As promised, I’m moving on to the other amendments today. I’m not equating “rights” with “things listed in the constitution,” it just provides a handy framework.
I don’t think there’s much doubt that social conservatives are more likely to have an expansive view of the 2nd amendment. Social conservatives are more likely to perceive there to be a right to gun ownership, and in some cases a right to use those guns to resist the actions of a tyrannical government, than are progressives. Progressives, especially in crime-ridden inner cities, are likely to see guns as a blight that kills people.
I have some issues with the socially conservative stance, which is this; that I think the possession of a gun by my neighbor is inherently coercive. When push comes to shove, if government is otherwise leaving us alone, the guy with the gun has the power to take away any rights I might have. This is why I don’t think gun ownership is really a libertarian position; rather, gun ownership establishes a series of small groups with the power to govern those around them. The ownership of a hunting rifle or a pistol does little to actually enable people to resist government tanks, fighter jets, cruise missiles, etc. Essentially, it only protects people from government when government isn’t very serious about being oppressive. Perhaps that should be a whole blog entry, sometime. In any case, social conservatives at least have an argument that they are more in favor of individual rights here.
The third amendment, which has to do with government quartering the military in peoples houses, isn’t really an issue in modern politics, so I’ll skip it.
The fourth amendment is search and seizure. I think the social conservative record on this is truly abysmal. J. Edgar Hoover, despite his personal quirks, was a social conservative. George W. Bush is a social conservative. The guy who stood up at a town meeting in Norfolk and said he had nothing to hide and that government was welcome to search his underwear if that would help them stop the next 9/11, was a social conservatives. Progressives have things to hide – we’re up to all sorts of edgy and kinky things. We think that telecom companies should be prosecuted for helping the government spy on people, we think that the Patriot act should be repealed, and we think domestic spying should require a warrant – hey, just like the fourth amendment says. Big win for the Progressives.
The fifth throught seventh amendments have been squished on by GWB, too, in failing to provide trials, but I don’t think this can be laid at the door of social conservatives, per se. It’s really kind of a unique aberration to GWB, not seen since Abraham Lincoln – who was a progressive. On the other hand, it’s worth noting here that conservative judges are far less likely to grant appeals by criminals, including those on death row, and for less likely to overturn sentences. To that degree, social conservatives are less likely to uphold the rights of the accused. Having said that, there’s a way one can take this too far – when “reasonable doubt” becomes sufficiently broadly defined, convictions become virtually impossible, and we become less free because we are not protected from individual takings of our freedom (robberies, murders, etc.) I don’t really think we’re close to that point, however, so that’s a theoretical argument. A less socially conservative judiciary would almost certainly improve the preservation of the rights enumerated in the fifth amendment.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Who cares most about your freedom?
I had a conversation recently with a conservative who claimed that social conservatives were better at protecting individual liberties than their progressive counterparts. Some good points were made, and I thought I’d examine this by going through the bill of rights in a semi-methodical way. It looks like this may be a series, as I only made it part way into the first amendment today.
Amendment I: Freedom of Speech; Freedom of the Press. I’m rolling these into one because I think in modern times this has pretty much been considered one right. Rather than two separate rights, one to speak in the public square, the other to print things on paper products, we now see a “freedom of expression” that covers television, the internet, displays of sculpture, etc. I would say that interpretation has been a boon to freedom, and that it’s a primarily liberal achievement, one of interpreting the “spirit of a living document” as opposed to strict constructionism. This isn’t really about the past, however, it’s about the present.
Progressive are far more in favor of hate crime legislation, and bans on hate speech. There’s some reasons for this that are to progressives credit, but the net effect is chilling to speech, and has government deciding what sorts of expressions are acceptable. Score one for conservatives.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are far more likely to decide it’s important to regulate erotic speech. There’s a portion of the liberal movement (Cynthia MacKinnon) et al, that sees pornography as an attempt by men to subjugate women, and uses that as a way to push for speech limits, but I think they’ve lost traction, on the whole. Conservatives are more likely to try to punish “indecency” ala Janet Jackson, and so forth, by levying fines, I think, which has the intent of chilling speech. Liberals are more comfortable with George Carlin’s 7 words. I think, though, as a governing matter, progressives tend to let conservatives get their way here, because they perceive that it gives the least offence, so the actual value to liberty of having progressives in charge is fairly small, except at the judicial level.
Social conservatives are for filtering in libraries, and in general are in favor of library censorship to a far greater degree than are progressives. They go for the listener, essentially, instead of after the speaker.
On the whole, I’m absolutely convinced that progressives believe in these freedoms more than conservatives do, but sadly, I think as a matter of government it’s about a wash.
Amendment I: Freedom of religion, and freedom from government establishment thereof.
By and large, we are indeed free to choose the religion of our choice in this country, and neither social conservatives nor liberals are inclined to change that much. The notable exception is the military, which chooses to recognize or not recognize certain religions as being legitimate, and decides which religious symbols are acceptable to display on the gravestones of veterans. Here, at least, progressives are clearly on the greater freedom side of the issue. We’ll find this a repeating theme, actually; progressives almost always favor greater freedom for people in the military.
Social conservatives are far more likely to advocate that time be set aside in public events for prayer; they are far more likely to assert that Christian and/or Jewish displays are normative and that Buddhist/Wiccan/etc. displays are not, on public property. Progressives are far more likely to think that the solution to discriminatory religious display policies is to allow no religious displays at all, and it’s hard to see how that makes people more free.
Social Conservatives are responsible for the state establishment of religion in the “Under God” clause of the pledge of allegiance.
Social Conservatives are more likely to think it’s appropriate to “profile” Muslims as potential terrorists, and to do so in a way that inhibits their freedoms and essentially punishes them for their religion.
On to the right to assemble and petition next time.
Amendment I: Freedom of Speech; Freedom of the Press. I’m rolling these into one because I think in modern times this has pretty much been considered one right. Rather than two separate rights, one to speak in the public square, the other to print things on paper products, we now see a “freedom of expression” that covers television, the internet, displays of sculpture, etc. I would say that interpretation has been a boon to freedom, and that it’s a primarily liberal achievement, one of interpreting the “spirit of a living document” as opposed to strict constructionism. This isn’t really about the past, however, it’s about the present.
Progressive are far more in favor of hate crime legislation, and bans on hate speech. There’s some reasons for this that are to progressives credit, but the net effect is chilling to speech, and has government deciding what sorts of expressions are acceptable. Score one for conservatives.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are far more likely to decide it’s important to regulate erotic speech. There’s a portion of the liberal movement (Cynthia MacKinnon) et al, that sees pornography as an attempt by men to subjugate women, and uses that as a way to push for speech limits, but I think they’ve lost traction, on the whole. Conservatives are more likely to try to punish “indecency” ala Janet Jackson, and so forth, by levying fines, I think, which has the intent of chilling speech. Liberals are more comfortable with George Carlin’s 7 words. I think, though, as a governing matter, progressives tend to let conservatives get their way here, because they perceive that it gives the least offence, so the actual value to liberty of having progressives in charge is fairly small, except at the judicial level.
Social conservatives are for filtering in libraries, and in general are in favor of library censorship to a far greater degree than are progressives. They go for the listener, essentially, instead of after the speaker.
On the whole, I’m absolutely convinced that progressives believe in these freedoms more than conservatives do, but sadly, I think as a matter of government it’s about a wash.
Amendment I: Freedom of religion, and freedom from government establishment thereof.
By and large, we are indeed free to choose the religion of our choice in this country, and neither social conservatives nor liberals are inclined to change that much. The notable exception is the military, which chooses to recognize or not recognize certain religions as being legitimate, and decides which religious symbols are acceptable to display on the gravestones of veterans. Here, at least, progressives are clearly on the greater freedom side of the issue. We’ll find this a repeating theme, actually; progressives almost always favor greater freedom for people in the military.
Social conservatives are far more likely to advocate that time be set aside in public events for prayer; they are far more likely to assert that Christian and/or Jewish displays are normative and that Buddhist/Wiccan/etc. displays are not, on public property. Progressives are far more likely to think that the solution to discriminatory religious display policies is to allow no religious displays at all, and it’s hard to see how that makes people more free.
Social Conservatives are responsible for the state establishment of religion in the “Under God” clause of the pledge of allegiance.
Social Conservatives are more likely to think it’s appropriate to “profile” Muslims as potential terrorists, and to do so in a way that inhibits their freedoms and essentially punishes them for their religion.
On to the right to assemble and petition next time.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The GM Bailout
The auto industry is on Capitol Hill today, asking for money. The argument goes that if General Motors goes into bankruptcy, the job loss and the resultant tax revenue loss will push our economy from recession to depression. But the question is not only whether we should bail them out – it’s how we should do it.
