In his "State Of The Church", address, Pope Benedict described the institution of family under dual attack. First, there is the zeitgeist which questions whether lifelong commitment corresponds to man’s nature or is antithetical to freedom? More deeply, there is also the particular philosophy which leads people to deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. He argues that if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. In asserting the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God
According to Strauss, in thinking about "man’s nature", the classics, not concerned with establishing utopia, asked "what is best for man?", while the moderns, who are so concerned, ask "what can be expected of man?" The Pope argues that it is primarily a false understanding of the nature of human freedom (the true understanding is: "only in self-giving does man find himself") that makes lifelong commitment an unreasonable expectation.
Within American politics the argument for marriage equality, embraces, rather than denies, nature: Homosexuality is asserted to be part of nature. Moreover, the Jewish tradition, at least, can be understood to teach that the freedom to create oneself, far from denying the Maker, is the very definition of being created in the image of God. Denying that freedom calls into question whether or not we have a distinctly human nature.
A stronger variation of the Pope's argument is that the demand for marriage equality stems from marriage being understood as it is experienced -- an "emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction" -- rather than as its social, or higher, purpose -- establishing the best context for rearing children. This way of understanding can be seen to reflect our increasing individual self-centeredness, which, following Strauss, is the natural result of the "Hobbes-ian" project that sought to cultivate a good society without appealing to our best nature.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Science and Politics
When asked by GQ, Marco Rubio stumbled around the age of the universe, saying that how to reconcile the "multiple theories" including "recorded history" and "the Bible" "on how the universe was created" is "one of the great mysteries." After being widely mocked, he clarified that he actually shares Obama's view. According to Krugman, this is an illustration of a general Republican attitude: "If evidence seems to contradict faith, suppress the evidence."
The reality is, of course, that no one has first hand knowledge the age of the universe. Any answer is, structurally, an appeal to authority. On one side is the empirical materialism -- science -- that has given us cell phones and moon landings. On the other, for some of us, is the (biblical) faith that gives our lives structure, meaning and purpose. The evidence of religious faith, denied by Krugman, is powerfully experienced by believers. As Strauss taught, the attempt to reconcile "Athens" and "Jerusalem" -- what Rubio appeared to be doing in mixing "theologians" and "theories" -- bastardizes one or the other. For most of us, no longer 17 or 18, it is enough to understand that human truth is, by nature, limited and unstable -- an understanding shared, in other contexts, with liberals.
It is easy to note that conservatives have no monopoly on bad science. Beyond the obvious: While conservatives may deny global warming, progressives demand costly and by any scientific measure ineffective "solutions". When it suits them politically, liberals deny that science is capable of progress (and conversely..). In the end, Science mixes poorly with politics for the same reason it mixes poorly with religion: Politics in practice, as religion, requires tribal loyalty and fidelity to dogma.
Its important not to lose sight of the political issue at the heart of this: Whether, or to what degree, public schools ought accommodate the beliefs of parents.
The reality is, of course, that no one has first hand knowledge the age of the universe. Any answer is, structurally, an appeal to authority. On one side is the empirical materialism -- science -- that has given us cell phones and moon landings. On the other, for some of us, is the (biblical) faith that gives our lives structure, meaning and purpose. The evidence of religious faith, denied by Krugman, is powerfully experienced by believers. As Strauss taught, the attempt to reconcile "Athens" and "Jerusalem" -- what Rubio appeared to be doing in mixing "theologians" and "theories" -- bastardizes one or the other. For most of us, no longer 17 or 18, it is enough to understand that human truth is, by nature, limited and unstable -- an understanding shared, in other contexts, with liberals.
It is easy to note that conservatives have no monopoly on bad science. Beyond the obvious: While conservatives may deny global warming, progressives demand costly and by any scientific measure ineffective "solutions". When it suits them politically, liberals deny that science is capable of progress (and conversely..). In the end, Science mixes poorly with politics for the same reason it mixes poorly with religion: Politics in practice, as religion, requires tribal loyalty and fidelity to dogma.
Its important not to lose sight of the political issue at the heart of this: Whether, or to what degree, public schools ought accommodate the beliefs of parents.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Debunking Nate Silver
Despite what you might read on the internet, its actually quite easy to demonstrate that Nate Silver's election models where very possibly flawed.
According to Silver, September was a disastrous month for Romney. He started September down 47.9% to 50.9% to in the popular vote and a 26.9% chances of winning, and he ended it down 47.4% to 51.5%, and only 14.3%. Yet according to exit polls September was a fantastic month for Romney. He won the 8.7% of voters who decided in September 53% - 45.3%. In contrast, Obama won the 68.8% of voters who decided before 52.6% - 46.3%, and the 20.7% who decided after 49.7% - 46.3%. The last cohort, of course, includes some number of people who thought they had decided in September and then changed their minds, increasing Romney's implied September surge.
It may be that exit polls should be taken with a grain of salt or that masses of people mistakenly remembered the first debate as having taken place in September. But, at the very least, they call Silver's model into question.
According to Silver, September was a disastrous month for Romney. He started September down 47.9% to 50.9% to in the popular vote and a 26.9% chances of winning, and he ended it down 47.4% to 51.5%, and only 14.3%. Yet according to exit polls September was a fantastic month for Romney. He won the 8.7% of voters who decided in September 53% - 45.3%. In contrast, Obama won the 68.8% of voters who decided before 52.6% - 46.3%, and the 20.7% who decided after 49.7% - 46.3%. The last cohort, of course, includes some number of people who thought they had decided in September and then changed their minds, increasing Romney's implied September surge.
It may be that exit polls should be taken with a grain of salt or that masses of people mistakenly remembered the first debate as having taken place in September. But, at the very least, they call Silver's model into question.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The Next Four Years
As the parallels between 2004 and 2012 are striking and informative, it is worth recalling the Democrat's successful strategy.
They escalated, not moderated, their vocal criticism of the Iraq war, but did not block -- as they could have -- Bush's courageous and eventually successful "surge". At the same time they adopted positions -- on the deficit and corruption -- that Republicans once championed. One might say, on policy, they outflanked, rather than moderated. On the other hand, in 2006, they made a calculated effort to run moderate congressional candidates.
A similar G.O.P strategy would side-step the "big" issues like taxes and healthcare. The G.O.P. has no self-interest in negotiating Obama out of his job-killing gambits as they once did for Clinton. Instead, they would be well advised to focus on issues of government transparency and effectiveness and wait while core Democratic constituencies make it impossible for Democrats to deliver on their promises of good government (there is, in the end, a reason Mike Bloomberg ran as a Republican/Independent). A savvy G.O.P. might demand Obama propose a concrete deficit reduction plan, and then adopt it wholesale in exchange for a basket of items like ending baseline budgeting, closing campaign finance loopholes Obama exploited, auditing the Fed, requiring government adherence to standard, instead of Enron, accounting practices, an independent investigation into the shocking lack of criminal prosecutions following the financial meltdown, and constitutional amendments limiting debt-to-gdp in the long term to under 90% and banning future state bailouts.
On the other hand, what was new about 2012 should not be ignored either. In particular, the Obama campaign's retail organization. While our founding fathers may have envisioned a politics in which reason displaced passion, the reality is that voting choices are more more often driven by social dynamics than rational reflection. Obama's neighborhood campaign offices served as hubs for Obama-voting communities. If the G.O.P. wants to compete for minority votes, it will not be enough to, simply, communicate shared beliefs. Republicans must plant their own community centers in minority neighborhoods.
They escalated, not moderated, their vocal criticism of the Iraq war, but did not block -- as they could have -- Bush's courageous and eventually successful "surge". At the same time they adopted positions -- on the deficit and corruption -- that Republicans once championed. One might say, on policy, they outflanked, rather than moderated. On the other hand, in 2006, they made a calculated effort to run moderate congressional candidates.
