I have something to say to my liberal friends. You know I respect and admire you despite all our disagreements, but when someone I care about is doing something very wrong, I believe I have an obligation to tell them.
You are are making a terrible mistake.
With the revelation of yet another horribly racist rant at Barack Obama’s church, it is time for you, my liberal friends, to accept something that is very painful. In 2004 when Senator Obama was asked by the Chicago Sun-Times who his spiritual mentors were, he named Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger. When Reverend Wright’s offensive sermons came to light, it was easy to think of him as an aberration. He could be dismissed as just one of those crazy things that happens in a presidential campaign.
But this past week at the Trinity United Church of Christ, Father Pfleger preached a sermon just as hate filled and racist as those given by Reverend Wright. The rants of one man could be written off as an aberration, but not both.
It is time for you to put aside your denial and face the truth. Trinity United is a church thoroughly infused with the most vile type of hatred. The man you’re about to nominate as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, has for 20 years belonged to that church and he has proudly embraced two horrifyingly racist men as his role models.
If you saw this pattern in a white candidate, you would be the first to label him as unfit for office and demand that he immediately exit the race and resign from the Senate. But when it occurs with Senator Obama, you say it’s a distraction from real issues, you say it’s dirty politics, you go through amazing mental gymnastics to find ways to excuse it.
If you continue to condone, excuse, deny and refuse to see the ugly face of racism just because this time it’s within your own party, you are turning your backs on the struggle for racial equality that you once led. You are denying Dr. King’s dream of an America free of racial hatred. You are betraying everything you stand for. If you are truly a liberal, you cannot do this.
You can ignore racism when it is politically convenient, or you can be faithful to the principles that have guided you from Selma to Montgomery to Birmingham. You can not do both.
You are my friends and it would be a shame to see you lose your souls.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Why Scientists Sometimes Lie
The problem with the “scientific consensus” on global warming is that participants in the debate are not objective.
In other areas of science, it is assumed without question that researchers will follow the evidence wherever it leads with an open mind that is neutral as to the outcome. That is not the case with global warming. Unlike other scientific questions, the answer to whether humans are causing dangerous global warming has massive political implications for economic and social policy.
Scientists are human beings with political and ideological preferences just like the rest of us. If a scientist has a strong preference for a certain political ideology, and that ideology will either be advanced or inhibited based on the results of his research, it is reasonable to view his interpretation of the data with an increased level of skepticism.
If anthropogenic global warming is accepted as real, it will produce wide ranging political and economic changes that have been long advocated by the political left. There will be massive tax increases and much stricter regulation of business.
It should therefore be no surprise that almost all non-scientists who are on the political left insist that global warming is real and use it as an indictment of free market capitalism and the traditional American lifestyle based on consumerism. In the same way, almost all non-scientists who are on the political right insist that global warming is nothing more than liberal hysteria.
On both sides, their conclusions are not based on an impartial evaluation of the data. Neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh are competent to assess the accuracy of a sophisticated computer climate model. Yet they both believe with absolute certainty.
Flawed human beings will always tend to interpret information in such a way that it reinforces our pre-existing ideological preferences or self interest. Given the huge amounts of funding involved, professional standing in academia and personal political preferences, it would be foolish to assume that scientists are not subject to the same failing.
I do not claim that scientists who support anthropogenic global warming are wrong, merely that it is unwise to massively reorder our society based on interpretations of extraordinarily complex data conducted by people who are not neutral as to the result.
When scientists who believe in global warming stop calling colleagues who disagree with them “Flat Earthers” and “Neanderthals”, or insist that “the debate is over” and therefore it is illegitimate to question them, then I may be willing to listen to their arguments. Not until then.
In other areas of science, it is assumed without question that researchers will follow the evidence wherever it leads with an open mind that is neutral as to the outcome. That is not the case with global warming. Unlike other scientific questions, the answer to whether humans are causing dangerous global warming has massive political implications for economic and social policy.
Scientists are human beings with political and ideological preferences just like the rest of us. If a scientist has a strong preference for a certain political ideology, and that ideology will either be advanced or inhibited based on the results of his research, it is reasonable to view his interpretation of the data with an increased level of skepticism.
If anthropogenic global warming is accepted as real, it will produce wide ranging political and economic changes that have been long advocated by the political left. There will be massive tax increases and much stricter regulation of business.
It should therefore be no surprise that almost all non-scientists who are on the political left insist that global warming is real and use it as an indictment of free market capitalism and the traditional American lifestyle based on consumerism. In the same way, almost all non-scientists who are on the political right insist that global warming is nothing more than liberal hysteria.
On both sides, their conclusions are not based on an impartial evaluation of the data. Neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh are competent to assess the accuracy of a sophisticated computer climate model. Yet they both believe with absolute certainty.
Flawed human beings will always tend to interpret information in such a way that it reinforces our pre-existing ideological preferences or self interest. Given the huge amounts of funding involved, professional standing in academia and personal political preferences, it would be foolish to assume that scientists are not subject to the same failing.
I do not claim that scientists who support anthropogenic global warming are wrong, merely that it is unwise to massively reorder our society based on interpretations of extraordinarily complex data conducted by people who are not neutral as to the result.
When scientists who believe in global warming stop calling colleagues who disagree with them “Flat Earthers” and “Neanderthals”, or insist that “the debate is over” and therefore it is illegitimate to question them, then I may be willing to listen to their arguments. Not until then.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Rebound Vote
I was listening to exit poll results from Kentucky and Oregon; (I still don’t know how you conduct an exit poll in a state where everyone votes by mail, but I digress). A major topic for the talking heads was the breakdown of the women’s vote. In the middle of the conversation, it dawned on me. I know why women over 40 will not vote for Barack Obama. He’s the “Other Woman”.
I know at first it’s jarring to the psyche to think of him in that role, so I’ll try to be gentle.
Imagine you are a young liberal woman. You see Obama as a handsome, charming, exciting young man. You are strangely attracted to him. I don’t mean in a crudely sexual way, rather in a sweep me off my feet, vaguely romantic, way. Hillary is like your mother telling you that he’s bad for you. It’s no geat surprise that any self respecting young woman is going to ignore her mother and fall for the exciting guy.
Now imagine you are a middle aged to older Democratic woman. It’s probable you have been married, and if you haven’t been divorced, you certainly have many friends who have. You strongly identified with Hillary Clinton when the party chose her as their nominee two years ago. Everyone knew she was the one and it was all settled. Hillary and the party were going to sail off into the sunset together and it was going to be beautiful. And then HE shows up.
This young, gorgeous newcomer says “hello baby”, flashes a dazzling smile and before you can blink twice, the party dumps it’s middle aged fiancée at the alter and runs off with this charming piece of fluff. Maybe Hillary isn’t as young as she used to be, and maybe she has put a few extra pounds in her pants suit, but Hillary and the party were so GOOD together. He’s no good for the party. He’ll loose in the fall and THEN who’ll you come crawling back to?? Doesn’t the party understand ANYTHING about commitment???
Hillary is a good woman in a committed, long term relationship who after all these years of waiting, gets kicked to the curb at the last minute just because the party couldn’t keep it’s ballots in it’s pants the first time a younger, prettier face walks by. In their minds, women over 40 are Hillary Clinton and they can’t stand Obama because he is the other woman.
John McCain should send flowers. Rebound votes still count.
I know at first it’s jarring to the psyche to think of him in that role, so I’ll try to be gentle.
Imagine you are a young liberal woman. You see Obama as a handsome, charming, exciting young man. You are strangely attracted to him. I don’t mean in a crudely sexual way, rather in a sweep me off my feet, vaguely romantic, way. Hillary is like your mother telling you that he’s bad for you. It’s no geat surprise that any self respecting young woman is going to ignore her mother and fall for the exciting guy.
Now imagine you are a middle aged to older Democratic woman. It’s probable you have been married, and if you haven’t been divorced, you certainly have many friends who have. You strongly identified with Hillary Clinton when the party chose her as their nominee two years ago. Everyone knew she was the one and it was all settled. Hillary and the party were going to sail off into the sunset together and it was going to be beautiful. And then HE shows up.
This young, gorgeous newcomer says “hello baby”, flashes a dazzling smile and before you can blink twice, the party dumps it’s middle aged fiancée at the alter and runs off with this charming piece of fluff. Maybe Hillary isn’t as young as she used to be, and maybe she has put a few extra pounds in her pants suit, but Hillary and the party were so GOOD together. He’s no good for the party. He’ll loose in the fall and THEN who’ll you come crawling back to?? Doesn’t the party understand ANYTHING about commitment???
Hillary is a good woman in a committed, long term relationship who after all these years of waiting, gets kicked to the curb at the last minute just because the party couldn’t keep it’s ballots in it’s pants the first time a younger, prettier face walks by. In their minds, women over 40 are Hillary Clinton and they can’t stand Obama because he is the other woman.
John McCain should send flowers. Rebound votes still count.
Does Obama want war with Iran?
It might come as a surprise to the Democratic party faithful, but Barack Obama wants to start a war with Iran.
We know this is true because he has made a central argument of his candidacy that, despite his complete lack of any experience, he has superior judgment in foreign policy. If we accept Sen. Obama’s word without question (as he demands we always do), then we must assume that he fully understands and intends the consequences of his policies.
Sen. Obama must know that the strategy employed by the West to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program is to increase its economic and diplomatic isolation until the cost in domestic opposition begins to threaten the stability of the regieme, and therefore becomes too high a price to pay.
Sen. Obama must know that when, in the first year of his presidency, he meets without preconditions with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it will prove to the Iranian people that Iran is not, in fact, isolated at all. It will discredit the opposition within Iran that wants to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons so that they may rejoin the community of nations.
Sen. Obama must know that with internal dissent silenced, the Iranian government will be able to continue to develop nuclear weapons without fear for the stability of the regime. Without leverage, negotiations will fail and then with the nuclear program nearing completion, the United States will have no choice but to launch military strikes.
Sen. Obama is following a path that leads to war. He must know this and want war, because otherwise we would have to conclude that Barack Obama just doesn’t have enough experience to know what he’s doing.
And we all know that can’t be true, because he told us so.
We know this is true because he has made a central argument of his candidacy that, despite his complete lack of any experience, he has superior judgment in foreign policy. If we accept Sen. Obama’s word without question (as he demands we always do), then we must assume that he fully understands and intends the consequences of his policies.
Sen. Obama must know that the strategy employed by the West to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program is to increase its economic and diplomatic isolation until the cost in domestic opposition begins to threaten the stability of the regieme, and therefore becomes too high a price to pay.
Sen. Obama must know that when, in the first year of his presidency, he meets without preconditions with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it will prove to the Iranian people that Iran is not, in fact, isolated at all. It will discredit the opposition within Iran that wants to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons so that they may rejoin the community of nations.
Sen. Obama must know that with internal dissent silenced, the Iranian government will be able to continue to develop nuclear weapons without fear for the stability of the regime. Without leverage, negotiations will fail and then with the nuclear program nearing completion, the United States will have no choice but to launch military strikes.
Sen. Obama is following a path that leads to war. He must know this and want war, because otherwise we would have to conclude that Barack Obama just doesn’t have enough experience to know what he’s doing.
And we all know that can’t be true, because he told us so.
New Labor’s Lessons for the GOP
In the 1980’s, Britain’s Labor party was in a sorry state. Margaret Thatcher’s election was a profound rejection of Labor, which was seen as simply not capable of running the country. Labor acquired a reputation (and rightly so) of pandering to powerful interest groups while ignoring the best interests of the country.
