Maybe.
Or maybe this is just a tease.
But I have some things to say. I might start posting those things here. We shall see. One thing that does surprise me is that according to the counter thingy at the bottom, I've had 12k hits. I don't see how that's possible, and hardly anyone ever commented.
I think what I'll do is try to make a commitment to a weekly post. Stay tuned.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sarah Palin
Yes, the world does need another unread commentary on Sarah Palin. Because I don't think anyone really gets this right. Too many people are still looking at this through the obsolete conservative v. liberal lens.
I frankly don't care that she resigned, or what it bodes for her political future, or what it means for the populist right or the Republican Party or any of that. Despite the attention she's received, she's a marginal figure in our political life. In 2008, people with a certain set of political views were looking for an alternative, and they saw in Palin something different. But in this, she is really little different from Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, or for the older among us, John Anderson.
What I think is important is explaining her popularity. Why does she capture the imagination of so many? Yes, there is the issue of the elite, and how she is not one of them. But what remains unanalyzed is the dynamic we are facing in the country regarding populism and elites.
The crises we face right now--the economic situation, health care, the environment, the failures in response to Katrina, we can even go back to the attacks on 9/11 and the ensuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--are all examples of elites making huge and costly mistakes. The conclusion one must draw, the unavoidable conclusion is that
THE ELITE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS DOING. IT IS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY.
If you are a Democrat, or a liberal, you could comfort yourself that it was all Bush. But the seeds for all these crises, with the exception of the wars in the Middle East and Katrina, were sown long before Bush took office. For many in this country, the coolness of Obama is a kind of hope that we can solve these problems. But for many people, Obama is no more likely to have an answer than
Now in no way do I think Palin had any real answers to these problems. But to understand a Palin supporter, all you really need to do is to accept several not terribly difficult to accept premises.
1. The people running this country are not really determined by elections. We simply choose between factions of a single elite.
2. They are not competent, as evidenced by the problems we all face, and by the fact that their most visible members, the pundits, are wrong more often than meteorologists. In fact, it seems that most people who talk about these issues more or less make things up as they go along.
3. Since the "best and brightest" haven't got a clue, then maybe we can get someone who can at least sympathize with our plight.
Palin is in some ways much like Bill Clinton in the ability to draw upon sympathy for political support. Clinton was of course more optimistic, more positive. But I think a huge measure of support for Clinton stemmed from the fact that he had real people problems, as Chris Rock once said.
To those who believe that we live in a meritocracy, Palin seemed like a continuation of Bush style anti-intellectual conservatism. To those who think the powers that be are all equally clueless, Obama has more in common with Bush than Palin.
I frankly don't care that she resigned, or what it bodes for her political future, or what it means for the populist right or the Republican Party or any of that. Despite the attention she's received, she's a marginal figure in our political life. In 2008, people with a certain set of political views were looking for an alternative, and they saw in Palin something different. But in this, she is really little different from Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, or for the older among us, John Anderson.
What I think is important is explaining her popularity. Why does she capture the imagination of so many? Yes, there is the issue of the elite, and how she is not one of them. But what remains unanalyzed is the dynamic we are facing in the country regarding populism and elites.
The crises we face right now--the economic situation, health care, the environment, the failures in response to Katrina, we can even go back to the attacks on 9/11 and the ensuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--are all examples of elites making huge and costly mistakes. The conclusion one must draw, the unavoidable conclusion is that
THE ELITE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS DOING. IT IS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY.
If you are a Democrat, or a liberal, you could comfort yourself that it was all Bush. But the seeds for all these crises, with the exception of the wars in the Middle East and Katrina, were sown long before Bush took office. For many in this country, the coolness of Obama is a kind of hope that we can solve these problems. But for many people, Obama is no more likely to have an answer than
Now in no way do I think Palin had any real answers to these problems. But to understand a Palin supporter, all you really need to do is to accept several not terribly difficult to accept premises.
1. The people running this country are not really determined by elections. We simply choose between factions of a single elite.
2. They are not competent, as evidenced by the problems we all face, and by the fact that their most visible members, the pundits, are wrong more often than meteorologists. In fact, it seems that most people who talk about these issues more or less make things up as they go along.
3. Since the "best and brightest" haven't got a clue, then maybe we can get someone who can at least sympathize with our plight.