A similar G.O.P strategy would side-step the "big" issues like taxes and healthcare. The G.O.P. has no self-interest in negotiating Obama out of his job-killing gambits as they once did for Clinton. Instead, they would be well advised to focus on issues of government transparency and effectiveness and wait while core Democratic constituencies make it impossible for Democrats to deliver on their promises of good government (there is, in the end, a reason Mike Bloomberg ran as a Republican/Independent). A savvy G.O.P. might demand Obama propose a concrete deficit reduction plan, and then adopt it wholesale in exchange for a basket of items like ending baseline budgeting, closing campaign finance loopholes Obama exploited, auditing the Fed, requiring government adherence to standard, instead of Enron, accounting practices, an independent investigation into the shocking lack of criminal prosecutions following the financial meltdown, and constitutional amendments limiting debt-to-gdp in the long term to under 90% and banning future state bailouts.
On the other hand, what was new about 2012 should not be ignored either. In particular, the Obama campaign's retail organization. While our founding fathers may have envisioned a politics in which reason displaced passion, the reality is that voting choices are more more often driven by social dynamics than rational reflection. Obama's neighborhood campaign offices served as hubs for Obama-voting communities. If the G.O.P. wants to compete for minority votes, it will not be enough to, simply, communicate shared beliefs. Republicans must plant their own community centers in minority neighborhoods.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Very Good Debt to Have
Too much has been made of exit polls showing Obama won voters whose primary consideration was "cares about people like me" as that question is almost certainly a dog whistle for "will not vote for a white man".
More damning for Romney were exit polls showing voters believed Obama's economic policies, more than Romney's, benefited the middle class. For all the talk that the G.O.P. must moderate, this may indicate that a return to strong economically conservative policies that can demonstrate how progressive policies crush the middle class is now needed.
An illustrative case in point is the situation of recent middle-class college grads, entering a workforce with six figure debt, but without marketable skills or decent opportunities. Conservatives can convincingly argue that government subsidies have mostly served to increase middle-class indebtedness, while enriching college administrators who, in return, do their part for Democrats. A Conservative could point out that a college education is (alongside housing), the largest investment middle-class families make, and ought be treated as such: Colleges ought have the same basic fiduciary obligations to their student/clients and responsibilities to disclose/report (eg, on historical economic outcomes of students in particular majors or who have taken particular classes or Professors) that other financial service providers have. Democrats who would oppose this would plainly be selling out middle class families. In this light, the administration's assertion that this is "very good debt to have" could have been made toxic.
Similar avenues also resonate: Recent college grad's job-prospects are particularly sensitive to entrepreneur killing over-regulation and taxation, more than any other group of Americans, they understand the difference between making $250K one year and being a millionaire and, as Ron Paul has proven, they are receptive when one explains how inflation targets cloud their future.
But when asked, instead of drawing sharp distinctions, Romney rattled on about scholarships and Pell grants and allowed the President to draw him into a discussion of whether or not he wanted Detroit to go bankrupt and, perhaps, in that moment, lost the election.
More damning for Romney were exit polls showing voters believed Obama's economic policies, more than Romney's, benefited the middle class. For all the talk that the G.O.P. must moderate, this may indicate that a return to strong economically conservative policies that can demonstrate how progressive policies crush the middle class is now needed.
An illustrative case in point is the situation of recent middle-class college grads, entering a workforce with six figure debt, but without marketable skills or decent opportunities. Conservatives can convincingly argue that government subsidies have mostly served to increase middle-class indebtedness, while enriching college administrators who, in return, do their part for Democrats. A Conservative could point out that a college education is (alongside housing), the largest investment middle-class families make, and ought be treated as such: Colleges ought have the same basic fiduciary obligations to their student/clients and responsibilities to disclose/report (eg, on historical economic outcomes of students in particular majors or who have taken particular classes or Professors) that other financial service providers have. Democrats who would oppose this would plainly be selling out middle class families. In this light, the administration's assertion that this is "very good debt to have" could have been made toxic.
Similar avenues also resonate: Recent college grad's job-prospects are particularly sensitive to entrepreneur killing over-regulation and taxation, more than any other group of Americans, they understand the difference between making $250K one year and being a millionaire and, as Ron Paul has proven, they are receptive when one explains how inflation targets cloud their future.
But when asked, instead of drawing sharp distinctions, Romney rattled on about scholarships and Pell grants and allowed the President to draw him into a discussion of whether or not he wanted Detroit to go bankrupt and, perhaps, in that moment, lost the election.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Dependency Politics
Von Hayek taught that conservative principles are the tested product of an evolutionary social process. He taught that (libertarian) policies which support this trial-and-error progress serve society best. His teachings offer hope and direction to conservatives fearful that "dependency politics" are now permanently entrenched. In the end, truth can be counted on to prevail.
Strauss taught concern with the fundamental alternative: That western culture is the product of centuries of cultivating human nature and that America is exceptional because of the unusual alignment of history and tradition with libertarian principles (and the unlikely marriage of Virtue and Democracy). The classics, according to Strauss, taught that the best regimes came into being only by chance and that history is cyclical not linear. These teachings animate conservative fears that we are close to a tipping point where the culture of too many hyphenated Americans undoes that exceptionalism.
This blog has argued: "to believe in Freedom is to see in American history ample evidence of how malleable and ever-changing "culture" can be and how people, left to their own devices, lift themselves up." It is helpful to remember that Political Conservatism was a minority view for much of the twentieth century. In the end, what Strauss suggested -- and Reagan demonstrated -- is that a Conservatism that that confidently appeals to individual dignity can never be permanently suppressed.
Strauss taught concern with the fundamental alternative: That western culture is the product of centuries of cultivating human nature and that America is exceptional because of the unusual alignment of history and tradition with libertarian principles (and the unlikely marriage of Virtue and Democracy). The classics, according to Strauss, taught that the best regimes came into being only by chance and that history is cyclical not linear. These teachings animate conservative fears that we are close to a tipping point where the culture of too many hyphenated Americans undoes that exceptionalism.
This blog has argued: "to believe in Freedom is to see in American history ample evidence of how malleable and ever-changing "culture" can be and how people, left to their own devices, lift themselves up." It is helpful to remember that Political Conservatism was a minority view for much of the twentieth century. In the end, what Strauss suggested -- and Reagan demonstrated -- is that a Conservatism that that confidently appeals to individual dignity can never be permanently suppressed.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Political (Game) Theory
If one wanted to apply game theory to national politics, as a first pass one could roughly model it as a "board" with N "issues", each issue has 3 positions: conservative, moderate, progressive. Each position has a payoff that is a function of the opponents choices, the rest of the board, what we seem to call "branding", and the "focus" the candidate draws to that issue. Candidates have limited "focus" to spend, and how they spend it determines the election.
On immigration, for example, the conservative position is deport all illegals, the moderate position is to grant illegal immigrants extended, or permanent residency, and a "back-of-the-line" path to citizenship, but stop future illegal immigration, the progressive position would grant illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and do nothing effective to stop future illegal immigration. Romney's position "self-deportation" was understood by the electorate as, effectively, the conservative one, which was helpful in the primaries. In the general, taking the moderate position would not have cost Romney many conservative voters -- who had higher priorities -- and would have forced Obama to clarify better where he stood -- forcing him to alienate some of his own voters. While there is good reason to believe the direct payoff would have been small, there would have been indirect "branding" payoff had Obama, or other Democrats, been cornered into clearly taking the progressive position.
On abortion, Democratic politicians mostly believe abortion should be always and everywhere legal, most voters believe it should be sometimes, or in some places (=federalism) legal and many conservative Christian voters believe it should be always and everywhere illegal. The Obama campaign spent a great deal of its focus and was successful in making an issue of the conservative Christian position taken by two Senate candidates, severely impairing the Republican brand. Almost more than any other issue, this buried Romney.