There are several different models to follow. The first, used to revive Chrysler 29 years ago, is a loan guarantee. In this model, the federal government put up no money directly at all, but simply guaranteed a loan that Chrysler got from a private source, making taxpayers liable for the bill if Chrysler ultimately defaulted. Other than the taxes Chrysler would ultimately pay if it survived, there wasn’t a lot for the Federal government to gain in this scenario, but those tax revenues were significant. The bailout also came with an attached string: Chrysler could only get the money if it found a way to save a large amount in the way it did business. Essentially, the bailout gave Chrysler leverage with the union. There’s some wisdom there, I think, in that it’s in large part the higher wages that the big three pay their union employees that make them unprofitable vis-à-vis BMW, Toyota, and other manufacturers that make products in the United States.
The average auto worker for the big three makes over 75 dollars an hour; for the others, over 45, so this isn’t a living wage issue.
The second model, used with the big banks, is to loan the money to the recipients directly. In this model, the government hopes to get interest on its money. The way the government chose to loan money to the banks was by taking preferred stock. If the company in question goes under, preferred stock gets paid only after every other debt the company has, which in the case of the banks would mean not at all. Preferred stock differs from common stock primarily in that it has no voting rights. In short, it provides the government with almost no safety, and virtually no leverage.
The third model, used with AIG, is to buy a real stake in the company. The company issues enough common stock to justify the payment from the government, diluting the value of its existing common stock. GM, for instance, is worth about 2 billion dollars on the market, and wants to get 25 billion dollars. After it got the 25 billion dollars, it would be worth 27 billion, so the value of 25 billion dollars of shares is 25/27th of the company, or around 93%. In short, as with AIG, the government would end up a controlling interest in General Motors, and could, theoretically, start slashing executive pay and possibly union worker pay. It could use its position to pursue goals other than profit, too, such as investing in more fuel efficient vehicles than the market really would indicate.
The reason, ultimately, that the second model carried the day with the big banks is that they didn’t want or need a bailout (at least not yet); the reason for getting them cash was to encourage them to make loans so that the rest of the economy would work better. It’s no model for the auto industry, which has come begging; if we give them that kind of deal, there’s going to be an endless line for handouts. The nation has to extract significant concessions in return for supplying money.
Part of the problem with any bailout is that it gives the bailed out company an advantage relative to it’s already solvent, not-bailed-out competitors. In short, it rewards incompetence over competence, and thereby turns the free-market system on its head.
At this point, with energy policy so important to our country, I’d rather have the country buy control of General Motors and run it in the country’s interest for a while. The country’s interest isn’t completely different than the course needed to make the company solvent, and yet it should be striking enough (no SUV production, for instance) that there are plenty of places for GM’s competitors to make money.
There are several different models to follow. The first, used to revive Chrysler 29 years ago, is a loan guarantee. In this model, the federal government put up no money directly at all, but simply guaranteed a loan that Chrysler got from a private source, making taxpayers liable for the bill if Chrysler ultimately defaulted. Other than the taxes Chrysler would ultimately pay if it survived, there wasn’t a lot for the Federal government to gain in this scenario, but those tax revenues were significant. The bailout also came with an attached string: Chrysler could only get the money if it found a way to save a large amount in the way it did business. Essentially, the bailout gave Chrysler leverage with the union. There’s some wisdom there, I think, in that it’s in large part the higher wages that the big three pay their union employees that make them unprofitable vis-à-vis BMW, Toyota, and other manufacturers that make products in the United States.
The average auto worker for the big three makes over 75 dollars an hour; for the others, over 45, so this isn’t a living wage issue.
The second model, used with the big banks, is to loan the money to the recipients directly. In this model, the government hopes to get interest on its money. The way the government chose to loan money to the banks was by taking preferred stock. If the company in question goes under, preferred stock gets paid only after every other debt the company has, which in the case of the banks would mean not at all. Preferred stock differs from common stock primarily in that it has no voting rights. In short, it provides the government with almost no safety, and virtually no leverage.
The third model, used with AIG, is to buy a real stake in the company. The company issues enough common stock to justify the payment from the government, diluting the value of its existing common stock. GM, for instance, is worth about 2 billion dollars on the market, and wants to get 25 billion dollars. After it got the 25 billion dollars, it would be worth 27 billion, so the value of 25 billion dollars of shares is 25/27th of the company, or around 93%. In short, as with AIG, the government would end up a controlling interest in General Motors, and could, theoretically, start slashing executive pay and possibly union worker pay. It could use its position to pursue goals other than profit, too, such as investing in more fuel efficient vehicles than the market really would indicate.
The reason, ultimately, that the second model carried the day with the big banks is that they didn’t want or need a bailout (at least not yet); the reason for getting them cash was to encourage them to make loans so that the rest of the economy would work better. It’s no model for the auto industry, which has come begging; if we give them that kind of deal, there’s going to be an endless line for handouts. The nation has to extract significant concessions in return for supplying money.
Part of the problem with any bailout is that it gives the bailed out company an advantage relative to it’s already solvent, not-bailed-out competitors. In short, it rewards incompetence over competence, and thereby turns the free-market system on its head.
At this point, with energy policy so important to our country, I’d rather have the country buy control of General Motors and run it in the country’s interest for a while. The country’s interest isn’t completely different than the course needed to make the company solvent, and yet it should be striking enough (no SUV production, for instance) that there are plenty of places for GM’s competitors to make money.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Future of the Republican Party
The Republican party is in shambles. It lost the presidency, at least 6 seats and possibly as many as 9 in the Senate, and 20 or so house seats this last election. More importantly, perhaps, it lost young voters, who voted Democrat by a margin of two to one. The next group of voters, those currently in high school, are largely Democrats. The only age group that McCain won are the very oldest voters.
Hispanics were another group who broke heavily blue, largely because of the rhetoric of bigots like Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado). If the Democrats managed to pass some sort of immigration reform, this portion of the electorate will not only expand even faster, but they will owe a debt to the Democratic party that will not be forgotten. Look at the way African-Americans have been reliable since the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s, and you’ll have an idea of what’s to come.
Some are suggesting that the Republican Party is now doomed, either to completely collapse like the Whig and Federalist parties of the 19th century, or to shrink to being an almost purely Southern party. I think that’s highly unlikely, although it could, theoretically, break that way. The power today’s big two political parties have is substantial. On the state level, parties adapt to whatever the local situation is, whether that means Republicans becoming liberal or Democrats becoming conservative. In short, they evolve to survive. That’s the long term picture: A party will exist to oppose the Democrats, and that party will want to have the power of a major party to use state election systems to run its primaries and such, and therefore, that party will be called the Republican Party.
But, as we know, evolution is a long process.
I think the rough outline of a party to oppose the Democrats is clear enough. About half of Americans think the government should do more, about half think it should do less. The Dems are clearly the party of more, so the opposition needs to be the party of less. It’s a role the Republicans have largely abandoned recently, but it needs to be the party of small government.
The short term prospects, however, do not look good. A rather small minority of the country, but a majority of Republicans, think that the party simply isn’t conservative enough. The passage of Proposition 8 will lure Republicans into running on an anti-gay rights platform, but the demographic distribution on that issue is even more skewed by age than the overall Democrat-Republican split, and so there’s no long term future there. Fox News and talk radio have allowed the Republicans to become a party full of people who listen almost exclusively to other Republican voices. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will pull the party further to the right, and to failure.
The key to the question of how long Republicans will spend in the wilderness is whether they continue to have primaries in states that allow independents to vote in either party’s primaries. If they do, the primary process will continue to pull at least their presidential candidate towards the center, and electability. If they start clamping down on that, and many of them would like to, the country will be divided into two groups; Democrats and Independents, making up 70+% of the country on the one side, and Republicans making up the ever shrinking remainder.
Hispanics were another group who broke heavily blue, largely because of the rhetoric of bigots like Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado). If the Democrats managed to pass some sort of immigration reform, this portion of the electorate will not only expand even faster, but they will owe a debt to the Democratic party that will not be forgotten. Look at the way African-Americans have been reliable since the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s, and you’ll have an idea of what’s to come.
Some are suggesting that the Republican Party is now doomed, either to completely collapse like the Whig and Federalist parties of the 19th century, or to shrink to being an almost purely Southern party. I think that’s highly unlikely, although it could, theoretically, break that way. The power today’s big two political parties have is substantial. On the state level, parties adapt to whatever the local situation is, whether that means Republicans becoming liberal or Democrats becoming conservative. In short, they evolve to survive. That’s the long term picture: A party will exist to oppose the Democrats, and that party will want to have the power of a major party to use state election systems to run its primaries and such, and therefore, that party will be called the Republican Party.
But, as we know, evolution is a long process.
I think the rough outline of a party to oppose the Democrats is clear enough. About half of Americans think the government should do more, about half think it should do less. The Dems are clearly the party of more, so the opposition needs to be the party of less. It’s a role the Republicans have largely abandoned recently, but it needs to be the party of small government.