The success of the Conservative party was not caused by the people of Britain waking up one morning and deciding that they didn’t want to be center left anymore. Conservatives won because Labor was thoroughly discredited. Yet, by 1997 Labor had won a new landslide victory and has been in power ever since.
The Republican party is facing a similar situation to Labor in the 1980’s. America is still a center right country, but the party that represents that part of the political spectrum has become discredited. If the GOP is looking for a game plan to restore it’s political fortunes, it could do worse than study the resurrection of the Labor party.
Starting in 1994, Labor began a deliberate plan to repair it’s image. The party changed it’s policy focus from vain attempts to buy votes from interest groups (primarily trade unions) and adopted policies that appealed to the electorate as a whole. Labor publicized this change under the banner of “New Labor”.
Given that Britain had not abandoned it’s general left of center leanings, the public enthusiastically embraced this New Labor that could both fit the majority of the electorate ideologically and represent their interests in policy.
In American politics, you hear the same yearning for a New Republican party. The majority of American voters still want a party that will represent their core moderate conservative principles. Most people want a small effective government that can solve problems of health care, energy, education and national defense without wasteful spending, tax increases or political corruption.
As in the creation of New Labor, a New Republican party will need new leadership. John McCain must lead, but he cannot do it alone. Sen. McCain must join forces with as many like minded Republican candidates as possible to create a united movement of New Republicans. Those who are unwilling to join must be left behind.
This will inevitably create a division within the party. The division is necessary.
Republicans in Congress believe that they can survive if they distance themselves from the President, but the 2006 Democratic landslide was not caused by the President. It was caused by Republicans in Congress. Wasteful spending, outrageous earmarks, toleration of corruption, rejecting accountability, and putting the preservation of power above the good of the Country; this is what Republicans in Congress gave us, and this is what the American people rejected.
Republicans in Congress who have abandoned their principles are a cancer within the party and the cancer must be excised.
Like New Labor, New Republicans must reject the voices of stagnation within their ranks and chart a new course. Ending all earmarks, energy independence in 10 years, throwing out our absurd tax code and throwing politicians with ethical problems out of the party; the specifics are not important. What’s important is that the agenda be bold. A new generation of Republicans committed to a bold agenda for change that rejects the old politics as usual can regain the trust of the voters. Nothing less bold will.
It took the Labor party 15 years to fully accept the need for fundamental change, but when it did, it took less than two years to be voted back into office.
Like an alcoholic, sometimes a party needs to hit rock bottom. Republicans can wait and loose a few more elections, or they can embrace bold change now. Whenever they do, the voters will be there.
The success of the Conservative party was not caused by the people of Britain waking up one morning and deciding that they didn’t want to be center left anymore. Conservatives won because Labor was thoroughly discredited. Yet, by 1997 Labor had won a new landslide victory and has been in power ever since.
The Republican party is facing a similar situation to Labor in the 1980’s. America is still a center right country, but the party that represents that part of the political spectrum has become discredited. If the GOP is looking for a game plan to restore it’s political fortunes, it could do worse than study the resurrection of the Labor party.
Starting in 1994, Labor began a deliberate plan to repair it’s image. The party changed it’s policy focus from vain attempts to buy votes from interest groups (primarily trade unions) and adopted policies that appealed to the electorate as a whole. Labor publicized this change under the banner of “New Labor”.
Given that Britain had not abandoned it’s general left of center leanings, the public enthusiastically embraced this New Labor that could both fit the majority of the electorate ideologically and represent their interests in policy.
In American politics, you hear the same yearning for a New Republican party. The majority of American voters still want a party that will represent their core moderate conservative principles. Most people want a small effective government that can solve problems of health care, energy, education and national defense without wasteful spending, tax increases or political corruption.
As in the creation of New Labor, a New Republican party will need new leadership. John McCain must lead, but he cannot do it alone. Sen. McCain must join forces with as many like minded Republican candidates as possible to create a united movement of New Republicans. Those who are unwilling to join must be left behind.
This will inevitably create a division within the party. The division is necessary.
Republicans in Congress believe that they can survive if they distance themselves from the President, but the 2006 Democratic landslide was not caused by the President. It was caused by Republicans in Congress. Wasteful spending, outrageous earmarks, toleration of corruption, rejecting accountability, and putting the preservation of power above the good of the Country; this is what Republicans in Congress gave us, and this is what the American people rejected.
Republicans in Congress who have abandoned their principles are a cancer within the party and the cancer must be excised.
Like New Labor, New Republicans must reject the voices of stagnation within their ranks and chart a new course. Ending all earmarks, energy independence in 10 years, throwing out our absurd tax code and throwing politicians with ethical problems out of the party; the specifics are not important. What’s important is that the agenda be bold. A new generation of Republicans committed to a bold agenda for change that rejects the old politics as usual can regain the trust of the voters. Nothing less bold will.
It took the Labor party 15 years to fully accept the need for fundamental change, but when it did, it took less than two years to be voted back into office.
Like an alcoholic, sometimes a party needs to hit rock bottom. Republicans can wait and loose a few more elections, or they can embrace bold change now. Whenever they do, the voters will be there.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The British Failure in Iraq
The current spasm of violence in the southern Iraqi city of Basra will undoubtedly be used by opponents of the war as proof that the surge has failed and therefore we should exit Iraq. A more thoughtful analysis shows the exact opposite it true.
During the Rumsfeld era, the United States pursued a light footprint strategy based on the assumption that foreign forces were more a cause of violence than an answer to it. The British in southern Iraq were held up as a model of this strategy. The media was full of praise for British competence in being non-confrontational and letting the Iraqis work things out for themselves. If the strategy that appeared to be working for the British was not working for the Americans, it was only because American troops were still being too aggressive.
As the Rumsfeld strategy became an obvious failure, the United States decided to change course and employ the “surge”, abandoning the light footprint and imposing order by force, to give legitimate institutions and civil society an opportunity to take root. The stunning success of the surge raises the question, how could a British strategy so diametrically opposed also work? As events of the past week have shown us, it did not.
As we can now see, the British strategy of an extreme light footprint and essential pacifism in southern Iraq failed. By allowing local militias to take control of the southern provinces unopposed, the British produced the temporary illusion of security that is the inevitable outcome of allowing the enemy to consolidate control of territory. The “peace” produced was the peace of the warlord. The stability of the mafia dominated neighborhood. This type of peace endures only so long as the thugs in charge are not opposed in their reign of terror.
When the Iraqi government with American support began to attempt to rein in the Shia militias and Iranian backed “special groups”, the city exploded with the violence that the British had never defused. Now the task of pacifying the province is made far more difficult, because the militias have had so much time to organize and integrate themselves into the apparatus of local government. The evidence of this is that Iraqi army units brought in from other parts of the country are fighting well, but the local police, being a wholly owned subsidiary of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army and/or Iran are are deserting en mass.
The solution to the chaos in Basra is the same as it was in Baghdad. The Iraqi national army, with coalition support must retake the city by force, crush the Shia militias and stay to maintain order while legitimate institutions take root. If this strategy is followed in the south, it will have the same success as it did in other areas of Iraq, only this time with the blood of Iraqi troops, rather than British.
The lesson to be learned from the British failure in Basra is that appeasement does produce peace… but only for a time.
During the Rumsfeld era, the United States pursued a light footprint strategy based on the assumption that foreign forces were more a cause of violence than an answer to it. The British in southern Iraq were held up as a model of this strategy. The media was full of praise for British competence in being non-confrontational and letting the Iraqis work things out for themselves. If the strategy that appeared to be working for the British was not working for the Americans, it was only because American troops were still being too aggressive.
As the Rumsfeld strategy became an obvious failure, the United States decided to change course and employ the “surge”, abandoning the light footprint and imposing order by force, to give legitimate institutions and civil society an opportunity to take root. The stunning success of the surge raises the question, how could a British strategy so diametrically opposed also work? As events of the past week have shown us, it did not.
As we can now see, the British strategy of an extreme light footprint and essential pacifism in southern Iraq failed. By allowing local militias to take control of the southern provinces unopposed, the British produced the temporary illusion of security that is the inevitable outcome of allowing the enemy to consolidate control of territory. The “peace” produced was the peace of the warlord. The stability of the mafia dominated neighborhood. This type of peace endures only so long as the thugs in charge are not opposed in their reign of terror.
When the Iraqi government with American support began to attempt to rein in the Shia militias and Iranian backed “special groups”, the city exploded with the violence that the British had never defused. Now the task of pacifying the province is made far more difficult, because the militias have had so much time to organize and integrate themselves into the apparatus of local government. The evidence of this is that Iraqi army units brought in from other parts of the country are fighting well, but the local police, being a wholly owned subsidiary of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army and/or Iran are are deserting en mass.
The solution to the chaos in Basra is the same as it was in Baghdad. The Iraqi national army, with coalition support must retake the city by force, crush the Shia militias and stay to maintain order while legitimate institutions take root. If this strategy is followed in the south, it will have the same success as it did in other areas of Iraq, only this time with the blood of Iraqi troops, rather than British.
The lesson to be learned from the British failure in Basra is that appeasement does produce peace… but only for a time.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
A Failure of Courage
Today Barack Obama gave his much anticipated speech about his relationship with his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more generally, about race relations in America. It was a beautiful speech, both eloquent and inspiring. It was also a profoundly dispiriting revelation of moral failure.
Regarding Rev. Wright, Sen. Obama said “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother…they are a part of America.”
Many things are a part of America. Racism, hatred, greed are all a part of America. The question for Sen. Obama was not if there are still things deeply wrong in our country, but whether each of us will have the moral courage to recognize them, stand up and say No.
Standing up and saying “No, this is wrong” is easy when you risk nothing, when you are speaking to strangers who hold no sway over your life. Saying it to our own community, our own friends, our own family is not as easy. Saying No when we may pay a price requires a strength of character that too few of us possess.
Sen. John McCain faced a test of moral courage as a prisoner in Hanoi when he was offered early release in violation of the military code of honor. He said No. He chose the harder path and paid for it with five additional years of torture.
Sen. Obama faced a test of moral courage to stand up to his pastor, his church, his community and say “No, this is wrong.” He chose the easier path. He chose to remain silent.
We have a right to expect our President to stand up for what is right not just when it is easy, but when it is hard. Sen. Obama has shown us, that standard is beyond his reach.
Regarding Rev. Wright, Sen. Obama said “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother…they are a part of America.”
Many things are a part of America. Racism, hatred, greed are all a part of America. The question for Sen. Obama was not if there are still things deeply wrong in our country, but whether each of us will have the moral courage to recognize them, stand up and say No.
Standing up and saying “No, this is wrong” is easy when you risk nothing, when you are speaking to strangers who hold no sway over your life. Saying it to our own community, our own friends, our own family is not as easy. Saying No when we may pay a price requires a strength of character that too few of us possess.
Sen. John McCain faced a test of moral courage as a prisoner in Hanoi when he was offered early release in violation of the military code of honor. He said No. He chose the harder path and paid for it with five additional years of torture.
Sen. Obama faced a test of moral courage to stand up to his pastor, his church, his community and say “No, this is wrong.” He chose the easier path. He chose to remain silent.