Romney chose, instead, to spend his focus on Obama's partisan lack of leadership, his unwillingness reach across the aisle to get things done for America. This choice was undercut, fatally, by Sandy and Christie. While its impossible to prove one way or the other, from the polls and the post-election reactions of both candidates, the notion that Sandy/Christie turned the election is credible.
Finally, the results reflected that in spending focus on "branding", Obama helped downstream democrats. Romney's focus spent on Obama's personal failings (and his success, in contrast) offered no such help.
On immigration, for example, the conservative position is deport all illegals, the moderate position is to grant illegal immigrants extended, or permanent residency, and a "back-of-the-line" path to citizenship, but stop future illegal immigration, the progressive position would grant illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and do nothing effective to stop future illegal immigration. Romney's position "self-deportation" was understood by the electorate as, effectively, the conservative one, which was helpful in the primaries. In the general, taking the moderate position would not have cost Romney many conservative voters -- who had higher priorities -- and would have forced Obama to clarify better where he stood -- forcing him to alienate some of his own voters. While there is good reason to believe the direct payoff would have been small, there would have been indirect "branding" payoff had Obama, or other Democrats, been cornered into clearly taking the progressive position.
On abortion, Democratic politicians mostly believe abortion should be always and everywhere legal, most voters believe it should be sometimes, or in some places (=federalism) legal and many conservative Christian voters believe it should be always and everywhere illegal. The Obama campaign spent a great deal of its focus and was successful in making an issue of the conservative Christian position taken by two Senate candidates, severely impairing the Republican brand. Almost more than any other issue, this buried Romney.
Romney chose, instead, to spend his focus on Obama's partisan lack of leadership, his unwillingness reach across the aisle to get things done for America. This choice was undercut, fatally, by Sandy and Christie. While its impossible to prove one way or the other, from the polls and the post-election reactions of both candidates, the notion that Sandy/Christie turned the election is credible.
Finally, the results reflected that in spending focus on "branding", Obama helped downstream democrats. Romney's focus spent on Obama's personal failings (and his success, in contrast) offered no such help.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Decisions
Depending on one's bubble, Romney is either
neck and neck or has, basically, no chance. People are going to be bitterly shocked tonight.
Republicans' primary causes for optimism -- Obama's inability to pass the 50% threshold in many swing state polls and Romney's upward trend -- seem dampened post-Sandy. The Romney campaign's decision to sit that out, rather than have surrogates (accurately) screaming "Staten Island is as bad as New Orleans", may haunt them. This reflects the general tenor of the campaign in which the President wildly portrayed Romney as being an evil, corrupt man, and Romney, with great discipline and respect, portrayed the President as like-able enough, but, not the right choice. These strategies reflected the reality of the President's like-ability, now largely spent. Should he win, he may wish, in trying to govern, that he had sacrificed it less.
Romney supporters' last hope lies in the idea that the pollsters demographic-adjustments and likely-voter models are biased. Its certainly true that pollsters (like universities) are more concerned with fairly representing "under-represented" democratic leaning demographics than others. But the more one reads of the sophistication of Obama's turnout operation, the less likely it seems Romney is going to win the "ground game". Obama seems closer to the future, where campaigns use big-data to micro-target swayable voters and leverage affinity networks (including families) to deliver their votes.
If Obama wins the election, Tea Party voters can take heart in this: Republicans have nominated the most moderate voice in the room two elections in a row now and lost to a President from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." In 2016, Rubio or Christie may find themselves too moderate for Republican primary voters. How does "President Cruz" roll off the tongue?
Republicans' primary causes for optimism -- Obama's inability to pass the 50% threshold in many swing state polls and Romney's upward trend -- seem dampened post-Sandy. The Romney campaign's decision to sit that out, rather than have surrogates (accurately) screaming "Staten Island is as bad as New Orleans", may haunt them. This reflects the general tenor of the campaign in which the President wildly portrayed Romney as being an evil, corrupt man, and Romney, with great discipline and respect, portrayed the President as like-able enough, but, not the right choice. These strategies reflected the reality of the President's like-ability, now largely spent. Should he win, he may wish, in trying to govern, that he had sacrificed it less.
Romney supporters' last hope lies in the idea that the pollsters demographic-adjustments and likely-voter models are biased. Its certainly true that pollsters (like universities) are more concerned with fairly representing "under-represented" democratic leaning demographics than others. But the more one reads of the sophistication of Obama's turnout operation, the less likely it seems Romney is going to win the "ground game". Obama seems closer to the future, where campaigns use big-data to micro-target swayable voters and leverage affinity networks (including families) to deliver their votes.
If Obama wins the election, Tea Party voters can take heart in this: Republicans have nominated the most moderate voice in the room two elections in a row now and lost to a President from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." In 2016, Rubio or Christie may find themselves too moderate for Republican primary voters. How does "President Cruz" roll off the tongue?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Rape
Somehow, or another, rape has become a controversial issue this election. According to Democrats and their allied Media, it turns out that Republicans, especially those who oppose abortion even in instances of rape, are pro-rape.
Republicans, were they savvy, would have an effective stratagem to expose the truth of the matter: Propose the death penalty for rapists.
Republicans, were they savvy, would have an effective stratagem to expose the truth of the matter: Propose the death penalty for rapists.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
To My Democratic Friends...
Passing Health Care Reform was, for your team, a historical achievement. But the President has been mostly unable to sell it to the American people. Partisans left and right hope|fear that the reform will become much more popular once enacted, but that is not likely -- Health Care Reform was far more controversial at inception than either Social Security, or Medicare. More likely, it will become even more polarizing and more bitterly fought over every election cycle on the state and federal level. As such it will be, at best, unevenly implemented.
The tragedy is that there were no shortage of "good ideas" (for example: better aligning incentives by severing insurance from employment or promoting alternatives to fee-for-service), that could have more sustainably passed with some bi-partisan support and, in-turn, built credibility toward more ambitious reform.
To hear your economists, the Stimulus program was too small to possibly succeed, but just large enough to be a political disaster for its backers.
After the financial crisis, there was a national consensus that "too big too fail" and "public risk, private reward" had to end. It is really hard to argue that Dodd-Frank accomplished either. On the contrary, the largest banks today, control more of the economy than ever, and the Government is still subsidizing bankers' bonuses.
Obama argues he is pursuing a savvy, subtle, long-game, foriegn policy. Certainly, running around the Middle East trying to impose Democracy wasn't brilliant. On the other hand, there has to be some sensible middle ground between that and policy that seems oddly complacent in the face of a world that is, in many respects, more dangerous now than it was four years ago.
To take one example: Moderate Muslims, are fighting with Islamicists for the future of their societies. According to the New York Times, "One of the principal goals of the extremists... is to pressure these transitional governments to enact and enforce strict laws against blasphemy. These laws can then be used to purge secularists and moderates." With that in mind, it is hard to see the administration's response to the youtube video protests as either savvy or subtle.
Mitt Romney ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy and to the right of Gingrich and Perry. He is a tactician, not an ideologue. As a tactician, he tracked to the right in the primaries, and back to the center in the general. In the face of conservative pressure in the primaries, he refused to jeopardize his general electibility by dis-owning "RomneyCare". While that should have given conservatives pause, it should re-assure, moderates and liberals. As President, he can be expected to be more like Clinton than Obama: refusing to jeopardize his re-electability playing to the unpopular passions of his base (in Romney's case, for example by dismantling the safety net or bomb, bomb, bombing Iran).
Finally, a Romney win will strengthen moderate Republicans in the way that Clinton's victory strengthened, for a time, "Third Way" Democrats. This would be a good thing.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The Leopard and the Fox
Tonight's debate was a strange one. Romney, stuck precisely to the strategy he telegraphed, and the President had no response. It was like watching a great running back clinching a Super Bowl.
