suitable crowd. These are all time tested and they all work.
Call him “King Yak” for the duration of Obama’s term in office.
Make him run around the Capitol in his underwear on the first night below freezing each year yelling “Obama Is My Daddy” once every 57 58 yards.
Ban him from getting “shotgun”, even if he calls it first.
Make him permanent designated driver for Redskins games.
Next time a Dem gets caught in the sack with someone they shouldn’t, Joe has to explain it to the wife, and defend the dude on Oprah, O’Reilly and Larry King.
When he’s outside the Senate chamber assign a page to sit in his chair. When Joe gets back the page sits resolutely, repeating, “move your meat, lose your seat.”
He has to go on the Sunday talk shows during the next round of budget negotiations and declare, “I love pork.”
When the next election season comes around, Joe has to play the role of Sarah Palin during Obama’s debate prep. Even if she isn’t running.
At the inauguration parade, Joe has to stand on Pennsylvania Avenue and funnel a six-pack (blank stare). And he better not yak.
Quote of the Day “And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you. And to all those who have wondered if Americas beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope. –President Elect, Barack Obama
It looks like Obama ended up winning about 52% of the popular vote last night along with a commanding majority in the Electoral College. Comparing the popular vote with our last four elections, it was a strong majority. It was roughly equivalent to Bush’s win over Dukakis, and it was substantially below either of Reagan’s margins. So what does it mean?
I think Obama has a mandate to change US policy abroad, but not in a wholesale manner, assuming he even wants to. What I expect to see is a lot more diplomacy and less heavy handedness in our negotiating style. I hope and believe that a change in the White House will lead to America regaining a leadership position in the world rather than trying to enforce domination upon it. A little more carrot and a little less stick, to coin a phrase. That does not mean I think Obama will be weak. As a matter of fact, I fear more that he will feel compelled to turn to the military more quickly than necessary in order to stave off accusations of weakness. Discounting Bush the Younger, our left leaning Presidents have historically done just that while our right wing leaders have often succeeded unexpectedly in diplomacy. The greatest example of that is probably Nixon going to China, something no Democrat would have been able to do without being damaged politically. On the other hand, it was Democrats Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson that got us into wars along with W. But I think Obama will use good judgment, particularly in surrounding himself with thinkers rather than ideologues. Time will tell.
On the home front, I will candidly say this was not the tsunami I was expecting or hoping for. Still, it was a huge Democratic victory with either 5 or 6 Senate seats gained and around 24 House seats. The two races I was watching most closely were the Senate campaigns in North Carolina and Minnesota. In Minnesota, it looks like Norm Coleman will hang on–a very surprising result in my eyes from a “liberal” state in the midst of a Democratic wave. On the other hand, in moderately conservative North Carolina, Libby Dole was soundly defeated. It was a split decision in the culture wars. I believe Dole lost due to her despicable ad trying to convince voters her opponent, a Sunday School teacher, was godless. I don’t have an opinion as to why Coleman hung on. But I do have a ten-cent opinion on what the elections told us, from President down through Congress.
The Republican Party lives and remains strong. Conservative ideas are alive. But outside the Confederacy, southern dominated conservative politics are dead as a doornail. Only in the deep south do campaigns focused on race or sexual orientation or McCarthyism style demagoguery still thrive. The rest of the country is fed up with it, and the outer edges of the South are getting there. Southern style social conservatives are consuming the old Reagan coalition. As I have said on this blog many times, I think the conservative thesis that all government is bad is simply wrong. It is, like all generalizations, overly broad. However, conservatism focused on limiting government’s power still makes good sense. Tyranny by corporations replaced by tyranny of bureaucrats is no good trade. If the thinking conservatives can re-take their party from the religious fundamentalists, false patriots and race baiters, it will not be long before they reassert their strength. In the coming weeks, it will be interesting to see whether the Romney wing of the party or the Palin wing wrests control. Huckabee is a wild card who would probably make a good leader if he’d just get educated on evolution and when the dinosaurs lived.
As for the Democrats, the election shows the country believes there is a place for progressive ideas and legislation. We have heard it so long that most accept it to be true without question or consideration–America is a center-right country. TB accepts nothing without question or consideration when it comes to politics. In my opinion, such a statement is another over-generalization. There are so many issues. To say we are collectively center-right is both a misstatement and non-sensical. On gun ownership, we are far right. On taxes, we are center. On freedom of speech, press, and religion, we are far left. On new issues, like global warming and alternative energy, it remains to be seen. I believe we are center-left on what will become, maybe has become, one of the most important issues of the day. My point is, each issue is different and no simple categorization is sufficient to define a country as large and varied as the USA.
I am looking forward to the Obama Presidency. I have high expectations of him. They are not so much in what accomplishments I expect as they are in how his administration conducts itself. I expect integrity, respect for civil liberties and human rights, strong and sensible diplomacy and political courage. If he indeed has these traits, as it has appeared to me over the last two years, his tenure will be a success.