We have a right to expect our President to stand up for what is right not just when it is easy, but when it is hard. Sen. Obama has shown us, that standard is beyond his reach.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Obama’s Church Problem
With the recent revelation of horribly offensive, racist and anti-American sermons by Barack Obama’s pastor, the natural question is how much will this hurt the Obama campaign? The statements by Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright are seen as beyond offensive by the vast majority of Americans and made worse by the fact that they are preserved on video. As a result, Senator Obama has been distancing himself from his pastor as rapidly as possible.
The Senator claims that with one or two minor exceptions, “None of these statements were ones I had heard myself personally in the pews.” That is a politically defensible position …as far as it goes.
His greater problem is that by saying he was unaware of those specific statements, Senator Obama is implying that he was unaware that the man he has claimed as his spiritual guide was a rabid anti-American racist.
Senator Obama has been a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for 20 years. Rev. Wright married him, baptized his children, has been “like an uncle” and yet Senator Obama had absolutely no idea that the man harbored any of these horribly offensive views?
Is that plausible?
Even if Senator Obama was absent from church every time Rev. Wright gave one of his racist, anti-American or anti-semitic sermons, we are being asked to believe that in the course of 20 years, no other member of the church ever mentioned them, and Rev. Wright never gave the slightest hint that he held these obscene views, even though he was, in Obama’s words “like a member of the family.”
Our common sense understanding of human nature tells us that this is not true. Whether Senator Obama heard the specific comments in question or not, he knew this man and he knew, at least in general terms, what he believed and still chose to claim him as his mentor.
No one should be held to account for the words or views of another. But whom we choose to proclaim as our moral guide, does give insight into our character. In Senator Obama’s case, that insight is of a man who is not instinctively repelled by that which America finds vile.
The Senator claims that with one or two minor exceptions, “None of these statements were ones I had heard myself personally in the pews.” That is a politically defensible position …as far as it goes.
His greater problem is that by saying he was unaware of those specific statements, Senator Obama is implying that he was unaware that the man he has claimed as his spiritual guide was a rabid anti-American racist.
Senator Obama has been a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for 20 years. Rev. Wright married him, baptized his children, has been “like an uncle” and yet Senator Obama had absolutely no idea that the man harbored any of these horribly offensive views?
Is that plausible?
Even if Senator Obama was absent from church every time Rev. Wright gave one of his racist, anti-American or anti-semitic sermons, we are being asked to believe that in the course of 20 years, no other member of the church ever mentioned them, and Rev. Wright never gave the slightest hint that he held these obscene views, even though he was, in Obama’s words “like a member of the family.”
Our common sense understanding of human nature tells us that this is not true. Whether Senator Obama heard the specific comments in question or not, he knew this man and he knew, at least in general terms, what he believed and still chose to claim him as his mentor.
No one should be held to account for the words or views of another. But whom we choose to proclaim as our moral guide, does give insight into our character. In Senator Obama’s case, that insight is of a man who is not instinctively repelled by that which America finds vile.
Friday, February 15, 2008
A Karl Rove Wannabe Gives Advice to Hillary
I love politics. I really do. I’ve been watching the races on both sides and it’s like heroin. I can’t get enough of it. I fancy myself an amateur Karl Rove, always thinking of diabolical ways for one candidate to get an advantage over another. In that spirit, I’m going to give some advice to Hillary. God knows she needs it.
She seems like such a smart person (corrupt, pandering, etc.), but smart. And yet from the get go, her campaign strategy has been a mess. She started off with inevitability. That didn’t work because people don’t like being told who they have to vote for. Then she moved to the theme of experience. If that motivated voters, we would have had President Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd as Veep. Next she unleashed Bill, which painted her as the candidate who likes to pull the wings off butterflies. Yes! a tired old puppy kicker who you have no choice but to vote for. Now that’ll get the voters excited! I mean really, how many millions has she payed to the morons running her campaign? Okay, enough with trashing the woman. I don’t want to be a pit bull kicker.
What her Million Dollar Brain Trust has failed to focus on is simply that a lot of people can’t stand Hillary and everyone loves Obama, and because they have ignored that basic truth they have been unable to ask the simple question “how can we make people like her, and not like him?” So here’s my take on what Hillary should do. Let’s break this into two parts. First, why does everyone hate her? And second, why does everybody love Obama?
I have heard people on her campaign staff, people from the Clinton White House, people in the media, and even Republican politicians, say that in person she is friendly, genuine, funny. She’s charming! But when she’s on stage she’s shrill, fake, unlikable, and yet at the same time somehow manages to be boring. Quite a feat, if I do say so myself. So how do we fix this? First of all, look at what’s different between the two settings. The charming Hillary is talking to people one on one, without a script or talking points. The un-charming Hillary is talking to large crowds from a script trying to squeeze in as many talking points as possible. Solution: get rid of the crowds, scripts and talking points.
From this point forward, every Clinton campaign rally should consist of the following: Hillary will walk out on stage and say “I’m here, so we can get to know each other.” She’ll then bring a randomly chosen member of the audience (no plants, please) up on stage to sit down with her and the two of them will have a conversation. For a full half hour she will listen to anything the voter wants to say, she will answer the voters questions. They’ll talk. And she will do it from the heart, one on one without a script and without talking points. If it devolves into questions like “why do you always wear pants suits?”, or even “why did you stay with your husband after he did all that stuff?”, so much the better. It will make her human.
Every voter in that room and by extension, every voter watching on TV will vicariously be sitting in that chair, talking to the charming Hillary that people know in private. Here’s an added twist for authenticity (something else she desperately needs). Rather than have the voter selected by campaign staff, ask the news media to pick an average voter out of the crowd for her. You can’t get more open and authentic than that. If she started doing this, first of all she would get all the media attention in the world, because it’s such an unconventional, and more to the point un-Hillary thing to do. The media would eat it up like free scotch on the press plane. (Yes, I know you don’t eat scotch, but what the hell, you get the point.)
Now that we’ve made people like Hillary, we have to flip to the other side of the coin and make people not like Obama. To do this we first have to understand why they do like him. Last year he was ranked as the most liberal member of the United States Senate. More liberal than John Kerry, more liberal than Ted Kennedy, more liberal than Bernie Sanders of Vermont who proudly describes himself as a socialist. He is a left wing extremist, even by the standards of Democratic primary voters, so we know it’s not his policy positions that are attracting so many people. We know it’s not his competence and experience because, well, he doesn’t have any. Is it his sterling character? He may be cleaner than she is, but he ain’t squeaky. So what is it? What’s his secret weapon that makes young girls swoon and tough men cry? Answer: he knows how to give a speech.
Actually, that’s one hell of an understatement. Saying that Barack Obama knows how to give a speech is like saying that Muhammad Ali knew how to throw a punch. He’s probably the most gifted American political orator of the past half-century. Reagan, Kennedy, FDR, he may be better than all of them. That’s one hell of a political weapon, but it’s his only one. Without his amazing speaking ability he would still be an obscure state Senator tangled up with a shady developer. If you could take his one weapon away from him, he’d fold like an empty cheap suit. The question is how? Answer: turn his eloquence into a liability.
Hillary needs to start a media campaign pushing one message, that Obama’s ability to give an amazing speech is hiding the fact that he’s not competent to be president. It has to be done gently (remember, no puppy kicking) but it must be clear, and it must be consistent. The goal is to create an association in the voters’ minds between his soaring rhetoric and a complete lack of substance. If this message can be driven home, every time a voter hears Obama give an inspirational stemwinder, it will trigger the secondary thought “Wow, he really can give a speech. It’s too bad he can’t do anything else.”
This attack won’t work with everybody. Too many people have already joined his cult and won’t listen to any criticism of their new Messiah, but it will work with some people. It will work with uncommitted voters, and more importantly, it will work with the media because deep down they already know it’s true. They just need someone to give them permission to say that the emperor has no clothes.
So that’s my advice to Hillary. Be charming in public and convince voters that Obama is an idiot with a great voice. I can’t guarantee it will be enough to turn things around this late in the game, but it’s the best chance she’s got. Or she can just give up and join us in welcoming our new ObaMaster.
She seems like such a smart person (corrupt, pandering, etc.), but smart. And yet from the get go, her campaign strategy has been a mess. She started off with inevitability. That didn’t work because people don’t like being told who they have to vote for. Then she moved to the theme of experience. If that motivated voters, we would have had President Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd as Veep. Next she unleashed Bill, which painted her as the candidate who likes to pull the wings off butterflies. Yes! a tired old puppy kicker who you have no choice but to vote for. Now that’ll get the voters excited! I mean really, how many millions has she payed to the morons running her campaign? Okay, enough with trashing the woman. I don’t want to be a pit bull kicker.
What her Million Dollar Brain Trust has failed to focus on is simply that a lot of people can’t stand Hillary and everyone loves Obama, and because they have ignored that basic truth they have been unable to ask the simple question “how can we make people like her, and not like him?” So here’s my take on what Hillary should do. Let’s break this into two parts. First, why does everyone hate her? And second, why does everybody love Obama?
I have heard people on her campaign staff, people from the Clinton White House, people in the media, and even Republican politicians, say that in person she is friendly, genuine, funny. She’s charming! But when she’s on stage she’s shrill, fake, unlikable, and yet at the same time somehow manages to be boring. Quite a feat, if I do say so myself. So how do we fix this? First of all, look at what’s different between the two settings. The charming Hillary is talking to people one on one, without a script or talking points. The un-charming Hillary is talking to large crowds from a script trying to squeeze in as many talking points as possible. Solution: get rid of the crowds, scripts and talking points.
From this point forward, every Clinton campaign rally should consist of the following: Hillary will walk out on stage and say “I’m here, so we can get to know each other.” She’ll then bring a randomly chosen member of the audience (no plants, please) up on stage to sit down with her and the two of them will have a conversation. For a full half hour she will listen to anything the voter wants to say, she will answer the voters questions. They’ll talk. And she will do it from the heart, one on one without a script and without talking points. If it devolves into questions like “why do you always wear pants suits?”, or even “why did you stay with your husband after he did all that stuff?”, so much the better. It will make her human.
Every voter in that room and by extension, every voter watching on TV will vicariously be sitting in that chair, talking to the charming Hillary that people know in private. Here’s an added twist for authenticity (something else she desperately needs). Rather than have the voter selected by campaign staff, ask the news media to pick an average voter out of the crowd for her. You can’t get more open and authentic than that. If she started doing this, first of all she would get all the media attention in the world, because it’s such an unconventional, and more to the point un-Hillary thing to do. The media would eat it up like free scotch on the press plane. (Yes, I know you don’t eat scotch, but what the hell, you get the point.)
Now that we’ve made people like Hillary, we have to flip to the other side of the coin and make people not like Obama. To do this we first have to understand why they do like him. Last year he was ranked as the most liberal member of the United States Senate. More liberal than John Kerry, more liberal than Ted Kennedy, more liberal than Bernie Sanders of Vermont who proudly describes himself as a socialist. He is a left wing extremist, even by the standards of Democratic primary voters, so we know it’s not his policy positions that are attracting so many people. We know it’s not his competence and experience because, well, he doesn’t have any. Is it his sterling character? He may be cleaner than she is, but he ain’t squeaky. So what is it? What’s his secret weapon that makes young girls swoon and tough men cry? Answer: he knows how to give a speech.
Actually, that’s one hell of an understatement. Saying that Barack Obama knows how to give a speech is like saying that Muhammad Ali knew how to throw a punch. He’s probably the most gifted American political orator of the past half-century. Reagan, Kennedy, FDR, he may be better than all of them. That’s one hell of a political weapon, but it’s his only one. Without his amazing speaking ability he would still be an obscure state Senator tangled up with a shady developer. If you could take his one weapon away from him, he’d fold like an empty cheap suit. The question is how? Answer: turn his eloquence into a liability.