The short term prospects, however, do not look good. A rather small minority of the country, but a majority of Republicans, think that the party simply isn’t conservative enough. The passage of Proposition 8 will lure Republicans into running on an anti-gay rights platform, but the demographic distribution on that issue is even more skewed by age than the overall Democrat-Republican split, and so there’s no long term future there. Fox News and talk radio have allowed the Republicans to become a party full of people who listen almost exclusively to other Republican voices. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will pull the party further to the right, and to failure.
The key to the question of how long Republicans will spend in the wilderness is whether they continue to have primaries in states that allow independents to vote in either party’s primaries. If they do, the primary process will continue to pull at least their presidential candidate towards the center, and electability. If they start clamping down on that, and many of them would like to, the country will be divided into two groups; Democrats and Independents, making up 70+% of the country on the one side, and Republicans making up the ever shrinking remainder.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Attack on Excellence
Scarcely a day passed in this election, it seemed, when “elites” were under attack. Sometimes it was John McCain, but more often it was Sarah Palin. Who are these people? How can we recognize and avoid them?
They are the kind of people, who like to spend large parts of their life in foreign countries, especially France.
They like the written word, and make a point of being widely read.
They hang out in places where they can talk to their fellow elites.
They have the hubris write “wisdom” that they think will benefit ordinary people, and publish newspapers to influence public opinion.
You get the idea. Bad people. Unamerican people. Er, like Benjamin Franklin.
“Elites” are an interesting group to attack. The word itself, of course, means a group of people who are simply better at what they do than their fellows. An elite soldier might not be a better person, but we expect that he’s a better soldier. The attack on “elite” politicians implies that being a politician is somehow inherently dishonorable, and that the better you are at it, the worse a person you are. If that were it, we could let it slide. But “elite” media types are also attacked, as if there was something inherently dishonorable about journalism.
Elites, of course, believe that you should be able to name a news source you read (not just listen to) if you are going to influence public policy. Nasty elites like Katie Couric. I saw Katie Couric hang out with Elmo once. Of course, PBS is run by “elites” too, so beware of Sesame Street.
The irony is that the same people who decry elites are the people who praise the founding fathers to the high heavens, even if they have difficulty naming very many of them. Not just the words or the overarching principles of the Constitution are sacred, but the very intent of the framers. But the framers were not ordinary people, plucked off the fields, 18th century Mr. Smiths gone to Philadelphia. They were elites. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence was so full of himself that he cut up his Bible to make a new one that would be more authentic, because he thought he could discern Jesus’ voice.
You can see it, too, in McCain’s references to Obama’s eloquence at the debates. The word “eloquent,” once a sort of back handed compliment, like articulate (oh my god, it’s a black who can talk like a man!), became an actual insult, as if the only reason one would speak well is if one were a con artist.
There we see most clearly, perhaps, the true nature of the attack on “elites.” It is nothing more, or less, than a preference for mediocrity. It isn’t truly the people who are under attack, it is the pursuit of excellence itself.
They are the kind of people, who like to spend large parts of their life in foreign countries, especially France.
They like the written word, and make a point of being widely read.
They hang out in places where they can talk to their fellow elites.
They have the hubris write “wisdom” that they think will benefit ordinary people, and publish newspapers to influence public opinion.
You get the idea. Bad people. Unamerican people. Er, like Benjamin Franklin.
“Elites” are an interesting group to attack. The word itself, of course, means a group of people who are simply better at what they do than their fellows. An elite soldier might not be a better person, but we expect that he’s a better soldier. The attack on “elite” politicians implies that being a politician is somehow inherently dishonorable, and that the better you are at it, the worse a person you are. If that were it, we could let it slide. But “elite” media types are also attacked, as if there was something inherently dishonorable about journalism.
Elites, of course, believe that you should be able to name a news source you read (not just listen to) if you are going to influence public policy. Nasty elites like Katie Couric. I saw Katie Couric hang out with Elmo once. Of course, PBS is run by “elites” too, so beware of Sesame Street.
The irony is that the same people who decry elites are the people who praise the founding fathers to the high heavens, even if they have difficulty naming very many of them. Not just the words or the overarching principles of the Constitution are sacred, but the very intent of the framers. But the framers were not ordinary people, plucked off the fields, 18th century Mr. Smiths gone to Philadelphia. They were elites. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence was so full of himself that he cut up his Bible to make a new one that would be more authentic, because he thought he could discern Jesus’ voice.
You can see it, too, in McCain’s references to Obama’s eloquence at the debates. The word “eloquent,” once a sort of back handed compliment, like articulate (oh my god, it’s a black who can talk like a man!), became an actual insult, as if the only reason one would speak well is if one were a con artist.
There we see most clearly, perhaps, the true nature of the attack on “elites.” It is nothing more, or less, than a preference for mediocrity. It isn’t truly the people who are under attack, it is the pursuit of excellence itself.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Sharing the Wealth
The last weeks of this year’s presidential campaign featured the age old debate about whether to grow the total amount of wealth, or to redistribute the wealth that exists more equitably.
One of the implicit notions in the discussion is the idea that one can measure whatever it is that ought to be maximized in an economy in terms of dollars and cents. We understand, vaguely, that when our dollar becomes $1.05 after a year, and inflation is 6 percent, that we haven’t gotten anywhere, even though the number of cents we have has increased. So wealth is judged, instead, on an inflation adjusted basis.
That’s still a kind of silly way to look at wealth.
If most of your disposable income goes into buying computers and software, then you are probably much better off than you were eight years ago, and you almost certainly will be better off in eight years than you are now. Your “wealth,” at it were, is best measured in bytes and pixels per second and the like, and you are much wealthier.
If you drive an SUV to work 60 miles and back every day, you are much worse off now than you were eight years ago, but ironically, despite the recession, you may be better of now than you were two months ago. Your disposable income is determined by how much you have left over after you pay for gas, and your wealth is best measured in gallons.
If you needed heart surgery, you are better off now than you were 20 years ago; in fact, you may be alive now where you would have been dead, thanks to the advances we have made in cardiology. If you needed insurance in order to have that surgery, you might soon be dead now, whereas 20 years ago you would have been able to afford a decent level of treatment.
But, if the GDP is up, you might die with more toys. For all the good that does you.
But let’s pretend that wealth could be measured in dollars, for a moment. It doesn’t really matter how much you grow the economy as a whole, if all the wealth is with the top 1%, and the next 99% can’t afford to eat, we’d be worse off. At some point, and we can argue where that point is, wealth can be distributed so badly that it’s no good, where, essentially, we can do amazing things for people’s hearts but no one can afford it. So at some level, distributing that wealth is helpful, even if it causes a loss in the total amount of wealth.
While wealth concentration is very helpful when investing wealth to make more wealth, when that wealth is used for consumption (buying things) it is used far more efficiently the less people have. The rich and the poor both buy plates, but the rich pay 10 times as much and do not get a plate that performs the function of holding food 10 times as well. Caviar may be better than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (although I’d debate that) but it isn’t worth as many times more as the cost would indicate. Each dollar owned and consumed by a poor person is worth more than each dollar owned and consumed by a rich person. When we want to consume for value (and that’s the end purpose to having an economic system) we want that money to be distributed evenly. When we want to invest efficiently, we want it concentrated. We’re best served, of course, by doing a little of both, keeping a balance. But the Free Market, in and of itself, doesn’t create that balance – it maximizes the return on investment, which means that it favors concentration of wealth. That is why government is needed to provide a counterweight, because years of an unregulated free market produce waste due to sub-optimal wealth distribution. The earlier in the process, and the more consistently this restraint is applied, the less forcefully it needs to be applied. Extreme Capitalism, like doctrinaire Socialism, turns out to be its own worst enemy.
One of the implicit notions in the discussion is the idea that one can measure whatever it is that ought to be maximized in an economy in terms of dollars and cents. We understand, vaguely, that when our dollar becomes $1.05 after a year, and inflation is 6 percent, that we haven’t gotten anywhere, even though the number of cents we have has increased. So wealth is judged, instead, on an inflation adjusted basis.
That’s still a kind of silly way to look at wealth.
If most of your disposable income goes into buying computers and software, then you are probably much better off than you were eight years ago, and you almost certainly will be better off in eight years than you are now. Your “wealth,” at it were, is best measured in bytes and pixels per second and the like, and you are much wealthier.
If you drive an SUV to work 60 miles and back every day, you are much worse off now than you were eight years ago, but ironically, despite the recession, you may be better of now than you were two months ago. Your disposable income is determined by how much you have left over after you pay for gas, and your wealth is best measured in gallons.
If you needed heart surgery, you are better off now than you were 20 years ago; in fact, you may be alive now where you would have been dead, thanks to the advances we have made in cardiology. If you needed insurance in order to have that surgery, you might soon be dead now, whereas 20 years ago you would have been able to afford a decent level of treatment.