For Romney supporters, this debate was fun. "Look, I got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it" -- Zap! "you don't just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers." -- Pow! ": Jim, the president began this segment, so I think I get the last word, so I'm going to take it." (after the Obama tried to get in the last word with "Jim, I — you may want to move on to another topic, but I would just say this to the American people...") -- Bam! "You've been president four years" -- Kapow! "we've gone on a lot of topics there, and so it's going to take a minute to go from Medicaid to schools... to oil, to tax breaks, then companies going overseas. So let's go through them one by one." -- Shazam! Obama supporters are critiquing Romney's lack of specifity, but he drowned Obama in a sea of First, Second and Thirds.
What is most strange, however, is that not long into the debate, neither the President, nor for that matter the moderator, seemed to want to be there. They seemed almost drugged. The President conveyed the clear sense that this debate didn't matter.
That may be the case. The debates closer to the election may matter much more or the number of votes sway-able by gaffe-free debates may be minimal. Or maybe Obama came prepared with a set of canned answers and was unready for the surprising level of back and forth the moderator allowed.
For Romney supporters, this debate was fun. "Look, I got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it" -- Zap! "you don't just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers." -- Pow! ": Jim, the president began this segment, so I think I get the last word, so I'm going to take it." (after the Obama tried to get in the last word with "Jim, I — you may want to move on to another topic, but I would just say this to the American people...") -- Bam! "You've been president four years" -- Kapow! "we've gone on a lot of topics there, and so it's going to take a minute to go from Medicaid to schools... to oil, to tax breaks, then companies going overseas. So let's go through them one by one." -- Shazam! Obama supporters are critiquing Romney's lack of specifity, but he drowned Obama in a sea of First, Second and Thirds.
What is most strange, however, is that not long into the debate, neither the President, nor for that matter the moderator, seemed to want to be there. They seemed almost drugged. The President conveyed the clear sense that this debate didn't matter.
That may be the case. The debates closer to the election may matter much more or the number of votes sway-able by gaffe-free debates may be minimal. Or maybe Obama came prepared with a set of canned answers and was unready for the surprising level of back and forth the moderator allowed.
The First Debate
Strangely, Romney is being described as a strong debater. That hardly seemed to be the case in the primary debates, after which the anybody-but-Romney of the month received large bursts.
Romney's strength, and weakness, is that every word out of his mouth feels prepared and tested. Obama appears much stronger extemporaneously. In general, voters prefer boldness and authenticity. In this election, voters may appreciate a candidate who takes his homework seriously.
More strangely, Romney has telegraphed his debate strategy: "casting President Barack Obama as someone who can’t be trusted to stick to the facts or keep his promises". Unless the Romney campaign is more of a rolling calamity than suspected, this will prove to be a bit of psychological gamesmanship. Romney almost certainly understands that to win the debate he needs to visibly rattle the President.
In the end, the premise of the Romney's campaign is his competence and preparation. If an over-confident Obama veers off his own prepared script, a prepared Romney will be ready.
Romney's strength, and weakness, is that every word out of his mouth feels prepared and tested. Obama appears much stronger extemporaneously. In general, voters prefer boldness and authenticity. In this election, voters may appreciate a candidate who takes his homework seriously.
More strangely, Romney has telegraphed his debate strategy: "casting President Barack Obama as someone who can’t be trusted to stick to the facts or keep his promises". Unless the Romney campaign is more of a rolling calamity than suspected, this will prove to be a bit of psychological gamesmanship. Romney almost certainly understands that to win the debate he needs to visibly rattle the President.
In the end, the premise of the Romney's campaign is his competence and preparation. If an over-confident Obama veers off his own prepared script, a prepared Romney will be ready.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
The Conservative Mind
David Brooks argues there used to be two kinds of conservatives: "economic conservatives" and "traditional conservatives", who sought "to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other". He believes Russell Kirk’s essay, “Ten Conservative Principles,” gives the flavor of this traditional conservatism.
His claims are mostly strange. For example, conservative politicians are probably not wrong to calculate that one wins votes by advancing personal freedom rather than social order. More fundamentally, there is a large jump from Kirk's principles to support for raising taxes to fund activist government programs. Or rather: it seems foolish to believe that the government we have is capable of pursuing activist policies in the spirit of "traditional conservatism".
A traditional conservative, in other words, would be less concerned with raising taxes and more concerned with school choice, federalism and de-unionizing government workers. Brooks reminds us that, by his own lights, he is not any sort of conservative.
- The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
- The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
- Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription... that is, of things established by immemorial usage
- Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
- Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
- Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
- Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
- Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
- The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
- The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society
His claims are mostly strange. For example, conservative politicians are probably not wrong to calculate that one wins votes by advancing personal freedom rather than social order. More fundamentally, there is a large jump from Kirk's principles to support for raising taxes to fund activist government programs. Or rather: it seems foolish to believe that the government we have is capable of pursuing activist policies in the spirit of "traditional conservatism".
A traditional conservative, in other words, would be less concerned with raising taxes and more concerned with school choice, federalism and de-unionizing government workers. Brooks reminds us that, by his own lights, he is not any sort of conservative.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Rolling Calamity
Peggy Noonan made waves describing the Romney campaign as a "rolling calamity." Romney defended his campaign noting "We've got a campaign which is tied with an incumbent president to the United States."
Romney's comments, while, perhaps, the best thing to say in the circumstances, reflect what is missing in his campaign. It is, of course, true enough that, in general, it is hard to beat incumbents -- especially well liked ones. For Romney supporters, however, this is not at all an ordinary, "in-general", election or incumbent. That Romney sees it that way is disconcerting.
Whatever their intention, Noonan's comments were seriously damaging. As Cass Sunstein notes, people are less persuaded by new information than by "turncoats", who can prompt the reaction “if someone like that disagrees with me, maybe I had better rethink.”. As such, the temporary boost the President had in the polls last week may have had less to do with the 47% comment, and more to do with the prominent and persistent "Republicans Turn on Romney" headlines.
Romney's comments, while, perhaps, the best thing to say in the circumstances, reflect what is missing in his campaign. It is, of course, true enough that, in general, it is hard to beat incumbents -- especially well liked ones. For Romney supporters, however, this is not at all an ordinary, "in-general", election or incumbent. That Romney sees it that way is disconcerting.
Whatever their intention, Noonan's comments were seriously damaging. As Cass Sunstein notes, people are less persuaded by new information than by "turncoats", who can prompt the reaction “if someone like that disagrees with me, maybe I had better rethink.”. As such, the temporary boost the President had in the polls last week may have had less to do with the 47% comment, and more to do with the prominent and persistent "Republicans Turn on Romney" headlines.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Rope-A-Dope
To make a bold prediction: Romney will see a mild ~3% boost after the GOP convention. He will then -- and this is not usual -- likely see another 5% boost after the *Democrat* convention.
Romney's general campaign -- as opposed to his primary one -- has been built on a very defensive strategy. He has to win the votes of people who voted for Obama, and so is reluctant to attack Obama in a manner that criticizes their choice in '08. His choice of VP, the convention focus on his compassion and his strong support for the women in his life, was crafted not so much to convince swing voters directly to vote for him, rather to convince them that negative attacks on his business record, and attitude towards women, are dishonest. If Obama chooses now to make such attacks the centerpiece of his convention -- and what else can he do? -- he will squander his likeability advantage boosting Romney in the polls.
To make another bold prediction: I don't see how a President who wants to win re-election doesn't drop Biden from the ticket. A new, surprise, VP candidate could be a game-changer.
Romney's general campaign -- as opposed to his primary one -- has been built on a very defensive strategy. He has to win the votes of people who voted for Obama, and so is reluctant to attack Obama in a manner that criticizes their choice in '08. His choice of VP, the convention focus on his compassion and his strong support for the women in his life, was crafted not so much to convince swing voters directly to vote for him, rather to convince them that negative attacks on his business record, and attitude towards women, are dishonest. If Obama chooses now to make such attacks the centerpiece of his convention -- and what else can he do? -- he will squander his likeability advantage boosting Romney in the polls.