Palin is in some ways much like Bill Clinton in the ability to draw upon sympathy for political support. Clinton was of course more optimistic, more positive. But I think a huge measure of support for Clinton stemmed from the fact that he had real people problems, as Chris Rock once said.
To those who believe that we live in a meritocracy, Palin seemed like a continuation of Bush style anti-intellectual conservatism. To those who think the powers that be are all equally clueless, Obama has more in common with Bush than Palin.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
More on "socialism"
Let's accept the premise that government intervention in the economy over the long run depresses economic growth, that because free markets allocate resources more efficiently than government, freer markets will be more efficient. I don't think this is true in all cases, and am deeply suspicious that theories of this sort do not apply to every real world situation.
However, again, let's simply accept the premise. The question it raises in my mind is economic efficiency, in terms of increasing total economic output the only good that matters? I look around my house, and I have a ton of stuff. More than I need. If I had to move, I'd likely throw a lot of it away. Of course, I'm not poor, so perhaps the problem is distribution.
One of my core political beliefs is that there is no single account of the good that can satisfy anyone. Therefore, we should at least be willing to consider trading some efficiency for other goods.
The key is not to pretend that various policies have no cost. Rather, the key is to ask the question whether the cost is worth the benefit.
However, again, let's simply accept the premise. The question it raises in my mind is economic efficiency, in terms of increasing total economic output the only good that matters? I look around my house, and I have a ton of stuff. More than I need. If I had to move, I'd likely throw a lot of it away. Of course, I'm not poor, so perhaps the problem is distribution.
One of my core political beliefs is that there is no single account of the good that can satisfy anyone. Therefore, we should at least be willing to consider trading some efficiency for other goods.
The key is not to pretend that various policies have no cost. Rather, the key is to ask the question whether the cost is worth the benefit.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
What about Socialism?
As I indicated here a couple of years ago, I believe small government conservatism was dead politically, and it shows no real sign of revival. While I believe that the charges of socialism leveled at the Obama administration are overwrought, there's no doubt that economic policy will involve more government intervention than in past, probably more than in decades.
Hayek's argument in The Road the Serfdom was not exactly an argument against socialism. Rather, it was an argument against government planning in the economic sphere. The context for this argument was World War II, which had involved a massive expansion of government planning in the economy, with the government controlling wages and prices and production. Hayek conceded this was necessary--the goal of defeating fascism was more important than economic freedom.
I think that context however is important in understanding how much intervention the free market can stand. And, the experience of World War II tells we are a long way from what was of concern to Hayek. This is not necessarily an argument in favor of government bailouts of GM. Rather, it suggests that a government bailout of GM on top of government putting stricter regulations in place over the financial sector are a long way from the way government planned the economy in the early 40s.
Hayek's argument in The Road the Serfdom was not exactly an argument against socialism. Rather, it was an argument against government planning in the economic sphere. The context for this argument was World War II, which had involved a massive expansion of government planning in the economy, with the government controlling wages and prices and production. Hayek conceded this was necessary--the goal of defeating fascism was more important than economic freedom.
I think that context however is important in understanding how much intervention the free market can stand. And, the experience of World War II tells we are a long way from what was of concern to Hayek. This is not necessarily an argument in favor of government bailouts of GM. Rather, it suggests that a government bailout of GM on top of government putting stricter regulations in place over the financial sector are a long way from the way government planned the economy in the early 40s.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Running
No, not for office. I'll take a break from politics, since I never intended this to be a political blog anyway and talk about my fitness efforts.
Yesterday, I ran a 5k. More accurately, I ran most of a 5k, but did walk bits and pieces of it. I finished under 32 minutes, which isn't great, but I was pleased. I beat a lot of my friends. It was extremely muggy. Next year, with more training and little cooperation from the weather, I'm going to try to finish under 27 minutes.
The best thing about doing this run for me is that having a goal like running a 5k got me focused on fitness. I intend to keep up the basic workout regimen I've been following for the last couple of months, adding in some weight training. I'm really starting to feel better, and I've even experience that so-called runner's high.
Yesterday, I ran a 5k. More accurately, I ran most of a 5k, but did walk bits and pieces of it. I finished under 32 minutes, which isn't great, but I was pleased. I beat a lot of my friends. It was extremely muggy. Next year, with more training and little cooperation from the weather, I'm going to try to finish under 27 minutes.
