State of the Union

Whatever else the president is an enrapturing speaker. The irritating smug demeanor he stepped to the podium with mesmerizing-ly melted away as he got into the speech.

His over-arching theme -- I, like you, am decent and resilient; identify your struggles with mine -- was brilliant.

There were two incongruous moments that undermined his intended message.

The first -- shades of "guns and religion" -- he mentioned global warming, and, with his party, took the opportunity to laugh at the expense of the nearly half of independents who are skeptical of the science (Republicans laughed as well, but with different reason). One doesn't appeal to independent voters by deriding their beliefs.

The second was both more subtle and more damning. Discussing healthcare reform:

... And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

This sentence placed in stark contrast the fundamental decency of the American people -- who were revolted by the depth of the horse trading, not their lack of participation -- and the fundamental corruption of the man they elected President.

Budget Deficit Commission

The President now, wisely, seeks to pivot towards fiscal responsibility. His strategy is proposing a bipartisan budget deficit commission.

Republicans are rightly skeptical of being used as political cover for tax raises to pay for the Democratic spending binge (relatedly: Rove contrasts the profit the taxpayer made on W bailouts vs the steep losses being incurred by O).

Their politically deaf response, however, creates headlines portraying Obama as deficit-concerned and Republicans as partisan obstructionists. Their stance -- requiring a mandated up/down Congressional vote -- is undermined by the reality that such a mandate could pass was there unified Republican support. If such a mandate does pass, Republicans will be faced with the no-win situation of voting for meaningful increase in taxes (presumably including a VAT) or deficits.

Congressional Republicans have two savvier strategies:

They can demand true bi-partisanship. The Obama proposal is stacked 10D - 8R. An effective response would ridicule Obama for proposing to appoint 25% of the panel's Republicans himself (!)

Even better, they could insist that a minority recommendation issued by the commission also be guaranteed an up/down vote should the majority's be voted down. This would, at least, allow Republicans to clearly present their position that we should cut spending more and raise taxes less.

Boston Tea Party

Watching her concession speech, there is certainly some truth to the Democratic spin that Coakley was a horrible candidate. Watching Brown's acceptance speech, he is certainly a talented politician.

On the other hand, Democrats are certainly fooling themselves when they proclaim that results, not process matter to the American people. To blame Coakley for over-confidently taking Christmas off when up by 20 points, is to blissfully ignore what else hit the news then.

While it does seem, from the exit polls, that health care was important to voters, it did not seem central to Brown's messaging. More central was the appeal to Reagan Republicans: "our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them and not lawyers to defend them". Brown was even supportive of waterboarding. His competitiveness amongst union members is a big part of the story.

That said, in the end, those who disregard the nationalization of the race, argue Coakley lost because the campaign was slow to respond to Brown's increasing competitiveness. Politico reports, that the DSCC Chairman "learned that the race was tightening... when independent pollsters returned results showing the race much tighter than Democratic polls had been portraying." In other words, the Democrat lost largely because Democratic pollsters saw their job as framing perceptions instead of providing timely and reliable information to their team.

The notion of professional politicians being fooled by their own spin, is off-putting if entirely consistent with the self-destructive path the Congressional majorities have chosen for themselves.

The Consequence of Mary Poppins

I was dragged, last night, to the Broadway production of Mary Poppins. While I can't complain too much -- it was all, or rather mostly, good, nostalgic, fun -- its financial/economic teachings are insipid.

The financial/economic teaching, of the classic movie appear mostly harmless. Bankers extolling the virtues of disciplined long term investing, and responsibly building credit, are mocked, but not central to the plot -- Mr Banks loses his job because he puts it before his family, and regains it when he shifts priorities.

The musical attempts to be sharper in its financial commentary. The central plot element illustrates that smart investing stems from focus on the human aspect and not the strength of the idea, or plan. The character of "the Holy Terror" is introduced (or rather resurrected from the books) to cast rigor and discipline as a traditional Disney villain.