To make another bold prediction: I don't see how a President who wants to win re-election doesn't drop Biden from the ticket. A new, surprise, VP candidate could be a game-changer.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Social Security
While Medicare Reform is now politically front and center, Social Security is only slightly less in trouble.
Factor in the Fed's recent embrace of inflation, and it's impact on both Social Security costs, and retiree's defined benefit pensions (those retiring at 60 now -- in a best case scenario -- should expect their pension, if not inflation indexed, to lose 75% of it's value if they live to 100) and the PBGC's looming insolvency, and our retirement system is in dramatic need of repair. And that is before you question the honesty of government reported inflation numbers...
Private accounts are not sensible reform: Pushing unsophisticated investors into the arms of Wall Street doesn't end well either for retirees (who lose their shirts) or capital markets (which require informed and competent investors to rationally function).
A more sensible reform would be the proposal posted previously: Instead of [individuals] holding [bank] accounts that are, in effect, loans to Chase, subsidized by the government [/FDIC] individuals should be able to open accounts that are, in effect, loans to the Government. With the tweaks that accounts ought be capped at $250K, max account size and account interest ought be indexed to inflation and individuals ought to be able to deposit pre-tax dollars and defer all taxes until they withdraw the money.
This would go a long way to protecting the middle class as people could more effectively save both for retirement and economic downturns. It would also, likely, be a safer way to finance debt as domestic individual savers have proven themselves a more stable financing pool than alternatives. Finally, it removes a systematically risky wall street subsidy.
It likely wouldn't please democrats who want to conflate a middle class, savings based, retirement system with a "safety-net" entitlement for the poor.
Factor in the Fed's recent embrace of inflation, and it's impact on both Social Security costs, and retiree's defined benefit pensions (those retiring at 60 now -- in a best case scenario -- should expect their pension, if not inflation indexed, to lose 75% of it's value if they live to 100) and the PBGC's looming insolvency, and our retirement system is in dramatic need of repair. And that is before you question the honesty of government reported inflation numbers...
Private accounts are not sensible reform: Pushing unsophisticated investors into the arms of Wall Street doesn't end well either for retirees (who lose their shirts) or capital markets (which require informed and competent investors to rationally function).
A more sensible reform would be the proposal posted previously: Instead of [individuals] holding [bank] accounts that are, in effect, loans to Chase, subsidized by the government [/FDIC] individuals should be able to open accounts that are, in effect, loans to the Government. With the tweaks that accounts ought be capped at $250K, max account size and account interest ought be indexed to inflation and individuals ought to be able to deposit pre-tax dollars and defer all taxes until they withdraw the money.
This would go a long way to protecting the middle class as people could more effectively save both for retirement and economic downturns. It would also, likely, be a safer way to finance debt as domestic individual savers have proven themselves a more stable financing pool than alternatives. Finally, it removes a systematically risky wall street subsidy.
It likely wouldn't please democrats who want to conflate a middle class, savings based, retirement system with a "safety-net" entitlement for the poor.
Friday, June 29, 2012
ObamaCare and Roberts
Before the decision, liberals were desperately afraid of a political 5-4 result. Today they celebrate a political 5-4 result.
In retrospect, no other result was probable. Obama surrogates were clear that if the court overturned ObamaCare, questioning the legitimacy of the court would have been at the heart of his re-election campaign. Any responsible Justice would seek to avoid that. This also means the court couldn't very well punt -- an Obama re-election would put the court on even weaker ground. On the other hand, there was no way Roberts, or even Kennedy, were not going to uphold federalist principles, which are the bedrock of what it means to be a conservative judge.
Roberts' decision had obvious flaws. It is cumbersome to read in full and it's logic is uneven. However, last minute or not, was absolute genius.
In particular, as he noted "resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries." Conservatives, above all, should understand that the court cannot simply resolve political controversies by coming down on one side or the other: Abortion is still a political controversy and Gay marriage will continue to be long after the court expands the constitution to include it. In a democracy, the only way to settle political controversies is to persuade the public. When the court ham-handedly wades into a controversy it cannot resolve, it does so at the expense of its institutional authority.
Roberts opinion is attentive to public opinion in a number of ways. It contains a number of deadly, made-for-repetition, sound-bites. His "umpire"-style, even-handedness, will now be so fixed in the public mind that liberal critics will damage only their own credibility when they (inevitably) return to accusing him of being a partisan ideologue. Had the court overturned the unpopular mandate, Democratic candidates, Obama above all, would have been able to distance themselves from it in the fall, whereas certifying the mandate as a tax is an obvious gift to Republican candidates. Contributing to a Republican victory is the most effective manner -- even for a Chief Justice -- to settle this controversy in the favor of conservatives.
Finally, and above all, Congresses' politically easier spending, necessary and proper and commerce powers are all now more limited. ObamaCare would never have passed if its supporters were forced to acknowledge the mandate as a tax. Future, similar, congressional power graps will have to more honestly confront their tax-ness during the legislative process and therefore are -- Roberts has ensured -- less politically viable.
In retrospect, no other result was probable. Obama surrogates were clear that if the court overturned ObamaCare, questioning the legitimacy of the court would have been at the heart of his re-election campaign. Any responsible Justice would seek to avoid that. This also means the court couldn't very well punt -- an Obama re-election would put the court on even weaker ground. On the other hand, there was no way Roberts, or even Kennedy, were not going to uphold federalist principles, which are the bedrock of what it means to be a conservative judge.
Roberts' decision had obvious flaws. It is cumbersome to read in full and it's logic is uneven. However, last minute or not, was absolute genius.
In particular, as he noted "resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries." Conservatives, above all, should understand that the court cannot simply resolve political controversies by coming down on one side or the other: Abortion is still a political controversy and Gay marriage will continue to be long after the court expands the constitution to include it. In a democracy, the only way to settle political controversies is to persuade the public. When the court ham-handedly wades into a controversy it cannot resolve, it does so at the expense of its institutional authority.
Roberts opinion is attentive to public opinion in a number of ways. It contains a number of deadly, made-for-repetition, sound-bites. His "umpire"-style, even-handedness, will now be so fixed in the public mind that liberal critics will damage only their own credibility when they (inevitably) return to accusing him of being a partisan ideologue. Had the court overturned the unpopular mandate, Democratic candidates, Obama above all, would have been able to distance themselves from it in the fall, whereas certifying the mandate as a tax is an obvious gift to Republican candidates. Contributing to a Republican victory is the most effective manner -- even for a Chief Justice -- to settle this controversy in the favor of conservatives.
Finally, and above all, Congresses' politically easier spending, necessary and proper and commerce powers are all now more limited. ObamaCare would never have passed if its supporters were forced to acknowledge the mandate as a tax. Future, similar, congressional power graps will have to more honestly confront their tax-ness during the legislative process and therefore are -- Roberts has ensured -- less politically viable.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Protesting Too Much
The Polish government is most unhappy with President Obama for referring to a "Polish death camp" rather than a "German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland."
There is no question that the Camp in question was a German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland. And there is no question that many Poles acquitted themselves righteously.
However, the Polish attitude towards the Holocaust is often distasteful. To listen to the Polish tour guide who took me through Auschwitz, one might have realized that it was Jews and not Poles generally that were targeted. There is no question that Poland was not simply hospitable to its Jewish residents and that it was not, simply, an innocent, helpless, victim, of the holocaust.
There is no question that the Camp in question was a German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland. And there is no question that many Poles acquitted themselves righteously.