But, if the GDP is up, you might die with more toys. For all the good that does you.
But let’s pretend that wealth could be measured in dollars, for a moment. It doesn’t really matter how much you grow the economy as a whole, if all the wealth is with the top 1%, and the next 99% can’t afford to eat, we’d be worse off. At some point, and we can argue where that point is, wealth can be distributed so badly that it’s no good, where, essentially, we can do amazing things for people’s hearts but no one can afford it. So at some level, distributing that wealth is helpful, even if it causes a loss in the total amount of wealth.
While wealth concentration is very helpful when investing wealth to make more wealth, when that wealth is used for consumption (buying things) it is used far more efficiently the less people have. The rich and the poor both buy plates, but the rich pay 10 times as much and do not get a plate that performs the function of holding food 10 times as well. Caviar may be better than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (although I’d debate that) but it isn’t worth as many times more as the cost would indicate. Each dollar owned and consumed by a poor person is worth more than each dollar owned and consumed by a rich person. When we want to consume for value (and that’s the end purpose to having an economic system) we want that money to be distributed evenly. When we want to invest efficiently, we want it concentrated. We’re best served, of course, by doing a little of both, keeping a balance. But the Free Market, in and of itself, doesn’t create that balance – it maximizes the return on investment, which means that it favors concentration of wealth. That is why government is needed to provide a counterweight, because years of an unregulated free market produce waste due to sub-optimal wealth distribution. The earlier in the process, and the more consistently this restraint is applied, the less forcefully it needs to be applied. Extreme Capitalism, like doctrinaire Socialism, turns out to be its own worst enemy.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A few observations from the election
Last night we had the result the polls predicted, more or less. The President-elect of the United States is Barack Obama. with about a 6 percent edge in the popular vote. During his acceptance speech he stressed that this is not an end, but a beginning, and that he will need our support in the days to come. I think this election marks a turning of the corner for Americans, away from the mere mechanisms of a republic and towards a more participatory democracy. A lot of people worked hard to elect Obama this year, and they aren't going to let it go for naught.
There are still four outstanding close senate races. Incredibly, it looks like Alaskans voted to send the felon Ted Stevens back to Washington, where he can get expelled. That will let Sarah Palin appoint his replacement... which might be Sarah Palin. It's a smart move for her if she wants to buff her resume for a White House run in 2012. Having said that, I don't think Sarah in 2012 is a winning strategy for the Republicans. Then again, I'm kind of hoping that there is no winning strategy for the Republicans in 2012. It's easy to be aghast at the fact that Alaskans voted for someone as corrupt as Stevens, but I think I'll choose instead to be impressed that they fully understood the consequences and were really voting for "Republican Senator to be named later."
In Minnesota Norm Coleman and Al Franken are locked in a tight one, with Coleman probably having the edge. Coleman would have been trounced this year, I think, by a candidate with less baggage than Franken. It's important to note, however, that Coleman used to be quite the moderate, and maybe he'll find that instinct again now that he doesn't have to feel loyal to a GOP President. We can hope. Republican moderates are scarce in Washington and scarcer still after this election, and it may be important to remind the wingnuts that the moderates can win elections.
In Oregon Gordon Smith, another moderate Republican, is locked with Jeff Merkley. Smith ran left of his record in this election. Merkley will probably pull this one out, judging by which votes haven't been counted. It's nice to see the Dem's picking up seats, but it's a shame they have to pick them up from folks like Gordon Smith, instead of Ted Stevens.
66% of people 18-29 voted for Obama. My guess is that's at least somewhat indicative of 14-18 year olds, the people who will start voting next election. The only age category Obama lost in was the 65+ one, where McCain led, 53-45. My guess is that's indicative of the people who will be dying and not voting in the next 4 years, except perhaps in Chicago. Obama's likely to be strong in Chicago even if several generations of dead people vote. What all this says to me is that the future belongs to the Democrats, and all they have to do is not blow it.
My state, Virginia, has gone Democratic in the last 6 major statewide races (2 governors, 2 senators, and 1 for 2 on the presidential.) Virginia's default color is now blue.
The Dems are going to need to get Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on board with major legislation, if they are to have the votes they need to break filibusters. The Republicans play a dangerous game here, though. If they let legislation through, then the Democrats will be seen as responsible for whatever happens, good or bad. If they filibuster, the public may very well blame them.
Either way, it's nice to have the veto pen in the hand of an actual adult.
There are still four outstanding close senate races. Incredibly, it looks like Alaskans voted to send the felon Ted Stevens back to Washington, where he can get expelled. That will let Sarah Palin appoint his replacement... which might be Sarah Palin. It's a smart move for her if she wants to buff her resume for a White House run in 2012. Having said that, I don't think Sarah in 2012 is a winning strategy for the Republicans. Then again, I'm kind of hoping that there is no winning strategy for the Republicans in 2012. It's easy to be aghast at the fact that Alaskans voted for someone as corrupt as Stevens, but I think I'll choose instead to be impressed that they fully understood the consequences and were really voting for "Republican Senator to be named later."
In Minnesota Norm Coleman and Al Franken are locked in a tight one, with Coleman probably having the edge. Coleman would have been trounced this year, I think, by a candidate with less baggage than Franken. It's important to note, however, that Coleman used to be quite the moderate, and maybe he'll find that instinct again now that he doesn't have to feel loyal to a GOP President. We can hope. Republican moderates are scarce in Washington and scarcer still after this election, and it may be important to remind the wingnuts that the moderates can win elections.
In Oregon Gordon Smith, another moderate Republican, is locked with Jeff Merkley. Smith ran left of his record in this election. Merkley will probably pull this one out, judging by which votes haven't been counted. It's nice to see the Dem's picking up seats, but it's a shame they have to pick them up from folks like Gordon Smith, instead of Ted Stevens.
66% of people 18-29 voted for Obama. My guess is that's at least somewhat indicative of 14-18 year olds, the people who will start voting next election. The only age category Obama lost in was the 65+ one, where McCain led, 53-45. My guess is that's indicative of the people who will be dying and not voting in the next 4 years, except perhaps in Chicago. Obama's likely to be strong in Chicago even if several generations of dead people vote. What all this says to me is that the future belongs to the Democrats, and all they have to do is not blow it.
My state, Virginia, has gone Democratic in the last 6 major statewide races (2 governors, 2 senators, and 1 for 2 on the presidential.) Virginia's default color is now blue.
The Dems are going to need to get Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on board with major legislation, if they are to have the votes they need to break filibusters. The Republicans play a dangerous game here, though. If they let legislation through, then the Democrats will be seen as responsible for whatever happens, good or bad. If they filibuster, the public may very well blame them.
Either way, it's nice to have the veto pen in the hand of an actual adult.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election Day
In my sleepy little precinct, there was a line of about 100 people. The first people in line had gotten there an hour before the polls opened to secure their spot. The line moved along briskly... but when I had voted, it was just as long as when I had joined the line.
For the first time in my adult life, people actually seem to care about their country.
This election isn't just about "change", it's also about hope, the hope that what we do today can change our country for the better. Almost everyone agrees that we're going in the wrong direction, and I think everyone who was standing in line hoped their guy would change that direction, regardless of who they were voting for.
Change doesn't stop at the ballot box. A president, even with a congress, are not enough. We, as citizens, have to be ready to help. We the people can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, better than our government can. We can help people learn the skills needed for a job. We can raise our children to think for themselves.
Yes, we can!
Now go vote already. It's not the only step, but it's a heck of a way to start.
For the first time in my adult life, people actually seem to care about their country.
This election isn't just about "change", it's also about hope, the hope that what we do today can change our country for the better. Almost everyone agrees that we're going in the wrong direction, and I think everyone who was standing in line hoped their guy would change that direction, regardless of who they were voting for.
Change doesn't stop at the ballot box. A president, even with a congress, are not enough. We, as citizens, have to be ready to help. We the people can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, better than our government can. We can help people learn the skills needed for a job. We can raise our children to think for themselves.
Yes, we can!
Now go vote already. It's not the only step, but it's a heck of a way to start.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
McCain's Dishonorable Strategy
John McCain has saved up his money as best as he can, and the RNC is pitching in too. He’s doing a last minute ad blitz, focusing on a few key states, especially Pennsylvania.
Polling in Pennsylvania has consistently shown Obama with a comfortable lead, and yet McCain has made Pennsylvania a centerpiece of his strategy, causing most in the press to simply shake their heads. Michigan was a closer race than Pennsylvania, when John McCain pulled out of there. A host of other states have looked closer, but no, the McCain campaign kept insisting that it was Pennsylvania that was going to put McCain over the top.
Now we know why.
The conventional wisdom is that, while you want to have some advertising in the last few days, you want to have more before that, because it takes time for your arguments to seep into the consciousness of the American public. Even if your arguments aren’t particularly sound, or are appeals to some prejudice, they will gain currency if repeated often enough by true believer columnists, bloggers, and talk show hosts.