Hillary needs to start a media campaign pushing one message, that Obama’s ability to give an amazing speech is hiding the fact that he’s not competent to be president. It has to be done gently (remember, no puppy kicking) but it must be clear, and it must be consistent. The goal is to create an association in the voters’ minds between his soaring rhetoric and a complete lack of substance. If this message can be driven home, every time a voter hears Obama give an inspirational stemwinder, it will trigger the secondary thought “Wow, he really can give a speech. It’s too bad he can’t do anything else.”
This attack won’t work with everybody. Too many people have already joined his cult and won’t listen to any criticism of their new Messiah, but it will work with some people. It will work with uncommitted voters, and more importantly, it will work with the media because deep down they already know it’s true. They just need someone to give them permission to say that the emperor has no clothes.
So that’s my advice to Hillary. Be charming in public and convince voters that Obama is an idiot with a great voice. I can’t guarantee it will be enough to turn things around this late in the game, but it’s the best chance she’s got. Or she can just give up and join us in welcoming our new ObaMaster.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Florida Doesn’t Matter
The Republican nomination for President has already been decided, and no one seems to notice.
The conventional wisdom is that if John McCain wins Florida his momentum going into super Tuesday on February 5 will be unstoppable and he will roll to the nomination, but if McCain loses Florida, the race will be thrown into chaos. The conventional wisdom is wrong and it’s easy to see why if you stop and look carefully at the various possibilities that lie ahead.
Right now, the average of the Florida polls show McCain ahead of Romney by a slim 1 point with both of them going up. Giuliani is five points back in third place and dropping like a rock. In the absence of an electoral earthquake, there are only two possible outcomes for Florida. Either McCain will beat Romney by a few points with Giuliani in a disappointing third place finish, or Romney will beat McCain by a few points with Giuliani in third.
Where the pundits get it wrong is in their understanding of the consequences of a McCain loss. Yes, if McCain wins Florida he is unstoppable, but if McCain loses Florida he is guaranteed the nomination just the same.
Let’s assume that Romney wins Florida, with McCain in second place, and Giuliani in third. On first glance, a bad night for John McCain. In reality, it gives him the nomination. Giuliani has said repeatedly that he will win Florida, and his advisers have admitted privately that if he does not win or come in a very close second he’s out of the race. With either a McCain or Romney victory in Florida, Giuliani will either officially drop out or become a zombie, (i.e. everybody will know he’s dead except him), and the bulk of Giuliani’s voters will move to their second choice, John McCain.
Look at the big super Tuesday states. In California McCain leads Romney by 9 points. In New York he leads by 10, in New Jersey by 15, in Pennsylvania by 23, and in every one of those states Giuliani has more support than Romney. Even assuming that the gap between McCain and Romney narrows by a few points after being edged out in Florida, the votes McCain will pick up from former Giuliani supporters will more than make up the difference.
John McCain becoming the nominee does not depend on his winning Florida, it depends on Giuliani losing and being forced out of the race. The minute that happens, the GOP race is over.
The conventional wisdom is that if John McCain wins Florida his momentum going into super Tuesday on February 5 will be unstoppable and he will roll to the nomination, but if McCain loses Florida, the race will be thrown into chaos. The conventional wisdom is wrong and it’s easy to see why if you stop and look carefully at the various possibilities that lie ahead.
Right now, the average of the Florida polls show McCain ahead of Romney by a slim 1 point with both of them going up. Giuliani is five points back in third place and dropping like a rock. In the absence of an electoral earthquake, there are only two possible outcomes for Florida. Either McCain will beat Romney by a few points with Giuliani in a disappointing third place finish, or Romney will beat McCain by a few points with Giuliani in third.
Where the pundits get it wrong is in their understanding of the consequences of a McCain loss. Yes, if McCain wins Florida he is unstoppable, but if McCain loses Florida he is guaranteed the nomination just the same.
Let’s assume that Romney wins Florida, with McCain in second place, and Giuliani in third. On first glance, a bad night for John McCain. In reality, it gives him the nomination. Giuliani has said repeatedly that he will win Florida, and his advisers have admitted privately that if he does not win or come in a very close second he’s out of the race. With either a McCain or Romney victory in Florida, Giuliani will either officially drop out or become a zombie, (i.e. everybody will know he’s dead except him), and the bulk of Giuliani’s voters will move to their second choice, John McCain.
Look at the big super Tuesday states. In California McCain leads Romney by 9 points. In New York he leads by 10, in New Jersey by 15, in Pennsylvania by 23, and in every one of those states Giuliani has more support than Romney. Even assuming that the gap between McCain and Romney narrows by a few points after being edged out in Florida, the votes McCain will pick up from former Giuliani supporters will more than make up the difference.
John McCain becoming the nominee does not depend on his winning Florida, it depends on Giuliani losing and being forced out of the race. The minute that happens, the GOP race is over.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Racism in New Hampshire
The New Hampshire results are in, and the big loser is the American pollster. The polls consistently predicted an Obama victory over Clinton by 8 points. Clinton won by 3. How do you explain all the major polls being wrong by 11 points?
I was just watching Hardball with Chris Matthews and the consensus opinion was that it was the Bradley effect. For those of you that don’t know, the Bradley effect is named for Tom Bradley, African-American former Mayor of Los Angeles. In the 1982 race for California governor, a large number of white voters who did not want to vote for Bradley because he was black, were embarrassed to tell pollsters for fear that they would be thought of as racist.
The round table discussion on Hardball focused on why the polls were wrong about Obama and how race might be involved. You’d think that people who make the Big Pundit Money would actually look at the numbers. Evidently they were too busy filing their expense reports, so how about we take a peek? Below are the RealClearPolitics.com final poll average, the actual vote and the difference between the two.
______________RCP Avg.______Votes______Poll Error
Obama________38.3%_________36.4%_____-1.9%
Clinton________30.0%_________39.0%______9.0%
Edwards_______18.3%_________16.9%_____-1.4%
Richardson______5.7%__________4.6%_____-1.1%
It doesn’t take Karl Rove to see that the polls were reasonably accurate for Obama, Edwards and Richardson. To a reasonable degree of accuracy, voters who told pollsters they were going to vote for the African-American, the Hispanic or the Rich White Male, were telling the truth. The error was in the polling for Hillary Clinton.
There was no Bradley effect. Lily white New Hampshire is no more racist than lily white Iowa was when it gave Barack Obama a huge victory. But I suppose that when your liberal angst compels you to believe that America is still a racist country and that nothing has changed in the past quarter century, looking objectively at the numbers may be a bit much to ask.
I was just watching Hardball with Chris Matthews and the consensus opinion was that it was the Bradley effect. For those of you that don’t know, the Bradley effect is named for Tom Bradley, African-American former Mayor of Los Angeles. In the 1982 race for California governor, a large number of white voters who did not want to vote for Bradley because he was black, were embarrassed to tell pollsters for fear that they would be thought of as racist.
The round table discussion on Hardball focused on why the polls were wrong about Obama and how race might be involved. You’d think that people who make the Big Pundit Money would actually look at the numbers. Evidently they were too busy filing their expense reports, so how about we take a peek? Below are the RealClearPolitics.com final poll average, the actual vote and the difference between the two.
______________RCP Avg.______Votes______Poll Error
Obama________38.3%_________36.4%_____-1.9%
Clinton________30.0%_________39.0%______9.0%
Edwards_______18.3%_________16.9%_____-1.4%
Richardson______5.7%__________4.6%_____-1.1%
It doesn’t take Karl Rove to see that the polls were reasonably accurate for Obama, Edwards and Richardson. To a reasonable degree of accuracy, voters who told pollsters they were going to vote for the African-American, the Hispanic or the Rich White Male, were telling the truth. The error was in the polling for Hillary Clinton.
There was no Bradley effect. Lily white New Hampshire is no more racist than lily white Iowa was when it gave Barack Obama a huge victory. But I suppose that when your liberal angst compels you to believe that America is still a racist country and that nothing has changed in the past quarter century, looking objectively at the numbers may be a bit much to ask.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
1 Person, 1 Hour
A Better Social Security
- Pay scheduled benefits for current retirees and previously earned benefits for current workers
- Workers would put 3% of income into a Federal Thrift Savings Plan style program with a 100% government match up to $1,000
- Workers would not accumulate additional social security credits
- Federal guaranteed minimum benefit
- Peg future payroll tax rate to levels needed to pay current retirees benefits, previously earned benefits, minimum guaranteed benefit and savings match
Advantages: As people retire with decreasing claims on the old system, the payroll tax rate required would drop by roughly half. Workers would retire with more money. The poor would accumulate capital, reducing wealth inequality. The system would be permanently solvent
Disadvantages: Politicians would lose Social Security as a political weapon.
A Better Medicare
- Replace Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP with one new program
- Retain current Medicare benefits for everyone currently 55 and over
- People currently under 55 would use the new system permanently
- Provide individual health insurance tax deduction
- Phase out employer health insurance tax deduction
- Create dedicated refundable health insurance tax credit (health insurance voucher) on a sliding scale for the low income
- Institute adjusted community rating and guaranteed issue
- Persons choosing not to take the health insurance deduction/credit would have that money placed in a health insurance pool
- The health insurance pool would be used to purchase private insurance for the uninsured
- Insurance for the uninsured would be purchased from several companies based on who could provide the best coverage for the amount in the health insurance pool
Advantages: Every American would have health insurance. The current $60 Trillion Medicare unfunded liability would be avoided. No one would loose their insurance when they loose their job. Every American would be able to choose the free market insurance product that fits their life best.
Disadvantages: Politicians would loose the ability to buy votes by adding benefits.
A Better Tax Code
- Individuals and corporations would have the choice of using the current tax code or a new flat tax
- The flat tax rate would be revenue neutral by static analysis (approx. 19%)
- Flat tax deductions for individual health insurance and retirement contributions only
- Exemptions of $15,000 per adult and $5,000 per dependent
- Eliminate capital gains tax
Advantages: The economic distortions of the tax code would be eliminated. Economic growth would increase, producing greater tax receipts at a lower rate
Disadvantages: Politicians would not be able to sell tax loopholes to the highest bidder.
My point is not that these are the best solutions, but that they took 1 person 1 hour. Congress has been unable to solve any of these problems for decades. The problem is not policy, it’s politicians and it’s our fault for electing them.
- Pay scheduled benefits for current retirees and previously earned benefits for current workers
- Workers would put 3% of income into a Federal Thrift Savings Plan style program with a 100% government match up to $1,000
- Workers would not accumulate additional social security credits
- Federal guaranteed minimum benefit
- Peg future payroll tax rate to levels needed to pay current retirees benefits, previously earned benefits, minimum guaranteed benefit and savings match
Advantages: As people retire with decreasing claims on the old system, the payroll tax rate required would drop by roughly half. Workers would retire with more money. The poor would accumulate capital, reducing wealth inequality. The system would be permanently solvent
Disadvantages: Politicians would lose Social Security as a political weapon.