However, the Polish attitude towards the Holocaust is often distasteful. To listen to the Polish tour guide who took me through Auschwitz, one might have realized that it was Jews and not Poles generally that were targeted. There is no question that Poland was not simply hospitable to its Jewish residents and that it was not, simply, an innocent, helpless, victim, of the holocaust.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Intellectual vs Intelligent III
In a NYTimes Blog, University of Texas Law Professor, Sanford Levinson, argues that "the American political system [is] dysfunctional, even pathological" and the Constitution is, in large part, to blame.
His lesser critiques include "the clauses that helped to entrench chattel slavery," the unpopular Electoral College, which will produce this year "yet another election that 'battleground states' will dominate while the three largest states will be largely ignored," and "our vaunted system of 'separation of powers'" which "means that we rarely have anything that can truly be described as a 'government.'"
His primary critique is that "our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world" which "prevents needed reforms." We do not recognize that there "is anything to be concerned about" because Americans "have seemingly lost their capacity for thinking seriously about the extent to which the Constitution serves us well." The needed reforms he has in mind include increased use of referendum, "permit[ting] each newly elected president to appoint 50 members of the House and 10 members of the Senate," (or "reducing, if not eliminating, the president’s power to veto legislation."), requiring the votes of "seven of the nine Supreme Court justices... to overturn national legislation" and a judicial appointment process that is "electorally accountable" and by commission "to limit the politicization of the... process."
This primary critique betrays a startling ignorance of the role the constitution plays in our society. As a nation of immigrants without unifying ethnic, religious or historical attachments, we are bound together entirely through an American Bible, of which the constitution is the most important part -- why else would liberal Manhattanites and conservative Texans willingly allow the others votes to hold power over their lives? The constitution serves this function to the degree it is commonly revered. The common reverence for the constitution goes hand-in-hand with the difficulty involved, the social consensus required, in amending it.
In general, its hard to see how his argument translates to any concrete concerns. For example, the only evident impact of having Florida, rather than California and Texas, dominate campaign focus, is that campaigns are less expensive and, therefore, less reliant on large donors they they might otherwise be. More fundamentally, gridlock in Washington reflects a public deeply unsure and divided about how best to meet the challenges facing us. Its hard to see how an intelligent person could believe unquestioningly that empowering government to act more decisively in the absence of social consensus would lead to better political policy. Or rather, one doesn't have to read too deeply between the lines, to see in Professor Levinson (and those like him) a person who has given up on Democracy.
His lesser critiques include "the clauses that helped to entrench chattel slavery," the unpopular Electoral College, which will produce this year "yet another election that 'battleground states' will dominate while the three largest states will be largely ignored," and "our vaunted system of 'separation of powers'" which "means that we rarely have anything that can truly be described as a 'government.'"
His primary critique is that "our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world" which "prevents needed reforms." We do not recognize that there "is anything to be concerned about" because Americans "have seemingly lost their capacity for thinking seriously about the extent to which the Constitution serves us well." The needed reforms he has in mind include increased use of referendum, "permit[ting] each newly elected president to appoint 50 members of the House and 10 members of the Senate," (or "reducing, if not eliminating, the president’s power to veto legislation."), requiring the votes of "seven of the nine Supreme Court justices... to overturn national legislation" and a judicial appointment process that is "electorally accountable" and by commission "to limit the politicization of the... process."
This primary critique betrays a startling ignorance of the role the constitution plays in our society. As a nation of immigrants without unifying ethnic, religious or historical attachments, we are bound together entirely through an American Bible, of which the constitution is the most important part -- why else would liberal Manhattanites and conservative Texans willingly allow the others votes to hold power over their lives? The constitution serves this function to the degree it is commonly revered. The common reverence for the constitution goes hand-in-hand with the difficulty involved, the social consensus required, in amending it.
In general, its hard to see how his argument translates to any concrete concerns. For example, the only evident impact of having Florida, rather than California and Texas, dominate campaign focus, is that campaigns are less expensive and, therefore, less reliant on large donors they they might otherwise be. More fundamentally, gridlock in Washington reflects a public deeply unsure and divided about how best to meet the challenges facing us. Its hard to see how an intelligent person could believe unquestioningly that empowering government to act more decisively in the absence of social consensus would lead to better political policy. Or rather, one doesn't have to read too deeply between the lines, to see in Professor Levinson (and those like him) a person who has given up on Democracy.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
ObamaCare and the Court, Day 2
Our favorite justice, Alito, emphasized our argument:
Ginsberg had, one of the stronger arguments of the day -- "There's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, oh, yes, that's fine, but if the government wants to get — to preserve private insurers, it can't do that" -- and one of the weakest, arguing that insurance "works" by forcing one group of people to subsidize another.
On the whole, Roberts seemed sympathetic to the government's argument that "almost everybody is going to enter the health care market" with the caveat that "you cannot say that everybody is going to need substance [ab]use treatment... and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase." While Kennedy seemed to waffle (or wobble?), a decision which upheld the mandate only narrowly for catastrophic care, might be the impractical kind of equanimity Kennedy in winter seems to like best.
JUSTICE ALITO: ...here the reason why there is cost shifting is because the government has mandated that. It has required hospitals to provide emergency treatment, and instead of paying for that through a tax which would be born by everybody, it has required — it has set up a system in which the cost is surreptitiously shifted to people who have health insurance and who pay their bills when they go to the hospital.
MR. CLEMENT: Justice Alito, that is exactly the government's argument. It's an extraordinarily illogical argument.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, now why is that? Congress could — once you — once you establish that you have a market for health care, I would suppose Congress's power under the Commerce Clause meant they had a broad scope in terms of how they regulate that market. And it would be — it would be going back to Lochner if we were put in the position of saying no, you can use your commerce power to regulate insurance, but you can't use your commerce power to regulate this market in other ways. I think that would be a very significant intrusion by the Court into Congress's power.Ginsberg had, one of the stronger arguments of the day -- "There's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, oh, yes, that's fine, but if the government wants to get — to preserve private insurers, it can't do that" -- and one of the weakest, arguing that insurance "works" by forcing one group of people to subsidize another.
On the whole, Roberts seemed sympathetic to the government's argument that "almost everybody is going to enter the health care market" with the caveat that "you cannot say that everybody is going to need substance [ab]use treatment... and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase." While Kennedy seemed to waffle (or wobble?), a decision which upheld the mandate only narrowly for catastrophic care, might be the impractical kind of equanimity Kennedy in winter seems to like best.
Monday, March 26, 2012
ObamaCare and the Court
There are three basic arguments in support of Obamacare's constitutionality.
The first, and perhaps most honest, is political: The administration will ensure there are grave political consequences should Obamacare be overturned. To this end, influential surrogates argue that any legal opposition to Obamacare is partisan and illegitimate.
The second is both most common and, to my ears, incoherent. The argument is congress has a right to impose the individual mandate because "The uninsured don’t exist apart from commerce. To the contrary, their medical care results in some $43 billion of uncovered health care costs annually." These costs, of course, are economic activity entirely created by government rules requiring hospitals treat people who cant pay. By way of analogy: Do liberals really believe that the government can pass a law requiring all restaurants feed anyone who comes in regardless of ability to pay, and then -- because restaurants would otherwise all go out of business -- mandate that everyone eat out once a week or pay a penalty?
The most compelling argument is, for lack of a better term, "realist": The conservative argument "liberty is at stake," is undermined by the recognition that congress could have accomplished the same policy through constitutionally permissible, if politically impossible, means. The weakness of that argument is, simply, it frames a vote against Obamacare as a vote for the rule of law. Further, if the liberal view is that liberty is best protected by voters rather than courts, then the courts ought be hostile towards laws that would be politically impossible pass properly.
One gets the sense that Roberts (and, for different reasons, Kennedy) is very sensitive to political pressure, and -- given the reasonable chance elections will wash this issue away -- would be very eager to punt. A punt -- hampering the economy with continued uncertainly -- would also be most damaging politically to Obama. On the other hand, should Kennedy wish to honor his lifelong federalism, he will likely be on much safer political ground in overturning, now, the medicaid expansion.