There is a reason for waiting, however, and that’s if you know that your accusations are more likely to be refuted than supported. Those kinds of arguments you want to make at the very last minute. In today’s world of the internet, the "very last minute" is closer to election day than ever, and McCain’s camp may have tipped their hand too soon by starting in today.
As expected, Jeremiah Wright is part of the plan. The Pennsylvania State GOP is cutting that ads, with the very kind of soft money McCain theoretically despises, doing the very kind of attack he, also theoretically, despises. This had to be saved for the last minute, in the hope it sticks to Obama without McCain having to be confronted with the choice of disowning the ad campaign. It’s fine with the Republicans if America wakes up on Nov. 5th with a feeling of regret for having voted for a candidate who has flung his much vaunted honor into the fire, as long as McCain has 270 electoral votes to show for it.
But that doesn’t explain Pennsylvania. The key there is coal, and the fact that Pennsylvania is not an early voting state. Sarah Palin is the attack dog of choice, once again trying to make McCain’s hands look clean.
In January Obama gave an interview in which he talked about a cap-and-trade proposal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the interview, he pointed out that under this system it wouldn’t be illegal to open a coal plant – just financially unfeasible, because of what you would have to pay for the emissions. Hey Pennsylvania, Obama is anti-coal! And the media is covering it up and has made the tape unavailable, according to Sarah Palin.
Except that the media wasn’t covering it up, and the audio has been available continuously since January, and the only people who made a decision to not mention it until now are the people who run the McCain campaign. It isn’t “just now surfacing,” as the disasta from Alaska would have it. John McCain actually favors the same kind of cap-and-trade system, in any case. But that, they hope, would require another “media cycle” to reveal, and by that time, it will be too late.
Polling in Pennsylvania has consistently shown Obama with a comfortable lead, and yet McCain has made Pennsylvania a centerpiece of his strategy, causing most in the press to simply shake their heads. Michigan was a closer race than Pennsylvania, when John McCain pulled out of there. A host of other states have looked closer, but no, the McCain campaign kept insisting that it was Pennsylvania that was going to put McCain over the top.
Now we know why.
The conventional wisdom is that, while you want to have some advertising in the last few days, you want to have more before that, because it takes time for your arguments to seep into the consciousness of the American public. Even if your arguments aren’t particularly sound, or are appeals to some prejudice, they will gain currency if repeated often enough by true believer columnists, bloggers, and talk show hosts.
There is a reason for waiting, however, and that’s if you know that your accusations are more likely to be refuted than supported. Those kinds of arguments you want to make at the very last minute. In today’s world of the internet, the "very last minute" is closer to election day than ever, and McCain’s camp may have tipped their hand too soon by starting in today.
As expected, Jeremiah Wright is part of the plan. The Pennsylvania State GOP is cutting that ads, with the very kind of soft money McCain theoretically despises, doing the very kind of attack he, also theoretically, despises. This had to be saved for the last minute, in the hope it sticks to Obama without McCain having to be confronted with the choice of disowning the ad campaign. It’s fine with the Republicans if America wakes up on Nov. 5th with a feeling of regret for having voted for a candidate who has flung his much vaunted honor into the fire, as long as McCain has 270 electoral votes to show for it.
But that doesn’t explain Pennsylvania. The key there is coal, and the fact that Pennsylvania is not an early voting state. Sarah Palin is the attack dog of choice, once again trying to make McCain’s hands look clean.
In January Obama gave an interview in which he talked about a cap-and-trade proposal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the interview, he pointed out that under this system it wouldn’t be illegal to open a coal plant – just financially unfeasible, because of what you would have to pay for the emissions. Hey Pennsylvania, Obama is anti-coal! And the media is covering it up and has made the tape unavailable, according to Sarah Palin.
Except that the media wasn’t covering it up, and the audio has been available continuously since January, and the only people who made a decision to not mention it until now are the people who run the McCain campaign. It isn’t “just now surfacing,” as the disasta from Alaska would have it. John McCain actually favors the same kind of cap-and-trade system, in any case. But that, they hope, would require another “media cycle” to reveal, and by that time, it will be too late.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Fairness in the Marketplace of ideas
If you flip through the AM dial these days, you’ll find that half the stations or so are conservative talk radio. You won’t find a lot of reasoned arguments, or calm discussion there. There isn’t even all that much talk, in the sense of listeners calling in and getting responses, like talk radio was when I used to listen to it as a kid in L. A. Mostly it’s long monologues by the host, who usually makes Fox News seem relatively fair and balanced and Keith Olbermann, bless his heart, look calm.
Back in the old days, before around 1982, there was something called the Fairness Doctrine. There has been some talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. What it said, essentially, that if you want to be doled out part of the public airwaves by the FCC, then you have to present both sides of the issues. Have Rush on for a couple hours? Fine, you need Randi Rhodes, or some other liberal talker, on for a couple to balance it out. The Fairness Doctrine was held to be constitutional by a 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court, mostly because there are a limited number of slots for broadcast radio and TV, and giving one station the right to use some of that space necessarily precludes another. Conservative Talk Radio *hates* the Fairness Doctrine.
There’s a downside to going that route, however. The biggest is that ultimately, the government has to make decisions about what balances what. In order to know whether Randi and Rush balance each other, you have to have a preconceived notion that the “center” is between them. Furthermore, Randi and Rush aren’t free to change their points of view anymore, under the Fairness Doctrine – they both have to occupy their respective liberal and conservative slots or the radio station is in violation. On the whole, it would be best not to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine.
There is another rule change made by the FCC, however, that is worth revisiting. It used to be that the FCC limited companies from controlling multiple radio stations in an area, or from controlling too many radio stations in total; now, those restrictions are much looser. There is a danger to freedom of speech if a few partisans end up controlling most of the airwaves, and putting stricter limits back on will help balance radio a little. Conservative talk, however, has a dominant position on the radio, and that probably won’t change.
In the long run, it won’t matter. HD Radio and the like mean that there will be many more stations on the radio. Cable and Satellite do the same for television. On Cable, liberal hosts Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are drawing about as many viewers as the more established Fox News right wingers Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, who are on during the same time slot. Progressives are doing fine at getting eyeballs in the blogosphere. Radio is the trailing edge of communication, and the leading edge is open and free – and fertile ground for the left.
In fact, the left does best in precisely those areas which require your attention – to read or watch. Essentially, conservatives are winning the day only when people are trying to drive at the same time. That doesn’t mean that they are unimportant – the hate that gets spewed out still drives people to the polls, and gets them to shout out epithets at rallies. But on the whole, the future of the free marketplace of ideas is bright. We have the advantage that, as Stephen Colbert once said, “Reality has a well known liberal bias.”
Back in the old days, before around 1982, there was something called the Fairness Doctrine. There has been some talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. What it said, essentially, that if you want to be doled out part of the public airwaves by the FCC, then you have to present both sides of the issues. Have Rush on for a couple hours? Fine, you need Randi Rhodes, or some other liberal talker, on for a couple to balance it out. The Fairness Doctrine was held to be constitutional by a 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court, mostly because there are a limited number of slots for broadcast radio and TV, and giving one station the right to use some of that space necessarily precludes another. Conservative Talk Radio *hates* the Fairness Doctrine.
There’s a downside to going that route, however. The biggest is that ultimately, the government has to make decisions about what balances what. In order to know whether Randi and Rush balance each other, you have to have a preconceived notion that the “center” is between them. Furthermore, Randi and Rush aren’t free to change their points of view anymore, under the Fairness Doctrine – they both have to occupy their respective liberal and conservative slots or the radio station is in violation. On the whole, it would be best not to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine.
There is another rule change made by the FCC, however, that is worth revisiting. It used to be that the FCC limited companies from controlling multiple radio stations in an area, or from controlling too many radio stations in total; now, those restrictions are much looser. There is a danger to freedom of speech if a few partisans end up controlling most of the airwaves, and putting stricter limits back on will help balance radio a little. Conservative talk, however, has a dominant position on the radio, and that probably won’t change.
In the long run, it won’t matter. HD Radio and the like mean that there will be many more stations on the radio. Cable and Satellite do the same for television. On Cable, liberal hosts Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are drawing about as many viewers as the more established Fox News right wingers Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, who are on during the same time slot. Progressives are doing fine at getting eyeballs in the blogosphere. Radio is the trailing edge of communication, and the leading edge is open and free – and fertile ground for the left.
In fact, the left does best in precisely those areas which require your attention – to read or watch. Essentially, conservatives are winning the day only when people are trying to drive at the same time. That doesn’t mean that they are unimportant – the hate that gets spewed out still drives people to the polls, and gets them to shout out epithets at rallies. But on the whole, the future of the free marketplace of ideas is bright. We have the advantage that, as Stephen Colbert once said, “Reality has a well known liberal bias.”