The best thing about doing this run for me is that having a goal like running a 5k got me focused on fitness. I intend to keep up the basic workout regimen I've been following for the last couple of months, adding in some weight training. I'm really starting to feel better, and I've even experience that so-called runner's high.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
More on not wanting to win
There's a reason why the Republicans may not want to win anytime soon. The problems the country confronts are considerable, and none of them can be solved without significant costs. For now, of course, much of the blame for all this is on the Bush administration. And so for the immediate future, Obama will be given a considerable amount of slack and flexibility. But that won't last forever. By 2012, Obama will have to have made some considerable progress on many fronts to get re-elected.
This is a high risk strategy of course. If Obama is perceived as successful--if unemployment is down to a more tolerable level, say under six percent, if most of US troops are out of Iraq and Afghanistan looks at least solvable, then given Obama's electoral coalition and demographic shifts, you'll be looking at Democratic dominance for at least a decade or two.
Indeed, the strategy has really never worked. Presidents who have come in during times of crisis and succeeded not only won re-election, they changed the electoral map--Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan are obvious examples of this. Hoping that Obama is another Carter strikes me as pretty desparate.
This is a high risk strategy of course. If Obama is perceived as successful--if unemployment is down to a more tolerable level, say under six percent, if most of US troops are out of Iraq and Afghanistan looks at least solvable, then given Obama's electoral coalition and demographic shifts, you'll be looking at Democratic dominance for at least a decade or two.
Indeed, the strategy has really never worked. Presidents who have come in during times of crisis and succeeded not only won re-election, they changed the electoral map--Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan are obvious examples of this. Hoping that Obama is another Carter strikes me as pretty desparate.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Do Republicans Really Want to Win?
For a long time, I was convinced that the Democratic elite didn't really care about winning. They held their safe seats, and kept the perks that went along with that. Howard Dean, in my opinion changed that, and while some Democratic elites like Pelosi and Reid seem uncomfortable with actual responsibility, the attitude from most Democratic elites is they like power.
Now, however, it seems like Republicans are not really interested in winning. If you are trying to succeed in politics in the US, you need to go about crafting a majority. Karl Rove understood that much. But the difference between the Democrats time in the wilderness and now with the Republicans is that it isn't just elites who don't seem to care about winning, it's rank and file Republicans as well. Fired up by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, they are more interested in purging so-called moderates from their ranks, and engaging in a kind of ideological purification you usually only see once you've taken power.
Is there another explanation for the current Republican obsession with casting out moderates? One way to consider the question is to look at recent events. If you are a conservative or Republican, you probably believe (with some justification) that Obama's election had more to do with dissatisfaction with President Bush than an embrace of liberalism. Similarly, the Democratic Congressional victories in 2006 can also be explained this way. To go along with this vision, many Republicans are emphasizing Bush's departure from basic conservative tenets--immigration reform most notably, but also No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D.
Indeed, a conservative critic of Bush could go further--Bush was not a moderate, he was a Progressive in the mold of Woodrow Wilson. In short, a neo conservative. The battle in the Republican ranks may not be between conservatives and moderates, but rather conservatives and neo-conservatives. This isn't to say moderates are neo-conservatives. But they share more of a common world view than either do with the populist conservatives who currently have the loudest voice in the party. I think there is a fundamental ideological split in the Republican Party, but it isn't between social and economic conservatives, nor is it really between moderates and conservatives. It's progressive neo-cons and populist conservatives.
Cheney's recent comments about Powell notwithstanding, it will be interesting to see how the winds blow going forward.
Now, however, it seems like Republicans are not really interested in winning. If you are trying to succeed in politics in the US, you need to go about crafting a majority. Karl Rove understood that much. But the difference between the Democrats time in the wilderness and now with the Republicans is that it isn't just elites who don't seem to care about winning, it's rank and file Republicans as well. Fired up by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, they are more interested in purging so-called moderates from their ranks, and engaging in a kind of ideological purification you usually only see once you've taken power.
Is there another explanation for the current Republican obsession with casting out moderates? One way to consider the question is to look at recent events. If you are a conservative or Republican, you probably believe (with some justification) that Obama's election had more to do with dissatisfaction with President Bush than an embrace of liberalism. Similarly, the Democratic Congressional victories in 2006 can also be explained this way. To go along with this vision, many Republicans are emphasizing Bush's departure from basic conservative tenets--immigration reform most notably, but also No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D.