The first, and perhaps most honest, is political: The administration will ensure there are grave political consequences should Obamacare be overturned. To this end, influential surrogates argue that any legal opposition to Obamacare is partisan and illegitimate.
The second is both most common and, to my ears, incoherent. The argument is congress has a right to impose the individual mandate because "The uninsured don’t exist apart from commerce. To the contrary, their medical care results in some $43 billion of uncovered health care costs annually." These costs, of course, are economic activity entirely created by government rules requiring hospitals treat people who cant pay. By way of analogy: Do liberals really believe that the government can pass a law requiring all restaurants feed anyone who comes in regardless of ability to pay, and then -- because restaurants would otherwise all go out of business -- mandate that everyone eat out once a week or pay a penalty?
The most compelling argument is, for lack of a better term, "realist": The conservative argument "liberty is at stake," is undermined by the recognition that congress could have accomplished the same policy through constitutionally permissible, if politically impossible, means. The weakness of that argument is, simply, it frames a vote against Obamacare as a vote for the rule of law. Further, if the liberal view is that liberty is best protected by voters rather than courts, then the courts ought be hostile towards laws that would be politically impossible pass properly.
One gets the sense that Roberts (and, for different reasons, Kennedy) is very sensitive to political pressure, and -- given the reasonable chance elections will wash this issue away -- would be very eager to punt. A punt -- hampering the economy with continued uncertainly -- would also be most damaging politically to Obama. On the other hand, should Kennedy wish to honor his lifelong federalism, he will likely be on much safer political ground in overturning, now, the medicaid expansion.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Faith and Courage
David Brooks argues that though "we’ve become accustomed to the faith-driven athlete", being a "religious person in professional sports" is an "anomaly" and "problematic." This is because "the moral ethos of sport is in tension with the moral ethos of faith... The sports hero is assertive, proud and intimidating... his primary virtue is courage." On the other hand "the religious ethos is about redemption... humility is the primary virtue... you achieve your identity through self-effacement.... you lead most boldly when you consider yourself an instrument of a larger cause". Brooks concludes that "the two moral universes are not reconcilable."
This is entirely foolish. While Brooks may be narrowly correct that there is some abstract intellectual tension, the fact that faith-driven athletes are commonplace is evidence that the values of faith resonate rather than conflict with their professional lives. This is no great puzzle. In Brooks' description, religious values are very aligned with the crucial values of teamwork. It should be obvious that it is no coincidence that religiosity appears more prevalent within the world of team sports. More fundamentally, how does Brooks fail to understand the degree to which courage can be ground in faith?
In the end, it is hardly surprising that a man enamored as Brooks is with paternalistic social science would indulge conceptual castles over the testified experience of others.
This is entirely foolish. While Brooks may be narrowly correct that there is some abstract intellectual tension, the fact that faith-driven athletes are commonplace is evidence that the values of faith resonate rather than conflict with their professional lives. This is no great puzzle. In Brooks' description, religious values are very aligned with the crucial values of teamwork. It should be obvious that it is no coincidence that religiosity appears more prevalent within the world of team sports. More fundamentally, how does Brooks fail to understand the degree to which courage can be ground in faith?
In the end, it is hardly surprising that a man enamored as Brooks is with paternalistic social science would indulge conceptual castles over the testified experience of others.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Brooks and Krugman II
While this blog is often critical of David Brooks, it can give credit where due. What is not to love about his deserved, if petulant, absolute smack-down of colleague Krugman?
Over the past two weeks, Charles Murray’s book, “Coming Apart,” has restarted the social disruption debate. But, judging by the firestorm, you would have no idea that the sociological and psychological research of the past 25 years even existed... his left-wing critics in the blogosphere have reverted to crude 1970s economic determinism...
Liberal economists haven’t silenced conservatives, but they have completely eclipsed liberal sociologists and liberal psychologists. Even noneconomist commentators reduce the rich texture of how disadvantage is actually lived to a crude materialism that has little to do with reality.
This economic determinism would be bad enough if it was just making public debate dumber. But the amputation of sociologic, psychological and cognitive considerations makes good policy impossible.
The American social fabric is now so depleted that even if manufacturing jobs miraculously came back we still would not be producing enough stable, skilled workers to fill them. It’s not enough just to have economic growth policies. The country also needs to rebuild orderly communities...
Social repair requires sociological thinking. The depressing lesson of the last few weeks is that the public debate is dominated by people who stopped thinking in 1975.
Monday, February 13, 2012
(We Take Care of) (Our Own)
Springsteen's music, for good reason, is often associated with progressive politics. However, it plainly resonates with conservatives as well, for equally good reason: The values of Springsteen's protagonists are frequently conservative values -- faith, community, courage and work.
Along these lines, was the famous faux-controversy, when Reagan was criticized for saying "America's future rests in... the message of hope in the songs of... Bruce Springsteen." -- however Springsteen may have intended the message of "Born in the U.S.A." (and the most likely intention was simply "to sell") -- Reagan did not mis-characterize the message (most of) its mass-audience heard.
Bruce's latest release, performed last night at the Grammy's, and seemingly written for the Obama 2012 campaign is an open attempt to bridge these poles. The song argues for progressive social policy ("We take care of...") on the basis of conservative, nationalistic, values ("...our own; Wherever this flag's flown...").
While this is, perhaps, savvy messaging, it has to be said that the combination of Nationalism and Socialism is, at the very least, in-artful and unfortunate.
Along these lines, was the famous faux-controversy, when Reagan was criticized for saying "America's future rests in... the message of hope in the songs of... Bruce Springsteen." -- however Springsteen may have intended the message of "Born in the U.S.A." (and the most likely intention was simply "to sell") -- Reagan did not mis-characterize the message (most of) its mass-audience heard.
Bruce's latest release, performed last night at the Grammy's, and seemingly written for the Obama 2012 campaign is an open attempt to bridge these poles. The song argues for progressive social policy ("We take care of...") on the basis of conservative, nationalistic, values ("...our own; Wherever this flag's flown...").
While this is, perhaps, savvy messaging, it has to be said that the combination of Nationalism and Socialism is, at the very least, in-artful and unfortunate.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Brooks and Krugman
David Brooks hypes Coming Apart. He describes it as arguing "the country has bifurcated into different social tribes... the educated upper tribe (20 percent of the country) and the lower tribe (30 percent of the country)... the lower tribe are much less likely to get married, less likely to go to church, less likely to be active in their communities, more likely to watch TV excessively, more likely to be obese." They are also much less likely to work. He claims that this disproves the arguments of both parties "in which the problems of the masses are caused by the elites" (Wall Street/Media). He argues that this calls for "a National Service Program."
Krugman, of course, argues that causality is reversed: "young men, confronting the reality that they won’t earn anything near as much in real terms as their fathers did... don’t marry and raise families the way the previous generation did"
Krugman's argument is stunningly besides the point. It should go without saying both that the more financial comfort one has the easier it is to uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities and that the more people uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities the better off economically they are likely to be. If the reality of an increasingly competitive world in which the US controls a shrinking share of the global economy, (amongst other factors) is a toughening economic outlook for under-skilled labor, then it is more important now than ever for people to uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities.
Brooks' argument is stunningly blind. It may well be that the "20 percent" "live more conservative, traditionalist lives than the cultural masses", but the 1 percent that dominate the media clearly do not. To the degree that the left fancies itself as standing for social responsibility, it is hard to understand why they are so resistant to the argument that our cultural elites have a responsibility to our most vulnerable countrymen who lack the personal and communal resources to resist -- as the "20 percent" do -- the economically destructive messages which flood our airwaves.