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Governing without a fail safe mechanism
I've been reading a lot of op-ed pieces like this one in today's Wall Street Journal predicting the end of America as we know it.
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether the America of the last 200 years could or could not use some changes, if the sky-is-falling voices from the right are sincere, it points to an amazing level of recklessness in government. Follow me for a moment:
A central part of free market theory is that the market in general is cyclical, capable of going through some rather violent ups and downs. Everyone in politics understands that if you're in power, a violent down is likely to get you booted out of power. So, no matter how long the Republicans govern, their favored system of economics assures that at some point, they're going to get booted out.
Yet, somehow, they claim, they've used their time in power to build a system that will be completely destroyed if they aren't in charge. It's like building an all wooden home on the Florida coast, or a mortar less stone skyscraper in San Francisco. I'd add like making a mandala out of sand, but I don't think the Republican philosophy has much in common with that kind of impermanence by design, and when the Mandala blows away no one gets hurt.
The War in Iraq is a good case in point. The Republican argument for staying, at this point, is essentially that they've doubled down on their bad bet to the point that it would be certain disaster to leave the table. It's as if they didn't know we hold presidential elections every 4 years, or that Bush was term-limited. Their argument for electing a Republican is essentially that they've fouled things up so badly that reason itself no longer provides a functional solution. We're in the fourth quarter, down 28 because we've been throwing nothing but long passes and they've been getting picked off all day, and now long passes are the only thing that give us a chance.
The structure of our political system, however, is that we start a new ballgame every 4 years. This isn't a closely guarded secret. The teenage mentality of the Republican party has been to govern as if they would be there forever. It's time for an adult in the White House. If the Iraq claim is false, there's no reason to keep spending our blood and treasure there. If the Iraq claim is true, then it's blackmail, extortion, an attempt to control through fear.
Either way, it's time for a change. Five more days, folks. Go vote.
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether the America of the last 200 years could or could not use some changes, if the sky-is-falling voices from the right are sincere, it points to an amazing level of recklessness in government. Follow me for a moment:
A central part of free market theory is that the market in general is cyclical, capable of going through some rather violent ups and downs. Everyone in politics understands that if you're in power, a violent down is likely to get you booted out of power. So, no matter how long the Republicans govern, their favored system of economics assures that at some point, they're going to get booted out.
Yet, somehow, they claim, they've used their time in power to build a system that will be completely destroyed if they aren't in charge. It's like building an all wooden home on the Florida coast, or a mortar less stone skyscraper in San Francisco. I'd add like making a mandala out of sand, but I don't think the Republican philosophy has much in common with that kind of impermanence by design, and when the Mandala blows away no one gets hurt.
The War in Iraq is a good case in point. The Republican argument for staying, at this point, is essentially that they've doubled down on their bad bet to the point that it would be certain disaster to leave the table. It's as if they didn't know we hold presidential elections every 4 years, or that Bush was term-limited. Their argument for electing a Republican is essentially that they've fouled things up so badly that reason itself no longer provides a functional solution. We're in the fourth quarter, down 28 because we've been throwing nothing but long passes and they've been getting picked off all day, and now long passes are the only thing that give us a chance.
The structure of our political system, however, is that we start a new ballgame every 4 years. This isn't a closely guarded secret. The teenage mentality of the Republican party has been to govern as if they would be there forever. It's time for an adult in the White House. If the Iraq claim is false, there's no reason to keep spending our blood and treasure there. If the Iraq claim is true, then it's blackmail, extortion, an attempt to control through fear.
Either way, it's time for a change. Five more days, folks. Go vote.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Honest Disagreements and the Lying Liars who inspire them
I just got done reading an essay on how one can’t be a Christian, and vote for Barack Obama, so I’m a bit pissed off.
The right, of course, has no monopoly on questioning people’s religion, or patriotism for that matter. They do, however, do a lot more of it than folks on the left.
There are times when I don’t understand how people can come from reading the sermon on the mount and cast a vote for a regressive tax structure. There are times when I shake my head at how someone can claim to be for America, and yet be for sacrificing our troops needlessly in Iraq. But the answer is, by and large, they do not believe the tax structure is regressive, or they believe that regressive taxes benefit the poor through some trickle-down mechanism. They do not believe that the struggle in Iraq is “needless” but think that it solves some problem that is important, or they believe the cost of withdrawing is too great. My disagreement, with most McCain-Palin voters, is an honest one, on both our parts.
Some of it is a matter of judgment. Sometime, it’s a matter of facts. McCain and Palin have told some whoppers, and folks believe them. The folks on talk radio aren’t exactly informing their listeners either. Fox News has served as the propaganda arm of the Republican party for way too long.
Testifying to the integrity of the average voter mean that I think a whole lot of the integrity of the candidates. McCain has thrown his honor under the bus this campaign, and it’s been a sad thing to watch. It’s hard to tell with Palin, given that she doesn’t read the newspapers, but she may actually believe the stuff that comes out of her mouth, which is its own kind of scary. Ah well. Six more days… get out and vote!
The right, of course, has no monopoly on questioning people’s religion, or patriotism for that matter. They do, however, do a lot more of it than folks on the left.
There are times when I don’t understand how people can come from reading the sermon on the mount and cast a vote for a regressive tax structure. There are times when I shake my head at how someone can claim to be for America, and yet be for sacrificing our troops needlessly in Iraq. But the answer is, by and large, they do not believe the tax structure is regressive, or they believe that regressive taxes benefit the poor through some trickle-down mechanism. They do not believe that the struggle in Iraq is “needless” but think that it solves some problem that is important, or they believe the cost of withdrawing is too great. My disagreement, with most McCain-Palin voters, is an honest one, on both our parts.
Some of it is a matter of judgment. Sometime, it’s a matter of facts. McCain and Palin have told some whoppers, and folks believe them. The folks on talk radio aren’t exactly informing their listeners either. Fox News has served as the propaganda arm of the Republican party for way too long.
Testifying to the integrity of the average voter mean that I think a whole lot of the integrity of the candidates. McCain has thrown his honor under the bus this campaign, and it’s been a sad thing to watch. It’s hard to tell with Palin, given that she doesn’t read the newspapers, but she may actually believe the stuff that comes out of her mouth, which is its own kind of scary. Ah well. Six more days… get out and vote!
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Rebirth of the Republican Party
There is a group out there called the Ripon Society. Among its six main goals are “a more equitable tax system” and “social tolerance,” and “conservation of natural resources.” It is also a subset, oddly enough, of the primary institution that has worked against those three goals for the past 25 years – the Republican party.
The Ripon Society used to be a significant force in our society, whether you’ve heard of it or not. Named after
I think, unfortunately, it may be too late for the Ripon Society. I suspect the Republican party has turned too many of the Ripon Society’s would be adherents into independents and Democrats. I fear that a the majority of the GOP will believe it when Rush and his cohorts on talk radio claim that the Republicans lost because they just weren’t conservative enough, and will accept the labeling of moderate Republicans as “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only). The party that practiced the “majority of the majority” when it was in control of congress will split that even further, driving out a new layer of relative moderates with each schism, and leaving us, at least temporarily, with almost a one party system. That’s not good for democracy, it’s not good for the
Mind you, Susan Collins and the Ripon Society and all the other GOP “moderates” have much to answer for. For too long have they been willing to cast a vote to give the wingnuts power. Collins, and Snowe, and yes, McCain, should have started signaling their willingness to vote for impeachment at least as far back as 2005, and they would have save their party and the nation much grief. At that point, they could have even done it without putting a Democrat into the White House. But it is enough that they will have to settle for “Ranking Member” instead of “Committee Chairperson.” 150 electoral votes will have to do for John McCain, who could have served his country but chose to serve his party instead, this election, and has ended up helping neither.
Somehow, though, for the sake of the country, I hope they manage to scrabble their way back to relevance – and this time, hopefully, without bringing a bunch of dittoheads with them.
Friday, October 24, 2008
I thought it was time to be fair and even handed and give some time for our conservative friends to speak their minds.
“Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.” George Will.
“As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.” Wick Allison, former publisher of the National Review.
“Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country.” Kathleen Parker, National Review Online.
“It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.” Christopher Hitchens.
“…there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices.” David Brooks.
“And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the
"When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent and imprudent; ending up just plain weird... that's no way a president can act under pressure". Ken Adelman, former assistant to Donald Rumsfeld.
“In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.” Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal.
I got nothin’.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
It’s looking increasingly likely that Barack Obama will be elected president, and that he will be able, with the help of a Democratic congress, to enact the tax policies he’s been advocated. There’s a maze of credits for this and that, but there seem to be four obvious results of his plan. I’ll take them in order.
- People earning 250K a year or more will pay more taxes.
-
Corporations will pay more taxes.
The middle class, roughly people earning between 40K and 250K a year, will pay less taxes.