The musical is consistent with the under-informed liberal narrative of the current financial crisis caused, to this view, by a self-involved financial world, wrapped in paper profits and complex derivatives, that lost touch with the real, "human" world around it.

The reality, of course, is that the most direct cause -- government policies promoting the illusion of home ownership by encouraging loose lending -- was a focus on the narrow human aspect at the expense of the rigor of the plan.

More fundamentally, I have previously posted my view:

In the end, the strength of an economy boils down to the aggregate willingness and ability of people to do things valued by other people. And underneath all the awful decisions made by all sorts of economic actors, lies a culture that increasingly devalues the painstaking work that goes with ordinary productivity.

This devaluation is something the writers of musical -- and to a somewhat lesser degree the movie -- strangely sought to encourage.

The good news is that there does appear to be some growing recognition, that parents hurt their children when they withhold discipline.

Opposite Marriage on Trial

In his opening statement, Ted Olson promised to prove:

1. The importance of marriage.
2. The "grievous harm" worked by denying the right to marry.
3. There is "no good reason" to deny homosexuals this right.

The first two items are red herrings. Whatever the tangible benefits of marriage, they certainly come far more from the commitment of the couple than the tax implications. The notion -- suggested by Olson -- that a couple cannot fully "share their dreams" with each other without state sanction is silly (and mildly ironic given his backers).

The true injury caused by Prop 8 is symbolic. As well described by Olson:

All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored. And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples. It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.

On the other hand, state sanctioning of gay marriage causes similar symbolic injury (stigmatization) to adherents of traditional religion. Decision via judicial rather than political process aggravates the injury as one's voice is, at least, more fully heard in a political process.

Reading Olson's statement more carefully, the injury he describes is inflicted less by the denial of state sanction as much as by the societal mores that support the status quo. The majority of Americans, as expressed by their votes, consider homosexual "relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity," a view that, if Roe v Wade is any guide, judicial interference will only harden. In the end, then, what plaintiffs seek is not to remedy their injury as much as the compensatory satisfaction of asserting their political power over the majority that dis-respect them.

In a prior post, I expressed agreement in principle with the third item. Or rather, that there appears no rational reason to oppose sanctioning gay marriage. Opposition is rooted in accepted tradition.

What is on trial, then, appears to be whether or not, in the eyes of the law, traditional values constitute a "good reason".

The Ladies and the Tiger

Tiger "mistress", Jaimee Grubbs is not without a conscience. In a conversation with extra TV, she "couldn't describe how remorseful" she was to have hurt Elin the children. None-the-less, she does not feel all that bad as, she says, "If it wasn't me, it was going to be other girls."

Traditional teachers advanced standards of behavior -- classical virtue, religious righteousness -- to be adhered to for their own sake. Von Hayek observes that this traditionally morality is everywhere being replaced by "social conscience" -- being guided by awareness of the effect of our actions on others.

Von Hayek critiques this new thinking on its own terms. He argues that traditional moral rules are, themselves, social phenomenon -- evolving societal understandings, required as people cannot possibly fully understand the complex consequences flowing from their own actions. To Von Hayek, true social conscience demands respect for traditional rules.

Pragmatically -- as illustrated by the Prisoner's Dilemma -- any consequence-driven social morality seems unlikely to be ultimately upheld. In the end, whatever we do, other people will pollute, deal arms, sell predatory mortgages, mislead on their mortgage applications, separate fools and their money, sleep with married billionaires, etc, so why should we abstain? The Obama Administration has, in fact, played to this lesser angel, in the stimulus debate, suggesting critics opt out.

Tiger, of course, has no similar excuse for his choices. He has, thankfully, not yet attempted to justify them. That said, it is hard for us to simply condemn him, knowing that few men could withstand the temptations he faced. By some measure, his sin, so to speak, was not being a saint. Or, perhaps, his true mistake, given his place in life, was aspiring to-, thinking he could-, be a father and a husband.