Krugman, of course, argues that causality is reversed: "young men, confronting the reality that they won’t earn anything near as much in real terms as their fathers did... don’t marry and raise families the way the previous generation did"
Krugman's argument is stunningly besides the point. It should go without saying both that the more financial comfort one has the easier it is to uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities and that the more people uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities the better off economically they are likely to be. If the reality of an increasingly competitive world in which the US controls a shrinking share of the global economy, (amongst other factors) is a toughening economic outlook for under-skilled labor, then it is more important now than ever for people to uphold personal, family and communal responsibilities.
Brooks' argument is stunningly blind. It may well be that the "20 percent" "live more conservative, traditionalist lives than the cultural masses", but the 1 percent that dominate the media clearly do not. To the degree that the left fancies itself as standing for social responsibility, it is hard to understand why they are so resistant to the argument that our cultural elites have a responsibility to our most vulnerable countrymen who lack the personal and communal resources to resist -- as the "20 percent" do -- the economically destructive messages which flood our airwaves.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Paterno and Pedestals
One irony of the firing of Joe Paterno was that, in the end, it served to protect his legacy. It allowed him to be held to account for the scandal he did not do enough to stop, enabling the story-line "He made a grave mistake, for which he accepted, with grace, his [ultimate] punishment, but look at all the good he did..." Another irony is, in contrast, how self-serving, hypocritical and without grace the Penn State trustees who fired him appear.
Also not in a good light, are those who, at the beginning of the scandal, seemed to take perverse joy in the take-down of JoePa. And while there is an obvious accomplishment gap, Paterno and Tebow shared this sort of critic. The ones who finds Virtue and Character threatening rather than inspiring. To whom the need for "everybody does it" self-affirmation overwhelms any desire for self-improvement.
Also not in a good light, are those who, at the beginning of the scandal, seemed to take perverse joy in the take-down of JoePa. And while there is an obvious accomplishment gap, Paterno and Tebow shared this sort of critic. The ones who finds Virtue and Character threatening rather than inspiring. To whom the need for "everybody does it" self-affirmation overwhelms any desire for self-improvement.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Intellectual vs Intelligent II
The Time's Room For Debate, bravely considers research by conservative think tanks that argue that taking into account "standardized tests of cognitive skill" teachers are paid "roughly 50 percent above private sector levels."
Opposing this view are Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at Rutgers, who argues that "comparing teachers to other workers with similar education, experience and weekly work hours... teachers are underpaid by about 19 percent" and that "a cognitive ability model that does not account for education level is meaningless, because individuals are employed in jobs that depend on the skills acquired through education" and David Z. Hambrick, an associate professor at Michigan State University, who acknowledges research that demonstrates that "measures of general intelligence are... the single best predictor of job performance across a wide range of occupations," but none-the-less asserts that "as a society" we decide to pay more critical professions more -- for example, he notes, heart surgeons are more important than electricians -- and contrasts the compensation of entry-level teachers (it comes to about $20 / hour, he calculates) and bartenders (who apparently can make double that) to argue we don't pay teachers enough.
Again, it is hard to take these academics with any seriousness. The suggestion that a master's degree in education imparts skills similar to a master's degree in physics, engineering or even business is precious. The research acknowledged by the Hambrick more or less contradicts Keefe's argument. Hambrick's argument itself is beyond foolish. Wages, of course, are determined by supply and demand (and, too often, political influence), not, as he bizarrely asserts, relative importance. And it is hard to imagine that he honestly discounts the lack (wealth) of fringe benefits, career opportunity and job stability built into a bartender's (teacher's) hourly rate.
It should be noted that Conservatives need not embrace the argument that teachers are overpaid. If not true -- if members of one of the most powerful unions in America are compensated similarly to, or even less than, equivalent non-organized private sector workers -- it would be the strongest argument against unionization imaginable.
Opposing this view are Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at Rutgers, who argues that "comparing teachers to other workers with similar education, experience and weekly work hours... teachers are underpaid by about 19 percent" and that "a cognitive ability model that does not account for education level is meaningless, because individuals are employed in jobs that depend on the skills acquired through education" and David Z. Hambrick, an associate professor at Michigan State University, who acknowledges research that demonstrates that "measures of general intelligence are... the single best predictor of job performance across a wide range of occupations," but none-the-less asserts that "as a society" we decide to pay more critical professions more -- for example, he notes, heart surgeons are more important than electricians -- and contrasts the compensation of entry-level teachers (it comes to about $20 / hour, he calculates) and bartenders (who apparently can make double that) to argue we don't pay teachers enough.
Again, it is hard to take these academics with any seriousness. The suggestion that a master's degree in education imparts skills similar to a master's degree in physics, engineering or even business is precious. The research acknowledged by the Hambrick more or less contradicts Keefe's argument. Hambrick's argument itself is beyond foolish. Wages, of course, are determined by supply and demand (and, too often, political influence), not, as he bizarrely asserts, relative importance. And it is hard to imagine that he honestly discounts the lack (wealth) of fringe benefits, career opportunity and job stability built into a bartender's (teacher's) hourly rate.
It should be noted that Conservatives need not embrace the argument that teachers are overpaid. If not true -- if members of one of the most powerful unions in America are compensated similarly to, or even less than, equivalent non-organized private sector workers -- it would be the strongest argument against unionization imaginable.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Mis-Understanding Debt
In a column ironically titled "Nobody Understands Debt", Krugman argues that national debt is not "like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments" for at least two reasons: "Governments don't [have to pay back their debt] -- all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base," and "an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves"
The first reason is, inescapably, the logic of a Ponzi scheme.
There is some truth to the second reason. National debt held domestically is less dangerous for the obvious reason that paying it down does not directly shrink the national economy, but also, and more importantly, because citizen-debt holders are "stickier" than other investors: If Greeks were willing and able to purchase Greek sovereign debt, it would not be in crisis now.
In any case, he clarifies this as not even being true: "Foreigners now hold... a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners." In other words, paying down the debt will shrink the national economy (unless these 89 cents worth of U.S. claims are simultaneously called in), and U.S. debt is not in (or roll-over-able into) stickier hands.
Complementing the column's hollow argument, is Krugman's habitual bombastic dismissal of opposing views. Those he disagrees with are "disconnected... from the suffering of ordinary Americans", "have no idea what they're talking about", are "repeatedly, utterly wrong" and, in case the nuance here was too subtle for the gentle reader, are guilty of "wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession." This sort of political rhetoric is, obviously, designed to minimize analysis or reflection and very effective -- taken seriously, it can tie one's sense of self-worth to particular political conviction: by aping Krugman, one demonstrates being informed and right-minded.
While there is, of course, no shortage of equivalent rhetoric on the right, Ann Coulter, for example, doesn't carry anything like the academic or intellectual pretension of Krugman.
The first reason is, inescapably, the logic of a Ponzi scheme.
There is some truth to the second reason. National debt held domestically is less dangerous for the obvious reason that paying it down does not directly shrink the national economy, but also, and more importantly, because citizen-debt holders are "stickier" than other investors: If Greeks were willing and able to purchase Greek sovereign debt, it would not be in crisis now.
In any case, he clarifies this as not even being true: "Foreigners now hold... a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners." In other words, paying down the debt will shrink the national economy (unless these 89 cents worth of U.S. claims are simultaneously called in), and U.S. debt is not in (or roll-over-able into) stickier hands.
Complementing the column's hollow argument, is Krugman's habitual bombastic dismissal of opposing views. Those he disagrees with are "disconnected... from the suffering of ordinary Americans", "have no idea what they're talking about", are "repeatedly, utterly wrong" and, in case the nuance here was too subtle for the gentle reader, are guilty of "wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession." This sort of political rhetoric is, obviously, designed to minimize analysis or reflection and very effective -- taken seriously, it can tie one's sense of self-worth to particular political conviction: by aping Krugman, one demonstrates being informed and right-minded.
While there is, of course, no shortage of equivalent rhetoric on the right, Ann Coulter, for example, doesn't carry anything like the academic or intellectual pretension of Krugman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)