Quote of the Day “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.” Alan Greenspan, last week
Henry Waxman asked former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan last week if his conservative ideology pushed him to make decisions about the economy he now regrets. Greenspan said “yes, I’ve found a flaw.” The flaw is astoundingly well summed up in today’s quote of the day. It seems so simple, yet very few of us saw it, and even though the great Warren Buffett DID see it and told us about it, none of us listened. The individuals running our great financial institutions were looking out for themselves, and did not see their interests as aligned with those of their companies. They made deals to create short term wealth and illusory wealth to appear on balance sheets. In return, they received millions of dollars in bonuses. What happened after they cashed their checks was none of their concern.
This is the achilles heal of conservative economic theory. Conservatives, including TB in past times, have always believed that if the top echelon of wealth holders were doing well, it was in their interest to keep a well funded underclass to keep the machine churning out ever more wealth. The middle class would benefit from successful American businesses by buying their stock and getting an ownership interest in the economy they were supporting. Too much regulation by government, often derisively termed “interference”, would simply siphon off corporate profits, leaving less for the middle class to share. So the interference was removed over the course of thirty years or so, bit by bit, piece by piece. Even most Democrats went along with the effort, notably Bill Clinton.
But we all overlooked the most obvious pitfall. We equated the businesses themselves with the individuals who run them. The businesses, in the end, have failed–GM, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Bear Stearns, and so many more. The men who ran them have not failed. Like DB Cooper, they jumped out of the planes with all the cash and a golden parachute. But DB at least had the courtesy to leave the plane functional when he leapt. These guys destroyed the engines, then jumped.
Someone once famously said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. We ignored the lessons our grandparents and great-grandparents learned back in 1929, and now history is repeating itself to a large degree. There is a reason for government regulation. Sure, it slows down business growth to some extent. But it stops many of those individuals who would loot businesses and their shareholders in their tracks. It shines light on their schemes. Just like a football referee, the government is never popular, especially when its presence in the game is obvious. No one likes a game marred by too many holding flags, and its often said there is holding on every play. Similarly, in regulating business, the government will undoubtedly throw too many flags sometimes, and miss other times it should’ve thrown one. But without the refs, the game is just a street fight over a ball. And without government regulation, our economy is just a street fight over control of wealth. It’s time all conservative thinkers admit their flaw in philosophy.
There is common ground between American liberals and conservatives. That is that most everyone agrees the ultimate goal is to make increased wealth available to all. There is legitimate difference of opinion on how that should be accomplished. Conservatives must first admit, like Greenspan, that all of their assumptions are partially based on a faulty premise. And liberals, poised to have a chance to implement their own ideas, must remain aware that a faulty premise most likely lurks inside their own ideology. Both sides must learn to concede the points on which they have been obviously wrong and use the other side’s ideas to improve the collective action our government must take. I haven’t seen that in many years. I hope the next administration controls its hubris enough to remember this lessen from the dying conservative movement.
Quote of the Day “It ain’t the heat, it’s the humility.” –Yogi Berra
I was forwarded an email today including the transcript of a NOVA episode from PBS. To confirm its validity, I went to the NOVA website and discovered the episode actually first ran in 2006, though it was re-aired August 5, 2008. Here is a link to the site.
TB is no scientist. I have reviewed many scientific studies over the years in connection with work and I have had the opportunity to discuss and dissect them with eminently qualified experts on both sides of the particular issues being reviewed. I believe I have a pretty good grasp of what makes a scientific conclusion reliable. I also have learned that there can be meaningful and legitimate debate over most all technical topics, but that if you follow the source of the money funding a study, you will have a good idea of what the study’s conclusions will be. So in the global warming debate, I am continually searching for who funds the scientists publishing conclusions from every angle. Almost always, the funds supporting scientists who deny man-made global warming come from Oil Companies. This is a major reason TB does not accept their conclusions.
The transcript and article attached to the NOVA episode are particularly compelling to me because the researchers cited were working independently from one another and thus do not appear to have the same funding sources. In a nutshell, they found that pollution in the 1970’s and 1980’s created a dust cloud that shielded the Earth from solar energy and actually slowed global warming. Simultaneously, greenhouse gases were working to increase temperatures, but because of the pollution clouds, the rate of warming was slowed. There is evidence pollution is responsible for severe drought conditions in Africa and elsewhere as well as respiratory illnesses most everywhere. As pollution controls have begun to assert themselves these have abated in some areas, and if China and India can get their pollution under control it will improve conditions in many other places. But get this–as pollution has begun to decrease, more sun is allowed into the atmosphere and consequently the temperature is rising faster than ever.
In many ways, how you feel about global warming is a matter of faith. After all, in conversation about it don’t we always say we either “believe” in it or “don’t believe?” I’m not prepared to vouch for anybody’s work. My conclusion may be wrong. But from what I’ve read and observed, “I believe” global warming is a serious problem. If you are interested in the subject, you ought to read the transcript from the PBS site I linked above. I know the Republicans will do nothing to address global warming. I fear the Democrats will be just as timid, but I hope they at least get the chance come November.
In the meantime, it sure has been beautiful, and unseasonably cool all week here in South Carolina. Fodder for the non-believers I suppose.