A Better Medicare
- Replace Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP with one new program
- Retain current Medicare benefits for everyone currently 55 and over
- People currently under 55 would use the new system permanently
- Provide individual health insurance tax deduction
- Phase out employer health insurance tax deduction
- Create dedicated refundable health insurance tax credit (health insurance voucher) on a sliding scale for the low income
- Institute adjusted community rating and guaranteed issue
- Persons choosing not to take the health insurance deduction/credit would have that money placed in a health insurance pool
- The health insurance pool would be used to purchase private insurance for the uninsured
- Insurance for the uninsured would be purchased from several companies based on who could provide the best coverage for the amount in the health insurance pool
Advantages: Every American would have health insurance. The current $60 Trillion Medicare unfunded liability would be avoided. No one would loose their insurance when they loose their job. Every American would be able to choose the free market insurance product that fits their life best.
Disadvantages: Politicians would loose the ability to buy votes by adding benefits.
A Better Tax Code
- Individuals and corporations would have the choice of using the current tax code or a new flat tax
- The flat tax rate would be revenue neutral by static analysis (approx. 19%)
- Flat tax deductions for individual health insurance and retirement contributions only
- Exemptions of $15,000 per adult and $5,000 per dependent
- Eliminate capital gains tax
Advantages: The economic distortions of the tax code would be eliminated. Economic growth would increase, producing greater tax receipts at a lower rate
Disadvantages: Politicians would not be able to sell tax loopholes to the highest bidder.
My point is not that these are the best solutions, but that they took 1 person 1 hour. Congress has been unable to solve any of these problems for decades. The problem is not policy, it’s politicians and it’s our fault for electing them.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Our Next President - Naughty or Nice?
A number of media stories have cropped up lately that are very critical of Rudy Giuliani. The attacks have taken a variety of forms, but there has been a unifying theme; that Giuliani as Mayor was a mean son of a bitch. Since the New York media leans hard left, I understand why they would be pushing this stuff.
I don’t know if it’s true. I wasn’t there when he was Mayor. I only know the image he is presenting now on the campaign trail, a down to earth guy with a self depreciating sense of humor. But maybe it’s all true. Maybe Giuliani was willing to throw elbows, play hardball and run roughshod over people to get things done.
In the fat, lazy 1990’s, that wasn’t what we wanted. We wanted a happy President who felt our pain, but the 1990’s are gone. Now we’re in a global war with radical Islamic terrorists who are willing to blow up their own children if that’s what it takes to come here and kill us.
In this new age where our survival hangs in the balance, I want my President to be tough as nails with the determination of a pit bull.
The New York Times says that Rudy is really a son of a bitch. I hope they’re right.
I don’t know if it’s true. I wasn’t there when he was Mayor. I only know the image he is presenting now on the campaign trail, a down to earth guy with a self depreciating sense of humor. But maybe it’s all true. Maybe Giuliani was willing to throw elbows, play hardball and run roughshod over people to get things done.
In the fat, lazy 1990’s, that wasn’t what we wanted. We wanted a happy President who felt our pain, but the 1990’s are gone. Now we’re in a global war with radical Islamic terrorists who are willing to blow up their own children if that’s what it takes to come here and kill us.
In this new age where our survival hangs in the balance, I want my President to be tough as nails with the determination of a pit bull.
The New York Times says that Rudy is really a son of a bitch. I hope they’re right.
Friday, August 17, 2007
It’s Time to Choose
I write editorials fairly frequently. I enjoy writing and it’s nice to see them published. I usually try to write something witty and insightful. But not today.
Today, I’m writing because I’m scared. America, the country that I love, is headed for disaster and no one seems to care.
Medicare is going to bankrupt my country. Yeah, I know. “Medicare? That’s sooo boring! I want to read about something exiting and emotional like Iraq or illegal immigration.” Today, quite frankly, I don’t care what you want to hear. Today, I’m writing to tell you what you need to hear.
We have written into law promises that we can not pay. Medicare is facing a deficit of 60 Trillion dollars. In case that number is too big to have any meaning for you, that’s five times the value of everything America produces in a year, all goods, all services, everything.
We have hard choices to make and we need to start with the basics. Why was Medicare created? It was created because some elderly American’s couldn’t afford decent health care. Instead of focusing on that limited problem, we have created a system that promises to pay all the medical bills of everyone over 65 and in doing so, we have insulated American health care from the normal market forces that enforce financial discipline in every other sector of our economy.
This has happened not because it’s good for the country, but because it’s good for politicians. Every politician knows that they can get votes by promising more benefits to voters. The fact that they are destroying the country in the process is irrelevant. They know that when the bill comes due, they will be long gone. If you try to take a benefit away, voters will take your job away. If you try to save future generations from disaster, well, the young usually don’t vote and generations unborn aren’t in your district.
I know this sounds cynical. It’s very hard to believe that our leaders would care more about their jobs than about their country. Is it really possible that they want a partisan political weapon more than to see future generations prosper?
I’m very sorry to tell you this, but the answer is yes.
Don’t believe me? There is an easy test to find out for yourself. If you ever have the opportunity to ask your congressman a question, ask this: “Do you think someone making $20,000/year should pay Bill Gates medical bills when he turns 65?” They will dance around the question and make a variety of convoluted excuses, but the basic answer will be Yes.
For the future of our country, this is insane. For politics, it makes perfect sense.
You have a choice. You can rise up and threaten candidates with your vote. You can demand they put the good of the nation ahead of their partisan political self interest. Or you can ignore a problem that seems so abstract, so far off, and let the disaster come.
Choose now.
Today, I’m writing because I’m scared. America, the country that I love, is headed for disaster and no one seems to care.
Medicare is going to bankrupt my country. Yeah, I know. “Medicare? That’s sooo boring! I want to read about something exiting and emotional like Iraq or illegal immigration.” Today, quite frankly, I don’t care what you want to hear. Today, I’m writing to tell you what you need to hear.
We have written into law promises that we can not pay. Medicare is facing a deficit of 60 Trillion dollars. In case that number is too big to have any meaning for you, that’s five times the value of everything America produces in a year, all goods, all services, everything.
We have hard choices to make and we need to start with the basics. Why was Medicare created? It was created because some elderly American’s couldn’t afford decent health care. Instead of focusing on that limited problem, we have created a system that promises to pay all the medical bills of everyone over 65 and in doing so, we have insulated American health care from the normal market forces that enforce financial discipline in every other sector of our economy.
This has happened not because it’s good for the country, but because it’s good for politicians. Every politician knows that they can get votes by promising more benefits to voters. The fact that they are destroying the country in the process is irrelevant. They know that when the bill comes due, they will be long gone. If you try to take a benefit away, voters will take your job away. If you try to save future generations from disaster, well, the young usually don’t vote and generations unborn aren’t in your district.
I know this sounds cynical. It’s very hard to believe that our leaders would care more about their jobs than about their country. Is it really possible that they want a partisan political weapon more than to see future generations prosper?
I’m very sorry to tell you this, but the answer is yes.
Don’t believe me? There is an easy test to find out for yourself. If you ever have the opportunity to ask your congressman a question, ask this: “Do you think someone making $20,000/year should pay Bill Gates medical bills when he turns 65?” They will dance around the question and make a variety of convoluted excuses, but the basic answer will be Yes.
For the future of our country, this is insane. For politics, it makes perfect sense.
You have a choice. You can rise up and threaten candidates with your vote. You can demand they put the good of the nation ahead of their partisan political self interest. Or you can ignore a problem that seems so abstract, so far off, and let the disaster come.
Choose now.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Politics 101 - How to Make Everyone Hate You
Welcome class.
Today we will discuss how to alienate voters in a political campaign. Please open your textbooks to Chapter 12 - John McCain.
At the top of page 85, it lists the cardinal rule of politics: Know Your Target Voter. Let’s examine how McCain selected his target voters.
In the 2000 campaign, McCain targeted Republican and Independent voters who rejected the religious right and politics as usual. He appealed to this audience in a speech in February 2000:
“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”
His target was the “Reform Voter”. In a general election, this would have been a winning strategy, but was not quite enough to overcome the influence of traditional conservatives in the primaries.
Approaching the 2008 race, McCain shifted to target the traditional conservative base. He embraced Jerry Falwell and tried to portray himself as the establishment candidate. He thought he could add this voter block to the reform voters he attracted in 2000.
Does anyone in class know why this was destined to fail? Anyone? …No Mr. Spicoli, it’s not lunch time, put your hand down.
The answer is that in politics, as in life, you can make an enemy much faster than you can make a friend. By abandoning his maverick image and embracing the establishment right, he immediately lost the support of reform voters, but could not attract traditional Republican base voters, who still remembered their opposition to him from 2000.
Is everyone following me? I still see some confused faces, so I’ll give you an example.
Let’s say you meet two strangers. You give the first one a candy bar, and you punch the second one in the face. You now have one friend and one enemy. Ten minutes later, you punch the first one in the face and give the second one a candy bar. Do you still have one friend and one enemy, just with the rolls reversed? No, you now have two people who are angry at you, and don’t trust you.
McCain compounded this dual alienation by shifting again in the middle of the campaign to lead the fight for comprehensive immigration reform. Instead of a punch in the face for the traditional base, this was a kick to the groin.
By not remaining focused on his target voters, McCain lost both the reform voters he attracted in 2000, and traditional base voters in 2008.
I see we’re about out of time for class today. For next Thursday, please write a 10 page paper contrasting McCain’s voter targeting with the Giulani campaign’s consistent targeting of defense/fiscal conservatives and social moderates.
Class dismissed.
Today we will discuss how to alienate voters in a political campaign. Please open your textbooks to Chapter 12 - John McCain.
At the top of page 85, it lists the cardinal rule of politics: Know Your Target Voter. Let’s examine how McCain selected his target voters.
In the 2000 campaign, McCain targeted Republican and Independent voters who rejected the religious right and politics as usual. He appealed to this audience in a speech in February 2000:
“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”
His target was the “Reform Voter”. In a general election, this would have been a winning strategy, but was not quite enough to overcome the influence of traditional conservatives in the primaries.
Approaching the 2008 race, McCain shifted to target the traditional conservative base. He embraced Jerry Falwell and tried to portray himself as the establishment candidate. He thought he could add this voter block to the reform voters he attracted in 2000.
Does anyone in class know why this was destined to fail? Anyone? …No Mr. Spicoli, it’s not lunch time, put your hand down.
The answer is that in politics, as in life, you can make an enemy much faster than you can make a friend. By abandoning his maverick image and embracing the establishment right, he immediately lost the support of reform voters, but could not attract traditional Republican base voters, who still remembered their opposition to him from 2000.
Is everyone following me? I still see some confused faces, so I’ll give you an example.
Let’s say you meet two strangers. You give the first one a candy bar, and you punch the second one in the face. You now have one friend and one enemy. Ten minutes later, you punch the first one in the face and give the second one a candy bar. Do you still have one friend and one enemy, just with the rolls reversed? No, you now have two people who are angry at you, and don’t trust you.
McCain compounded this dual alienation by shifting again in the middle of the campaign to lead the fight for comprehensive immigration reform. Instead of a punch in the face for the traditional base, this was a kick to the groin.
By not remaining focused on his target voters, McCain lost both the reform voters he attracted in 2000, and traditional base voters in 2008.
I see we’re about out of time for class today. For next Thursday, please write a 10 page paper contrasting McCain’s voter targeting with the Giulani campaign’s consistent targeting of defense/fiscal conservatives and social moderates.
Class dismissed.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The Great Education Experiment
Of the 50 largest public school systems in the country, 14 give their students less than a 50-50 chance of graduating in 4 years. Across the nation, 1/3 of all high school students don’t graduate on time.