Indeed, a conservative critic of Bush could go further--Bush was not a moderate, he was a Progressive in the mold of Woodrow Wilson. In short, a neo conservative. The battle in the Republican ranks may not be between conservatives and moderates, but rather conservatives and neo-conservatives. This isn't to say moderates are neo-conservatives. But they share more of a common world view than either do with the populist conservatives who currently have the loudest voice in the party. I think there is a fundamental ideological split in the Republican Party, but it isn't between social and economic conservatives, nor is it really between moderates and conservatives. It's progressive neo-cons and populist conservatives.
Cheney's recent comments about Powell notwithstanding, it will be interesting to see how the winds blow going forward.
Monday, December 1, 2008
A heckuva year
So, reflected back on my last year, it was eventful. Phillies win the World Series, Giants win the Superbowl, Obama wins the Presidency, economy collapsed, things got better in Iraq and worse in Afghanistan, bad stuff happened in Mumbai...
And on a personal level, two significant deaths, some other family stuff, but wife and child are doing well. Health is great, even if I am a little chubby. All in all, more blessings than troubles.
And on a personal level, two significant deaths, some other family stuff, but wife and child are doing well. Health is great, even if I am a little chubby. All in all, more blessings than troubles.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
One year blog anniversary!
Ok, so it's not like there's been a whole lot of blogging--spurts mostly.
However, I went back and looked to see how I did on my ability to predict things, and guess what--out of four real predictions, I got every one wrong! And here's the thing--they were all reasonable at the time I made them--Hillary was going to be the Democratic nominee, Iowa would be close with Edwards winning (hah!) and some other stuff.
It's my birthday tomorrow, which is the real anniversary of the blog. But I'll be pretty busy tomorrow with work and stuff, so I figured I'd get this post in today. I'd be looking forward to my birthday more if it weren't on a Monday. I don't care about getting older much anymore. Who cares about a few more ear hairs?
But it's a good time to make some vague plans for the next year. I'm going to try to get my yard in shape, get some stuff done around the house that I've been putting off. My wife wants to get going on putting in some flooring in our bedroom that will be my Christmas break. I'm going to spend more time brewing beer--I bottled a batch yesterday and am looking forward to drinking it in about two weeks.
There won't be as much political stuff to blog about this year, seeing as there isn't a Presidential election. And I'm really going to focus on making progress with the book manuscript. I've actually been doing some stuff on it--it's never far from my mind. But a little more focus might make a big difference.
Anyway, thanks for reading. Both of you.
However, I went back and looked to see how I did on my ability to predict things, and guess what--out of four real predictions, I got every one wrong! And here's the thing--they were all reasonable at the time I made them--Hillary was going to be the Democratic nominee, Iowa would be close with Edwards winning (hah!) and some other stuff.
It's my birthday tomorrow, which is the real anniversary of the blog. But I'll be pretty busy tomorrow with work and stuff, so I figured I'd get this post in today. I'd be looking forward to my birthday more if it weren't on a Monday. I don't care about getting older much anymore. Who cares about a few more ear hairs?
But it's a good time to make some vague plans for the next year. I'm going to try to get my yard in shape, get some stuff done around the house that I've been putting off. My wife wants to get going on putting in some flooring in our bedroom that will be my Christmas break. I'm going to spend more time brewing beer--I bottled a batch yesterday and am looking forward to drinking it in about two weeks.
There won't be as much political stuff to blog about this year, seeing as there isn't a Presidential election. And I'm really going to focus on making progress with the book manuscript. I've actually been doing some stuff on it--it's never far from my mind. But a little more focus might make a big difference.
Anyway, thanks for reading. Both of you.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Social conservatives
Say you're a social conservative. For 28 years now, you've supported candidates who articulated socially conservative positions, and in many cases helped them win. You've had substantial periods of time where you've controlled the Presidency and Congress, your candidates have had the opportunity to appoint 5 of 9 justices on the Supreme court, and lots and lots of other federal judges. Great political success, to be sure.