Republicans would like to claim that taxing high-income individuals more is bad for the economy. They don’t make up a large portion of the electorate, so to make an argument against these taxes you have to convince people that there’s an effect that goes beyond the people paying the tax. But I don’t think the evidence is very good for this. We were extraordinarily prosperous during the
It’s hard to imagine someone making 300,000 dollars a year having to pay a few percent more in taxes and deciding to chuck the whole thing. He might cut back on his expenditures, or he might try to earn more to make up for the loss. Either way, he’s going to continue to do what it takes to earn 300K+ a year.
Corporation tax rates, on the other hand, definitely effect their bottom line, which they are going to try to solve by raising prices, or cutting labor costs, neither of which are especially good for the economy. They might even decide to move their base of operations outside of the country. I think any tax hikes here have to be very carefully targeted, so as to discourage companies from taking jobs outside of the country, or cutting jobs, or overpaying their CEOs, without punishing companies that are actually growing
Middle class tax cuts probably do stimulate the economy. They’re certainly going to be popular among the middle class.
It’s the last part I struggle with most, which is taking people off the tax rolls entirely. Understand, I have no eagerness to take money from someone earning minimum wage. But when Joe Biden said that paying taxes for the rich was patriotic, he struck a chord with me. Taxes are the main way that we, in this country, pool our resources for the common good. Taxing someone not at all makes them not a part of that, and tells them that their patriotism is not wanted or helpful. What I'm hoping is that we'll see some raises in the minimum wage that push most of the people in this group into the middle class "still paying taxes but less now" group.
Either way, the deficit is rising, and the country’s bills need to be paid somehow. It’s a same the G. W. Bush, having been bequeathed a surplus, caused the US to take on so much debt in his first seven years. We can't do all that we'd like to do to stop the recession because of the deficit, and we can't do all that we'd like to do to help the deficit because of the recession.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Without a Home
All too often politics becomes an abstraction, a game where one side wins and one side loses, and only vaguely does one remember why one is rooting for one’s own side against the other guys. At other times the dots are connected, and we remember that public policy has results in real life.
I work at a moderately large suburban library. Despite being in the richest county in the country, we have a number of homeless people who come into use the library. Some read all day, others use our free internet access, still others just find a comfortable place to sit down. They come from all sorts of backgrounds, and have all sorts of different ways of dealing with life. Some have a cheer that many a rich man should envy. Others are on drugs. A few have serious medical conditions. Some have obvious mental health problems.
Their number is swelling, though. We see more new people every day. We often can’t tell they are homeless by their dress or manner or anything else, until we see that they know and greet the others, having met at a soup kitchen. There is a camaraderie of sorts among them.
Last night one of them, who used to be something of a problem patron but who for several years now, started again to be disruptive to other patrons. There had been a few other incidents with this patron, and rightly or wrongly, everyone, including myself, suspected that whatever medication had been helping her with her mental health issues was no longer being taken.
A couple of new guys, not seen before, smuggled some liquor into the library, and were flying high by closing time.
Also yesterday I noticed a missive from one of the local charities, telling us another homeless man had died from a chain of events that would never happen to a person with a roof.
I could tell you other case histories, some brief, some longer. We see a lot of these people every day. We try very hard to give them the dignity of being treated like every other patron who walks through our doors.
During the great depression, joblessness reached 25%.
How we respond matters a lot. I don’t have all the solutions, or know exactly what government should do, and I do think that a good deal of the blame lands squarely on the current administration for deregulation and opposition to paying people a living wage. But we’re talking about a huge number of people. A change of 1% in the employment rate is a few million people, significantly larger than, say, the number of abortions that happen in this country, or the number of people executed. It’s larger than number of rich CEOs with golden parachutes, or the number of dollars Sarah Palin got out of the Alaskan treasury “for her kids.” We’re most likely looking at a jump in unemployment much larger than 1%. This isn’t just an inconvenience, it’s the number one “values” issue of the day.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Colin Powell and Racism
Conservatives have a chance to win something very important to them in this election, even if they are defeated at the polls. As is often the case, it requires the right 'spin.'
If Barack Obama wins, it is a powerful argument to the idea that African-Americans need special treatment to create a level playing field. After all, if a black man can take the White House, there is no place a black man can't go. That argument will be made the next time an affirmative action case comes before the Supreme Court, and it will most likely carry the day.
The only problem? Conservatives are blowing the 'spin.' They are whining that Obama *is* getting special treatment, and even that the only reason he's winning is because of that treatment. In other words, they're claiming Obama only stands a chance because of a propensity of Americans for affirmative action.
On Sunday Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for president. It didn't take long for Patrick Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage to jump in and claim that the only reason Powell endorsed Obama was because they share a common skin color. I suspect what they'd like listeners to hear, without actually saying it, is that it's appropriate for white folks to vote for a white guy for the same reason, but I'll skip over that. I'm guessing. I don't know.
Racism comes in many forms, and I think it's legitimate to say that if Powell is endorsing Obama because of his skin color, that's a form of racism. It's not the most dangerous sort, however. I have to admit that when I was a fan of the Utah Jazz in the 90s, I was a lot more of a fan of John Stockton than Karl Malone. Part of that is because Stockton was about my height, and folks that are a lot taller are kind of intimidating. But some of it, too, was that Stockton shared my skin color. Those two features, neither of which go the character of the two men, made me a John Stockton fan. Racism? Sure, of a sort. People will always root for people who are "like them," whether it's skin color or a common profession or whatever. That might be what's going on with Colin Powell's endorsement.
If Stockton vs. Malone, however, were a more serious matter than being more of a fan of one player on the same team than another, I would take it a bit more seriously than that. If they were both running for President, for instance. If at the end of the day I chose to vote for Stockton, it wouldn't be about his skin color. I'd vote for Barack Obama over either.
So yes, it is racism, and of a deeper sort, to assume that the reason Colin Powell would endorse Barack Obama is because Barack Obama is black. There is nothing in Powell's record to indicate that race is a primary motivator in anything else he does. When people root for someone because they are the same skin color, it's a lot less dangerous than when people assume they can know just what's going on in the person's mind, because "those people" are like that.
I'd love to say that Limbaugh, et al, are just the lunatic fringe of the Republican party, but frankly, I think they're just over half of it. I give John McCain (but not Sarah Palin) credit for being part of the other half of the party.
John McCain made a comment that Powell's endorsement "doesn't come of surprise." That's reasonable; there were hints of it in the media, and Powell had said some positive things about Obama before. He didn't say "I expected it because they were both black," and I don't think he meant that, either. Nor do I think he was trying to deliver a coded message to his supporters. Extrapolating from his fellow Republicans' comments to assume we know what's going on in McCain's mind would be a mistake, I think.
At any event, it's nice to see another Republican for Obama. I don't know why moderates stay in the Republican party at all, at this point, but if the GOP is ever going to be the loyal opposition our two party democracy needs, again, they'll need people like Powell.
If Barack Obama wins, it is a powerful argument to the idea that African-Americans need special treatment to create a level playing field. After all, if a black man can take the White House, there is no place a black man can't go. That argument will be made the next time an affirmative action case comes before the Supreme Court, and it will most likely carry the day.
The only problem? Conservatives are blowing the 'spin.' They are whining that Obama *is* getting special treatment, and even that the only reason he's winning is because of that treatment. In other words, they're claiming Obama only stands a chance because of a propensity of Americans for affirmative action.
On Sunday Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for president. It didn't take long for Patrick Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage to jump in and claim that the only reason Powell endorsed Obama was because they share a common skin color. I suspect what they'd like listeners to hear, without actually saying it, is that it's appropriate for white folks to vote for a white guy for the same reason, but I'll skip over that. I'm guessing. I don't know.
Racism comes in many forms, and I think it's legitimate to say that if Powell is endorsing Obama because of his skin color, that's a form of racism. It's not the most dangerous sort, however. I have to admit that when I was a fan of the Utah Jazz in the 90s, I was a lot more of a fan of John Stockton than Karl Malone. Part of that is because Stockton was about my height, and folks that are a lot taller are kind of intimidating. But some of it, too, was that Stockton shared my skin color. Those two features, neither of which go the character of the two men, made me a John Stockton fan. Racism? Sure, of a sort. People will always root for people who are "like them," whether it's skin color or a common profession or whatever. That might be what's going on with Colin Powell's endorsement.
If Stockton vs. Malone, however, were a more serious matter than being more of a fan of one player on the same team than another, I would take it a bit more seriously than that. If they were both running for President, for instance. If at the end of the day I chose to vote for Stockton, it wouldn't be about his skin color. I'd vote for Barack Obama over either.
So yes, it is racism, and of a deeper sort, to assume that the reason Colin Powell would endorse Barack Obama is because Barack Obama is black. There is nothing in Powell's record to indicate that race is a primary motivator in anything else he does. When people root for someone because they are the same skin color, it's a lot less dangerous than when people assume they can know just what's going on in the person's mind, because "those people" are like that.