Without functional schools, the next generation of Americans will not succeed and America will fail with them.
Our schools are crying out for reform, yet our public officials refuse to take action. The usual pattern is for special interest groups to claim any specific reform will hurt the children, when the truth is it will hurt them. School boards, unions and politicians protect their jobs while the children are forgotten.
We won’t have bold education reform until we prove what works in the real world …so let’s find out.
Detroit has by far the worst large school system in the country. Only 22% of it’s 9th graders graduate after 4 years. The next worst is Baltimore with a 38% graduation rate. If ever there were two school systems ripe for experimentation, these are it.
I propose using these two cities to conduct a grand experiment. One randomly chosen city would turn its school system over to the Heritage Foundation, a highly respected, conservative think tank, to run for 7 years. The city would continue to provide the current level of funding, but give Heritage absolute authority to implement cutting edge conservative educational reforms. The other city would turn its public schools over to the Brookings Institution, an equally respected liberal think tank, for similar experimentation with liberal reforms.
An obvious question is, why would these two cities agree to give up control over their schools? The altruistic answer is that they have proven themselves incompetent to educate their children. But if these schools are failing specifically because administrators and politicians care more about their own power than the education of our children, they will need additional motivation.
The irresistible incentive would be a 4 year college scholarship for every graduating senior in both cities. $20,000 per graduate would be sufficient to pay tuition and fees for a 50/50 mix of community college and lower cost state universities. Even if graduation rates skyrocket (which is the goal, after all), the total cost of the experiment would be under $1 billion. Congress thought it was a brilliant idea to spend $320 million to build a bridge in Alaska to an island of 50 people. With respect to our wise representatives, this would be a better way to spend our money.
The results of this grand experiment would be able to guide us in restoring our educational system for a generation. We wouldn’t have to argue and speculate about what to do. We would know.
Without functional schools, the next generation of Americans will not succeed and America will fail with them.
Our schools are crying out for reform, yet our public officials refuse to take action. The usual pattern is for special interest groups to claim any specific reform will hurt the children, when the truth is it will hurt them. School boards, unions and politicians protect their jobs while the children are forgotten.
We won’t have bold education reform until we prove what works in the real world …so let’s find out.
Detroit has by far the worst large school system in the country. Only 22% of it’s 9th graders graduate after 4 years. The next worst is Baltimore with a 38% graduation rate. If ever there were two school systems ripe for experimentation, these are it.
I propose using these two cities to conduct a grand experiment. One randomly chosen city would turn its school system over to the Heritage Foundation, a highly respected, conservative think tank, to run for 7 years. The city would continue to provide the current level of funding, but give Heritage absolute authority to implement cutting edge conservative educational reforms. The other city would turn its public schools over to the Brookings Institution, an equally respected liberal think tank, for similar experimentation with liberal reforms.
An obvious question is, why would these two cities agree to give up control over their schools? The altruistic answer is that they have proven themselves incompetent to educate their children. But if these schools are failing specifically because administrators and politicians care more about their own power than the education of our children, they will need additional motivation.
The irresistible incentive would be a 4 year college scholarship for every graduating senior in both cities. $20,000 per graduate would be sufficient to pay tuition and fees for a 50/50 mix of community college and lower cost state universities. Even if graduation rates skyrocket (which is the goal, after all), the total cost of the experiment would be under $1 billion. Congress thought it was a brilliant idea to spend $320 million to build a bridge in Alaska to an island of 50 people. With respect to our wise representatives, this would be a better way to spend our money.
The results of this grand experiment would be able to guide us in restoring our educational system for a generation. We wouldn’t have to argue and speculate about what to do. We would know.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
A Brief Window of Opportunity
Every generation or so, a brief window opens when it is possible to get something big done.
A large part of the outrage against the Republican 109th Congress was over irresponsible spending. Every American has now heard of “earmarks” and the infamous “bridge to nowhere”. That outrage has developed into a consensus that pork barrel spending is out of control.
The line item veto has been requested by every President in the last generation and has been accepted by both parties as an effective measure to control wasteful spending, yet a constitutional amendment to give the President the line item veto has never passed.
The problem is that members of Congress don’t want to give a President of the other party increased power over spending. That’s why the next few months are an unusual opportunity.
A line item veto amendment would not be ratified by the states before the next President takes office and right now, no one knows which party will have the White House in 2009. There is no incumbent President or Vice President on the ballot and opinion polls don’t show a significant advantage for either party.
Republicans have an incentive to pass the amendment to reclaim their image of fiscal responsibility. Democrats have an incentive to pass it to show that they are better stewards of the public’s money than Republicans were.
All that’s needed now is a nudge. That’s where Presidential primary politics comes into play.
Both parties have a front runner that needs to solidify their position. Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could conspire …sorry, I meant rise above partisan politics, to jointly ask Congress to give the line item veto to the next President.
This would benefit them both. They would have more control over the budget if elected, they would be seen as rising above partisanship (which the public loves), and they would solidify themselves as presumptive nominees by showing that they are taking action to solve America’s problems even before they step foot into the oval office.
This window of opportunity opened when the two candidates became front runners and gained an incentive to work together to solidify their positions. It will close when they are assured of the nominations and start running against each other.
In politics, opportunities are everywhere. They lay on the ground like leaves in the fall. I will never cease to be amazed that millions are spent on consultants who can’t see them.
A large part of the outrage against the Republican 109th Congress was over irresponsible spending. Every American has now heard of “earmarks” and the infamous “bridge to nowhere”. That outrage has developed into a consensus that pork barrel spending is out of control.
The line item veto has been requested by every President in the last generation and has been accepted by both parties as an effective measure to control wasteful spending, yet a constitutional amendment to give the President the line item veto has never passed.
The problem is that members of Congress don’t want to give a President of the other party increased power over spending. That’s why the next few months are an unusual opportunity.
A line item veto amendment would not be ratified by the states before the next President takes office and right now, no one knows which party will have the White House in 2009. There is no incumbent President or Vice President on the ballot and opinion polls don’t show a significant advantage for either party.
Republicans have an incentive to pass the amendment to reclaim their image of fiscal responsibility. Democrats have an incentive to pass it to show that they are better stewards of the public’s money than Republicans were.
All that’s needed now is a nudge. That’s where Presidential primary politics comes into play.
Both parties have a front runner that needs to solidify their position. Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton could conspire …sorry, I meant rise above partisan politics, to jointly ask Congress to give the line item veto to the next President.
This would benefit them both. They would have more control over the budget if elected, they would be seen as rising above partisanship (which the public loves), and they would solidify themselves as presumptive nominees by showing that they are taking action to solve America’s problems even before they step foot into the oval office.
This window of opportunity opened when the two candidates became front runners and gained an incentive to work together to solidify their positions. It will close when they are assured of the nominations and start running against each other.
In politics, opportunities are everywhere. They lay on the ground like leaves in the fall. I will never cease to be amazed that millions are spent on consultants who can’t see them.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Battlefield Congress
Politics is an inseparable part of war. It is a front that must be defended. If you don’t, the enemy can win as surely as if they destroyed your army in the field. In the Iraq war, this front is undefended.
Eventually, Democrats, joined by an increasing number of Republicans will impose a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq. If the President fails to develop a plan to fight that political aspect of the conflict, he will loose the war.
Think of it in classical military terms. You are fighting a war on multiple fronts. You are making slow progress that could lead to victory with enough time, but on one front the enemy is massing an overwhelming force that can not be stopped. Any first year West Point cadet will tell you that the appropriate tactic is a delaying action.
DOD defines a delaying action as “An operation in which a force under pressure trades space for time by slowing down the enemy’s momentum.”
In other words, retreat slowly in one place, to buy time for your other forces to win the war.
After Gen. Petraeus gives his report in September, it will be too late. Pressure in Congress to impose an immediate withdrawal will become irresistible. Only before that point does the President have the option of announcing a time table for withdrawal that is long enough and flexible enough to leave open the possibility of victory.
Just prior to the September report, the President should announce:
“The Baghdad security plan has improved the situation on the ground sufficiently to begin the transfer of primary security responsibility for all of Iraq’s provinces to Iraqi forces. Therefore, consistent with military realities on the ground, we set a goal of transitioning from our current 155,000 man combat force to a 75,000 man training, advisory and counter terrorism role to begin within 6 months and to be completed within 18 months.”
With this announcement, the President would de-fang critics who are demanding immediate withdrawal. Any who complain that it isn’t fast enough or that the President leaves himself too much wiggle room in “consistent with military realities on the ground” would look like extremists who will accept nothing less than immediate defeat.
It would dramatically increase the support of the American people, who at heart, just want to be reassured that the war isn’t going to go on forever, and most importantly, it would buy the President additional time to produce a positive result in Iraq.
Embracing a time line of his own design would give the President a free hand in the conduct of the war until nearly the end of his Presidency. Failure to recognize the imperative of defending the political front deprives the President of that advantage.
Eventually, Democrats, joined by an increasing number of Republicans will impose a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq. If the President fails to develop a plan to fight that political aspect of the conflict, he will loose the war.
Think of it in classical military terms. You are fighting a war on multiple fronts. You are making slow progress that could lead to victory with enough time, but on one front the enemy is massing an overwhelming force that can not be stopped. Any first year West Point cadet will tell you that the appropriate tactic is a delaying action.
DOD defines a delaying action as “An operation in which a force under pressure trades space for time by slowing down the enemy’s momentum.”
In other words, retreat slowly in one place, to buy time for your other forces to win the war.
After Gen. Petraeus gives his report in September, it will be too late. Pressure in Congress to impose an immediate withdrawal will become irresistible. Only before that point does the President have the option of announcing a time table for withdrawal that is long enough and flexible enough to leave open the possibility of victory.
Just prior to the September report, the President should announce:
“The Baghdad security plan has improved the situation on the ground sufficiently to begin the transfer of primary security responsibility for all of Iraq’s provinces to Iraqi forces. Therefore, consistent with military realities on the ground, we set a goal of transitioning from our current 155,000 man combat force to a 75,000 man training, advisory and counter terrorism role to begin within 6 months and to be completed within 18 months.”
With this announcement, the President would de-fang critics who are demanding immediate withdrawal. Any who complain that it isn’t fast enough or that the President leaves himself too much wiggle room in “consistent with military realities on the ground” would look like extremists who will accept nothing less than immediate defeat.
It would dramatically increase the support of the American people, who at heart, just want to be reassured that the war isn’t going to go on forever, and most importantly, it would buy the President additional time to produce a positive result in Iraq.
Embracing a time line of his own design would give the President a free hand in the conduct of the war until nearly the end of his Presidency. Failure to recognize the imperative of defending the political front deprives the President of that advantage.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Let the Good Times Roll
The Democratic party is on a roll. The public wants the war to be over and Democrats want to end it for them. You’ve got to think it’s good news when the electorate wants what you want to give.
There has always been an appetite for pacifism on the left. Sometimes it was a guilty little secret pleasure to be ignored. Sometimes it has been an irresistible hunger. Today the Democrats are like a chocoholic being told that Mama’s Triple Fudge brownies are not only good for you, but you’re going to get paid to eat them.
Yup, it’s good times. They are going to let their anti-war side run wild and the public is going to love them for it.
…so why do Democrats look so scared?
The party leadership that was around during Vietnam remember what happened the last time they let loose into a full anti-war frenzy and for all the arguments about whether Iraq is another Vietnam, the political situation does have amazing similarities: An unpopular war with a large majority of the public wanting our troops to come home, an activist minority pushing the party to the left and party leaders in an “I’m more anti-war than you are” contest.
In the early 70’s Democrats heard the voice of the people and gave them what they wanted. They ended the war and expected the public would reward them. It made perfect sense, and it didn’t work.
In 1976 Jimmy Carter was able to win the White House thanks to the hangover from Watergate, but how many seats did Democrats pick up in the House and Senate? Zero. And just 4 years later Republicans had a landslide for President, a pickup of 35 seats in the House and control of the Senate for the first time since 1954.
Democrats were asking “What the [expletive deleted] went wrong?”
The problem was that they gave the public what they wanted, not what they needed. Americans don’t like seeing their neighbors get hurt, so their ‘want’ was for the war to stop, but after they got what they wanted they took a step back and realized that what the Country needed was to win. In short order, the American people decided that the Democrats could not be trusted with national security and it took the party a generation to repair the damage.
The same political dynamic is playing out in the nation today. The war has been longer and harder than the public expected and they want it to be over, so the Democrats are again yielding to their anti-war instincts and rushing to give the public what it wants.
If we succeed in Iraq the anti-war crowd will look foolish and the Democrats will suffer for it. If we fail in Iraq, just like the late 70’s the public will soon shift focus to the fact that they don’t like America loosing a war and will be looking for someone to blame. The country will again turn against the anti-war movement and the Democratic party will pay the price.
Democrats have ignored the lessons of history. They think they are flying high. That’s how falling off a cliff feels until you hit the ground.
There has always been an appetite for pacifism on the left. Sometimes it was a guilty little secret pleasure to be ignored. Sometimes it has been an irresistible hunger. Today the Democrats are like a chocoholic being told that Mama’s Triple Fudge brownies are not only good for you, but you’re going to get paid to eat them.
Yup, it’s good times. They are going to let their anti-war side run wild and the public is going to love them for it.
…so why do Democrats look so scared?
The party leadership that was around during Vietnam remember what happened the last time they let loose into a full anti-war frenzy and for all the arguments about whether Iraq is another Vietnam, the political situation does have amazing similarities: An unpopular war with a large majority of the public wanting our troops to come home, an activist minority pushing the party to the left and party leaders in an “I’m more anti-war than you are” contest.
In the early 70’s Democrats heard the voice of the people and gave them what they wanted. They ended the war and expected the public would reward them. It made perfect sense, and it didn’t work.
In 1976 Jimmy Carter was able to win the White House thanks to the hangover from Watergate, but how many seats did Democrats pick up in the House and Senate? Zero. And just 4 years later Republicans had a landslide for President, a pickup of 35 seats in the House and control of the Senate for the first time since 1954.
Democrats were asking “What the [expletive deleted] went wrong?”
The problem was that they gave the public what they wanted, not what they needed. Americans don’t like seeing their neighbors get hurt, so their ‘want’ was for the war to stop, but after they got what they wanted they took a step back and realized that what the Country needed was to win. In short order, the American people decided that the Democrats could not be trusted with national security and it took the party a generation to repair the damage.
The same political dynamic is playing out in the nation today. The war has been longer and harder than the public expected and they want it to be over, so the Democrats are again yielding to their anti-war instincts and rushing to give the public what it wants.
If we succeed in Iraq the anti-war crowd will look foolish and the Democrats will suffer for it. If we fail in Iraq, just like the late 70’s the public will soon shift focus to the fact that they don’t like America loosing a war and will be looking for someone to blame. The country will again turn against the anti-war movement and the Democratic party will pay the price.
Democrats have ignored the lessons of history. They think they are flying high. That’s how falling off a cliff feels until you hit the ground.
The Jobs Americans Won’t Do
The justification for the President’s temporary worker program is that there are some jobs that American’s just won’t do.
Farmers argue that they need unskilled immigrant workers because without them, crops will rot in the fields and food prices will skyrocket. In California’s San Joaquin Valley in 1960 under the Bracero guest worker program 56,000 unskilled Mexican farm workers picked 2 million tons of tomatoes. When that program ended in 1964, did crops rot in the fields? Did ketchup become a luxury good?
Of course not. Farm owners started to invest in automation. The result was that 5,000 high skilled, high wage workers were able to harvest 12 million tons of tomatoes. Nearly six times the harvest with one tenth of the workforce. Put another way, that’s a productivity increase of over 6,000%. If our health care system had that kind of productivity increase, we wouldn’t be worried about the future of Medicare.
It’s a perfectly understandable pattern. American industry has little incentive to invest in labor saving automation as long as there is an unlimited supply of low skilled, low wage workers.
But what about jobs that can’t be automated? If we don’t import cheap, unskilled immigrant labor, who is going to clean our hotel rooms?
If low wage immigrant workers were not available, Hilton would not close it’s hotels. They would respond to supply and demand in the labor market and pay a U.S. worker trying to support her 3 kids the $15/hour she needs to pay the mortgage and finish her education.
Low wage immigrant labor does not make these jobs possible. It just makes them possible at low wages.
The other argument for a temporary worker program is that if we give people a legal channel to work in the U.S., there will be less illegal immigration. It will reduce pressure on the Border Patrol and let them focus their resources on the few people still trying to cross the border illegally.
There’s just one problem with this argument. It’s called math.
A 2005 Pew Hispanic Center national survey showed that 46% of Mexicans would cross the border into the United States if they had the opportunity. Out of a population of 109 million, that makes 50 million Mexicans who with varying degrees of intensity, want to come here. Subtracting 400,000 legal guest workers, still leaves 49.6 million who want to come here and are willing do it illegally.
A guest worker program can only reduce illegal immigration if it absorbs a large fraction of the pool of potential illegal immigrants. Given that the population of Mexico, Central and South America is over half a billion, no temporary worker program can ever be large enough to put a meaningful dent in illegal immigration.
If the goal of a temporary worker program is to subsidize business with low wage workers, then it may have merit, but we need to be aware that there will be a price. That price will be reduced productivity and lower wages for U.S. workers.
Farmers argue that they need unskilled immigrant workers because without them, crops will rot in the fields and food prices will skyrocket. In California’s San Joaquin Valley in 1960 under the Bracero guest worker program 56,000 unskilled Mexican farm workers picked 2 million tons of tomatoes. When that program ended in 1964, did crops rot in the fields? Did ketchup become a luxury good?
Of course not. Farm owners started to invest in automation. The result was that 5,000 high skilled, high wage workers were able to harvest 12 million tons of tomatoes. Nearly six times the harvest with one tenth of the workforce. Put another way, that’s a productivity increase of over 6,000%. If our health care system had that kind of productivity increase, we wouldn’t be worried about the future of Medicare.
It’s a perfectly understandable pattern. American industry has little incentive to invest in labor saving automation as long as there is an unlimited supply of low skilled, low wage workers.
But what about jobs that can’t be automated? If we don’t import cheap, unskilled immigrant labor, who is going to clean our hotel rooms?
If low wage immigrant workers were not available, Hilton would not close it’s hotels. They would respond to supply and demand in the labor market and pay a U.S. worker trying to support her 3 kids the $15/hour she needs to pay the mortgage and finish her education.
Low wage immigrant labor does not make these jobs possible. It just makes them possible at low wages.
The other argument for a temporary worker program is that if we give people a legal channel to work in the U.S., there will be less illegal immigration. It will reduce pressure on the Border Patrol and let them focus their resources on the few people still trying to cross the border illegally.
There’s just one problem with this argument. It’s called math.
A 2005 Pew Hispanic Center national survey showed that 46% of Mexicans would cross the border into the United States if they had the opportunity. Out of a population of 109 million, that makes 50 million Mexicans who with varying degrees of intensity, want to come here. Subtracting 400,000 legal guest workers, still leaves 49.6 million who want to come here and are willing do it illegally.
A guest worker program can only reduce illegal immigration if it absorbs a large fraction of the pool of potential illegal immigrants. Given that the population of Mexico, Central and South America is over half a billion, no temporary worker program can ever be large enough to put a meaningful dent in illegal immigration.
If the goal of a temporary worker program is to subsidize business with low wage workers, then it may have merit, but we need to be aware that there will be a price. That price will be reduced productivity and lower wages for U.S. workers.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Law and Order starring …Rudy Giuliani?
So we have a new immigration bill. The left doesn’t like it, the right hates it, and the middle …well, they aren’t so hot about it either. And yet it seems destined to pass and become law. Since there is so much emotion around illegal immigration, it seems highly unlikely that this new bill will make the issue go away.
So after the legislation is passed, where does the debate go?
The biggest problem with the 1986 reform was that the “promise” of enforcement to prevent future illegal immigration in exchange for amnesty, wasn’t kept. Conservatives are desperate not to let that happen again, so we’re starting to hear rumblings about the next big fight. Enforcement.
Since the right has already been burned once, they are going to be obsessive about the enforcement provisions of the new law. They will be looking for the first microscopic hint of backsliding and when they find it, conservatives are going to scream bloody murder.
When the enforcement fight starts (about 9 seconds after the bill is signed), Republicans are going to be looking for a leader to save them from a repeat of 1986. There is going to be an opportunity for a major Republican presidential candidate to grab the issue and become that leader.
That’s where Rudy comes in. The only thing standing between him and the nomination is low support from the right wing of the party, so he would benefit from showing leadership on immigration enforcement more than any other candidate. He also has the most credibility in the party as being tough on crime. The biggest criticism of Giuliani as Mayor was that he was, if anything, too ruthless in enforcing the law.
If Giuliani positions himself as the tough as nails crime fighter who can enforce the law and shut down illegal immigration, the right wing of the party will line up behind him in a New York minute.
The only question is, will he see the opportunity and take it?
So after the legislation is passed, where does the debate go?
The biggest problem with the 1986 reform was that the “promise” of enforcement to prevent future illegal immigration in exchange for amnesty, wasn’t kept. Conservatives are desperate not to let that happen again, so we’re starting to hear rumblings about the next big fight. Enforcement.
Since the right has already been burned once, they are going to be obsessive about the enforcement provisions of the new law. They will be looking for the first microscopic hint of backsliding and when they find it, conservatives are going to scream bloody murder.
When the enforcement fight starts (about 9 seconds after the bill is signed), Republicans are going to be looking for a leader to save them from a repeat of 1986. There is going to be an opportunity for a major Republican presidential candidate to grab the issue and become that leader.
That’s where Rudy comes in. The only thing standing between him and the nomination is low support from the right wing of the party, so he would benefit from showing leadership on immigration enforcement more than any other candidate. He also has the most credibility in the party as being tough on crime. The biggest criticism of Giuliani as Mayor was that he was, if anything, too ruthless in enforcing the law.
If Giuliani positions himself as the tough as nails crime fighter who can enforce the law and shut down illegal immigration, the right wing of the party will line up behind him in a New York minute.
The only question is, will he see the opportunity and take it?
The Logic of Immigration
Immigration reform is an emotionally charged issue and the most contentious part is the decision about what to do with the 12+ million illegal immigrants already here. Should they be allowed to stay?
Sometimes examining the most extreme cases can help shed light on a difficult question, so let’s do that with the “path to citizenship”.
Case #1:
A 26 year old man came here illegally from Nicaragua 8 years ago. He speaks no English, has made no attempt to assimilate and has supported himself by leading a violent street gang that controls the drug trade in a large American city. He is personally responsible for half a dozen vicious murders.