I'd love to say that Limbaugh, et al, are just the lunatic fringe of the Republican party, but frankly, I think they're just over half of it. I give John McCain (but not Sarah Palin) credit for being part of the other half of the party.
John McCain made a comment that Powell's endorsement "doesn't come of surprise." That's reasonable; there were hints of it in the media, and Powell had said some positive things about Obama before. He didn't say "I expected it because they were both black," and I don't think he meant that, either. Nor do I think he was trying to deliver a coded message to his supporters. Extrapolating from his fellow Republicans' comments to assume we know what's going on in McCain's mind would be a mistake, I think.
At any event, it's nice to see another Republican for Obama. I don't know why moderates stay in the Republican party at all, at this point, but if the GOP is ever going to be the loyal opposition our two party democracy needs, again, they'll need people like Powell.
Monday, October 20, 2008
From the Unreal Part of Virginia...
as opposed to the Pro-American parts of the country.
Many Americans have been rather surprised at some of the things that have been said by prominent Republicans lately. First it was Sarah Palin saying that she liked talking in the pro-America parts of the country -- compared to what parts, exactly?
Then Nancy Pfotenhauer, an aide to John McCain, said that Northern Virginia wasn't part of the "real Virginia" which is "southern in nature." She claimed that, "the Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia and moved into northern Virginia," which is just nonsense. Most of the Democrats who live in D.C. (who are mostly black, in case you didn't get the coded message) can't afford to move here. People have come here from all over the country, though, and from outside the country, too, which has given us some great ethnic grocery stores. I digress.
Joe McCain, the candidate's brother, said at a rally that Arlington and Alexandria were "Communist."
Finally Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) started ranting about all the fellow congresspeople who were "anti-american," Barack Obama in particular. I think she's angling to chair a committee. Maybe call it, oh, I dunno, the "House Committee on Un-American Activities."
This is where I'm supposed to tell you how surprised and shocked I am, but I'm afraid I'm not. When Sarah Palin was asked what newspaper she read to get her news about the world, she couldn't come up with one. We're used to hearing Republicans castigate the mainstream media, but ultimately, we know they read the New York Times and Washington Post and all the rest, because there is information there. But if you've really bought into their line, why would you read a newspaper?
There's a place in America where they've been talking like this for a while. It's called talk radio. Michael Savage uses the word anti-american to describe people who disagree with him all the time. It's casual, no big deal. So does Mark Levin. Rush Limbaugh passes for middle of the road on conservative talk radio these days, and he calls bi-partisanship "cowardly." You'll hear the word "disgusting" a lot -- not to talk about things people say, or policies, but about people. And of course every Democrat is a "socialist."
These folks, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and the rest, are just talking like they do on Talk Radio. Most of the time, most Americans don't listen to that crap, so we're surprised when we hear it from politicians. Don't be. There'll be a lot more of them that have grown up listening to Rush and Savage and Levin.
The good news is, even us "unreal" Virginians get to vote here. But by the way, Sarah -- this is a very pro-american part of the country. It's you, actually, that most of us don't like too much.
Many Americans have been rather surprised at some of the things that have been said by prominent Republicans lately. First it was Sarah Palin saying that she liked talking in the pro-America parts of the country -- compared to what parts, exactly?
Then Nancy Pfotenhauer, an aide to John McCain, said that Northern Virginia wasn't part of the "real Virginia" which is "southern in nature." She claimed that, "the Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia and moved into northern Virginia," which is just nonsense. Most of the Democrats who live in D.C. (who are mostly black, in case you didn't get the coded message) can't afford to move here. People have come here from all over the country, though, and from outside the country, too, which has given us some great ethnic grocery stores. I digress.
Joe McCain, the candidate's brother, said at a rally that Arlington and Alexandria were "Communist."
Finally Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) started ranting about all the fellow congresspeople who were "anti-american," Barack Obama in particular. I think she's angling to chair a committee. Maybe call it, oh, I dunno, the "House Committee on Un-American Activities."
This is where I'm supposed to tell you how surprised and shocked I am, but I'm afraid I'm not. When Sarah Palin was asked what newspaper she read to get her news about the world, she couldn't come up with one. We're used to hearing Republicans castigate the mainstream media, but ultimately, we know they read the New York Times and Washington Post and all the rest, because there is information there. But if you've really bought into their line, why would you read a newspaper?
There's a place in America where they've been talking like this for a while. It's called talk radio. Michael Savage uses the word anti-american to describe people who disagree with him all the time. It's casual, no big deal. So does Mark Levin. Rush Limbaugh passes for middle of the road on conservative talk radio these days, and he calls bi-partisanship "cowardly." You'll hear the word "disgusting" a lot -- not to talk about things people say, or policies, but about people. And of course every Democrat is a "socialist."
These folks, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and the rest, are just talking like they do on Talk Radio. Most of the time, most Americans don't listen to that crap, so we're surprised when we hear it from politicians. Don't be. There'll be a lot more of them that have grown up listening to Rush and Savage and Levin.
The good news is, even us "unreal" Virginians get to vote here. But by the way, Sarah -- this is a very pro-american part of the country. It's you, actually, that most of us don't like too much.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Equal Protection Under the Law
An extraordinary thing happened in the vice-presidential debate a few weeks ago, when Sarah Palin, the current flag bearer of the conservative movement in the United States
Now, Civil Unions are not equality, and they are not justice. That will, alas, take a long time to accomplish. Harry Truman began the project of integrating the Military in 1948, but it wasn’t finished until 1954, the same year Brown v. the Board of Education required integration of the schools. Laws against blacks and whites marrying were not struck down until 1967. Until then, progress, when it occurred, was state by state. We’re seeing the first few states turn just now to enable gay marriage.
But Civil Unions are the foot in the door. They give more rights to gay couples than they have without them.
For people born between 1979 and 1990, according to a Pew Research poll conducted this year, support for Gay Marriage and Civil Unions is almost identical – there’s just 3 percent difference between disapproval ratings for the two. The difference rises substantially with people with earlier birthdates, however. A majority of people born before 1958, however, disapprove of gay marriage, but a majority does not disapprove of civil unions. The gap between the two concepts is 14% in people who were born before 1943. So that distinction, between marriage and civil unions, is an important stumbling block to an earlier generation on this issue. As the percentage of the voting population that was born in the 60’s and later increases, we’re going to see a quite significant shift in the numbers, and the population that draws the distinction Joe Biden drew in the debate between Marriage and Civil Unions will become a vanishingly small group.
The reason that young people are more accepting, I suggest, is because they’ve seen healthy gay relationships among their peers. The reason old people are less accepting is because their gay peers had to hide their relationships, so they never saw them work. Just as Harry Truman making black people in just one segment of society led eventually to greater acceptance and eventual legal equality, so will civil unions make people less scared of gay people.
A lot of this will happen when judges recognize that the 14th amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the laws, doesn’t contain a special exclusion for gays and marriage. Judges tend to be older, but they also tend to be a bit better educated, and as time goes on the old ones retire and are replaced by people who have grown up in more enlightened times. It’s hard to be patient, but there is an inevitability to this. It’s no longer possible, I don’t think, to spook people into passing an amendment to the U. S. Constitution to stop it, so we don’t have to worry about that. We’ll get there.
Only a fool, however, would think that we won’t get there faster with Joe Biden and his running mate, than with Sarah Palin and hers. Even conservatives will benefit, I suspect, from moving past this issue, which they are doomed to lose anyway, and moving onto issues where they might, possibly, have a point.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Where we Find Ourselves
We are at the end of one of the great runs of political dominance in American history. In the last 28 years, one party has been dominant in American political life for 26 of them. Only for the first two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, while Hillary was still pushing health care to the mostly democratic congress, have the Republicans not been in the driver’s seat.
Deregulation, and Laissez-Faire capitalism, has been the accepted doctrine of
This coming election, it is conceded by even most Republican loyalists, will see the Democrats increase their gains of two years ago in both the house and the senate. Barack Obama’s victory in the presidential race looks increasingly likely as well. The Democrats are in the driver’s seat, and the only question left is not whether they will be in power but how firm their grip on that power will be.
If Obama wins, they could actually undo some of the damage that the Republicans have done.
Republicans have brought us a war fought on false pretenses, and torture. The former is not a vice unique to Republicans, by any means, but it cannot be rewarded with another go around. The past 28 years have broadened the gap between rich and poor so greatly that no wealth trickles down to most people at all, and they have no personal stake in the country’s economic health – and we have done so without making the country economically healthy either. Republican presidents have swelled the federal deficit to huge proportions – perhaps fatal proportions.
We need to toss the bums out – not to obliterate the Republican party, but so that it comes back a new animal, and one capable of again playing a reasonable role the great debates about the issues not only of today, but of tomorrow. It will be a long road for them. It has been a long road for
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)