Should he be given a path to citizenship? The obvious answer is no. Everyone would agree we should track him down, slap him in handcuffs and throw him out of the country.
Case#2:
A Mexican couple crosses the border illegally with their 6 month old son. He is put up for adoption and grows up not knowing he is in the country illegally. He speaks only English, graduates from Harvard with honors, then turns down a high paying corporate job to become a Marine Corps officer. While in combat, he is seriously wounded saving the lives of dozens of civilians and is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Should he be given a path to citizenship? Most Americans would insist that he be granted citizenship immediately. We are obviously a far better country having citizens like him.
Most illegal immigrants are neither mass murderers nor national heroes. They fall somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes, but the point is still valid. Some illegal immigrants are nearer the former case, are destructive to our country and should be expelled. Others are closer to the second example and are already valuable members of our American family.
If we accept this simple logic that we as a nation would be better off if some fraction of the illegal immigrant community were granted legal status and acknowledged as the good Americans they are, and some fraction were compelled, as best we can, to leave, then the only remaining question for our policy makers is: By what standards do we decide who should stay and who should go?
Sometimes examining the most extreme cases can help shed light on a difficult question, so let’s do that with the “path to citizenship”.
Case #1:
A 26 year old man came here illegally from Nicaragua 8 years ago. He speaks no English, has made no attempt to assimilate and has supported himself by leading a violent street gang that controls the drug trade in a large American city. He is personally responsible for half a dozen vicious murders.
Should he be given a path to citizenship? The obvious answer is no. Everyone would agree we should track him down, slap him in handcuffs and throw him out of the country.
Case#2:
A Mexican couple crosses the border illegally with their 6 month old son. He is put up for adoption and grows up not knowing he is in the country illegally. He speaks only English, graduates from Harvard with honors, then turns down a high paying corporate job to become a Marine Corps officer. While in combat, he is seriously wounded saving the lives of dozens of civilians and is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Should he be given a path to citizenship? Most Americans would insist that he be granted citizenship immediately. We are obviously a far better country having citizens like him.
Most illegal immigrants are neither mass murderers nor national heroes. They fall somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes, but the point is still valid. Some illegal immigrants are nearer the former case, are destructive to our country and should be expelled. Others are closer to the second example and are already valuable members of our American family.
If we accept this simple logic that we as a nation would be better off if some fraction of the illegal immigrant community were granted legal status and acknowledged as the good Americans they are, and some fraction were compelled, as best we can, to leave, then the only remaining question for our policy makers is: By what standards do we decide who should stay and who should go?
Sunday, December 24, 2006
This is Test Post #2, with no subject category. Test test test.
I am the dummy text that doesn't really mean anything. I am only here to demonstrate what this space would look like if there were real text here. I hope you enjoy this example text. I know I am happy that you are here. Are you enjoying it yet? I really hope you are. If you are, I will be very happy. I like being happy, it makes me happy. Happiness is a fuzzy kitten, or so I've heard.
I do like kittens. Quite a bit, actually. Especially fuzzy ones. They do lose a bit of their cuteness after you shave themdown to stubble. And then comes the chafing... no, I'd definitely stick with the fuzzy kittens. Do you like kittens?
Sometime soon I think I'll stop. Being sample text is not really as fulfilling as I'd hoped... maybe I will start a new career as text in a juicy tabloid! That seems like it would be exciting! Or a career in politics! I could be the text in some major treaty or something, and help to bring about world peace! But no.. I'd probably end up being the text on page 1,195 of some huge committee report that no one is ever going to read...
No, I think that a trashy gossip rag sounds much more fun. Look for me soon in your grocery checkout lane! Until then, goodbye.
I do like kittens. Quite a bit, actually. Especially fuzzy ones. They do lose a bit of their cuteness after you shave themdown to stubble. And then comes the chafing... no, I'd definitely stick with the fuzzy kittens. Do you like kittens?
Sometime soon I think I'll stop. Being sample text is not really as fulfilling as I'd hoped... maybe I will start a new career as text in a juicy tabloid! That seems like it would be exciting! Or a career in politics! I could be the text in some major treaty or something, and help to bring about world peace! But no.. I'd probably end up being the text on page 1,195 of some huge committee report that no one is ever going to read...
No, I think that a trashy gossip rag sounds much more fun. Look for me soon in your grocery checkout lane! Until then, goodbye.
Test Article
It’s easy to hate. All we need to do is find a group of people who are somehow different from us, and start hating them for it. It is nothing to be ashamed of; every human has been doing it since the beginning of humanity.
However, we have run into problems in these modern times as there is a lack of people to hate. Oh sure, we’ve had a good time of it with most of the various minority groups, but it doesn’t take long before they stand up and point out that they’re not playing anymore (and in fact, had stopped playing quite some time ago). We are now left with a gap in our schedule which we could have happily filled with hatred. So the question is: who should we start hating now? We need a group of people that won’t stand up for themselves, and who won’t "educate" us, showing how fundamentally "similar" we all are. We need a group of people that don’t speak our language, or, if they do, then they should be pathetically bad at it. We need a group of people who look so different from us, that we can’t form any kind of identification between us and them. It would appear that we have squandered our supply of peoples to whom we can be prejudice against. That is, all but one group... Babies.
Who do babies think they are? They just hang around the house all day, having people wait on them hand and foot. And you know, none of them have jobs. And what about the vomit? They don’t even try to get to a bucket in time. No, they will just spew-up wherever they are at that moment – on the carpet, in their dinner, over themselves – in clear defiance of proper social conduct. And don’t even get me started on the other half of their digestive cycle. They listen to their Barney albums ‘till all hours of the.. afternoon. And what about their faces? Don’t they know they look like walnuts? Huh? Don’t they? And let me tell you, they are all illiterate.
There are places for babies, and they’re called NURSERIES. If they can just stay in there then I’ll be happy.
The sad truth is, one day babies too, shall probably rise-up and tell us to stop screwing around and pull our act together. We are fast running out of people to hate, and this is why I am throwing my full support behind SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Damn those space-monkeys, who do they think they are...
However, we have run into problems in these modern times as there is a lack of people to hate. Oh sure, we’ve had a good time of it with most of the various minority groups, but it doesn’t take long before they stand up and point out that they’re not playing anymore (and in fact, had stopped playing quite some time ago). We are now left with a gap in our schedule which we could have happily filled with hatred. So the question is: who should we start hating now? We need a group of people that won’t stand up for themselves, and who won’t "educate" us, showing how fundamentally "similar" we all are. We need a group of people that don’t speak our language, or, if they do, then they should be pathetically bad at it. We need a group of people who look so different from us, that we can’t form any kind of identification between us and them. It would appear that we have squandered our supply of peoples to whom we can be prejudice against. That is, all but one group... Babies.
Who do babies think they are? They just hang around the house all day, having people wait on them hand and foot. And you know, none of them have jobs. And what about the vomit? They don’t even try to get to a bucket in time. No, they will just spew-up wherever they are at that moment – on the carpet, in their dinner, over themselves – in clear defiance of proper social conduct. And don’t even get me started on the other half of their digestive cycle. They listen to their Barney albums ‘till all hours of the.. afternoon. And what about their faces? Don’t they know they look like walnuts? Huh? Don’t they? And let me tell you, they are all illiterate.
There are places for babies, and they’re called NURSERIES. If they can just stay in there then I’ll be happy.
The sad truth is, one day babies too, shall probably rise-up and tell us to stop screwing around and pull our act together. We are fast running out of people to hate, and this is why I am throwing my full support behind SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Damn those space-monkeys, who do they think they are...
Saturday, October 9, 2004
Who Is The Enemy?
It has been said that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the real war on terror. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, Saddam did not. The war is a mistake.
After Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war. He asked war to be declared on Japan and also on Nazi Germany. Why? Germany did not attack us. Germany was not involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt asked us to go to war against Nazi Germany because he knew that our enemy was not just the Emperor of Japan. It was not just the Generals that plotted that one attack. He knew that the enemy was an ideology of hatred; an ideology of hatred of which the attack on Pearl Harbor was just one expression. He knew that America would not be safe until that ideology of hatred had been defeated everywhere it was found.
On September 11th, we were attacked by a new enemy based in a new ideology of hatred. An ideology from a different part of the world, speaking different languages, but dreaming the same fascist dream. An ideology willing to do anything, kill anyone in any numbers, anywhere to impose their twisted vision upon the world. Like 60 years ago, the American people and the people of the world will not be safe until this ideology of hatred is defeated wherever it is found.
Some will say that the comparison is wrong. Iraq is not Nazi Germany.
Torture chambers…secret police dragging people from their homes in the middle of the night never to be heard from again…mass graves filled with uncounted tens of thousands of men, women, children. With due respect to those who opposed the war, we have seen all this before. While it is true that Saddam and his henchmen did not equal the numbers of victims we saw in Europe decades ago, he did equal their cruelty and it would have continued. The mass graves would have continued to fill year after year, thousands upon thousands of new victims, if we had not acted.
Early in the second world war, it was believed that Germany was near to producing the worlds first atomic bomb and as a result, America poured unprecedented manpower and resources into the Manhattan project. After the war, we discovered that they were never close. That fact did not make fighting Germany a “diversion” from the war against Japan.
Our fathers and grandfathers fought and sacrificed to defeat fascism, to leave to their children and grandchildren a freer, safer world. Now is our time to repay that debt. It is up to this generation to fight the ideology of hatred. It is our choice with courage and sacrifice, to defeat it and leave to our children and grandchildren a freer, safer world, or retreat and leave to future generations a world too dark to imagine.
After Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war. He asked war to be declared on Japan and also on Nazi Germany. Why? Germany did not attack us. Germany was not involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt asked us to go to war against Nazi Germany because he knew that our enemy was not just the Emperor of Japan. It was not just the Generals that plotted that one attack. He knew that the enemy was an ideology of hatred; an ideology of hatred of which the attack on Pearl Harbor was just one expression. He knew that America would not be safe until that ideology of hatred had been defeated everywhere it was found.
On September 11th, we were attacked by a new enemy based in a new ideology of hatred. An ideology from a different part of the world, speaking different languages, but dreaming the same fascist dream. An ideology willing to do anything, kill anyone in any numbers, anywhere to impose their twisted vision upon the world. Like 60 years ago, the American people and the people of the world will not be safe until this ideology of hatred is defeated wherever it is found.
Some will say that the comparison is wrong. Iraq is not Nazi Germany.
Torture chambers…secret police dragging people from their homes in the middle of the night never to be heard from again…mass graves filled with uncounted tens of thousands of men, women, children. With due respect to those who opposed the war, we have seen all this before. While it is true that Saddam and his henchmen did not equal the numbers of victims we saw in Europe decades ago, he did equal their cruelty and it would have continued. The mass graves would have continued to fill year after year, thousands upon thousands of new victims, if we had not acted.
Early in the second world war, it was believed that Germany was near to producing the worlds first atomic bomb and as a result, America poured unprecedented manpower and resources into the Manhattan project. After the war, we discovered that they were never close. That fact did not make fighting Germany a “diversion” from the war against Japan.
Our fathers and grandfathers fought and sacrificed to defeat fascism, to leave to their children and grandchildren a freer, safer world. Now is our time to repay that debt. It is up to this generation to fight the ideology of hatred. It is our choice with courage and sacrifice, to defeat it and leave to our children and grandchildren a freer, safer world, or retreat and leave to future generations a world too dark to imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)