And what do you have to show for it? Abortion is still legal, there's no prayer in public school, nor are there any voucher programs, you don't even talk about things like in vitro fertilization, pornography and blatant sexuality are more mainstream than they've ever been, and the kind of social ills like teen pregnancy and drug abuse once associated with urbanization are now common in the rural heartland, your last redoubt. And if Nate Silverman is right, you're going to lose on the gay issue as well.
Why would you continue to participate in politics? Is the growth of home schooling a sign of a retreat from politics and mainstream culture? You've got no viable political leadership right now (Rick Warren isn't a culture warrior in the mold of Falwell or Robertson, not even Dobson, whose focus on the family is having financial troubles).
And what do you have to show for it? Abortion is still legal, there's no prayer in public school, nor are there any voucher programs, you don't even talk about things like in vitro fertilization, pornography and blatant sexuality are more mainstream than they've ever been, and the kind of social ills like teen pregnancy and drug abuse once associated with urbanization are now common in the rural heartland, your last redoubt. And if Nate Silverman is right, you're going to lose on the gay issue as well.
Why would you continue to participate in politics? Is the growth of home schooling a sign of a retreat from politics and mainstream culture? You've got no viable political leadership right now (Rick Warren isn't a culture warrior in the mold of Falwell or Robertson, not even Dobson, whose focus on the family is having financial troubles).
Monday, November 17, 2008
I spend time in airports
So I went to Boston this weekend, and to get there, I spent time in airports. Lots of times, in part for reasons having to do with planes not being fixed in time to fly me where I want to go, but in part because of how I planned my trip and my paranoia about missing a flight.
So, what is there to say about airports? Or, specifically, Logan in Boston, DFW, and Little Rock Regional? Well, Little Rock has a nice little brew pub type bar, but I wasn't there long enough to enjoy it. DFW is like a mall, and gates are far apart, I presume to make room for all the stores. Of A, B, and D, A terminal has the fewest places to eat, but it does have these chairs that allow you to put your feet up. D terminal has all kinds of crap, and B has a few places to get a beer, but nothing really exciting.
Logan, however, had sushi. So I ate airport sushi. How was it? Expensive. But OK. I mean, I'm not sick or anything. I am not the kind of person who talks to strangers much, but I try to be friendly if someone initiates a conversation. But only one guy wanted to talk during my airport hours. And none of my seat companions had anything to say.
So this might be the most boring blog post ever.
So, what is there to say about airports? Or, specifically, Logan in Boston, DFW, and Little Rock Regional? Well, Little Rock has a nice little brew pub type bar, but I wasn't there long enough to enjoy it. DFW is like a mall, and gates are far apart, I presume to make room for all the stores. Of A, B, and D, A terminal has the fewest places to eat, but it does have these chairs that allow you to put your feet up. D terminal has all kinds of crap, and B has a few places to get a beer, but nothing really exciting.
Logan, however, had sushi. So I ate airport sushi. How was it? Expensive. But OK. I mean, I'm not sick or anything. I am not the kind of person who talks to strangers much, but I try to be friendly if someone initiates a conversation. But only one guy wanted to talk during my airport hours. And none of my seat companions had anything to say.
So this might be the most boring blog post ever.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Why no celebratory post?
You'd think I didn't care we just elected Barack Obama. But I do care. I've been so happy about where our country may go. I just don't have the words to express how I feel right now, other people are doing that far better than I can.
And, I think in the spirit of being wrong, I'm just going to keep posting stuff that no one else seems to be saying.
And, I think in the spirit of being wrong, I'm just going to keep posting stuff that no one else seems to be saying.
And one more thing
I don't think it's my place to tell Republicans what they should do on the issue front, but consider going back to calling for a balanced budget.
Some unsolicited advice for the Republican Party
I believe a one party state is a very bad thing. Democracy needs at least two viable parties to function properly. With that said, here is a list of things I hope the Republicans consider going forward.
1. Please, please, please, stop using the phrase "Republican Brand". It sounds horrible. Are you a political party, or a soft drink?
2. Stop blaming the liberal media every time public opinion does not go your way. You managed to win lots of times with pretty much the same media environment--in fact, now, things are even more diverse with talk radio, the internet and so forth. And if the media were so liberal, why would you be worried about the fairness doctrine?
3. Recognize why you lost. It's not Palin, it's not that McCain was a bad candidate, or anything else. You lost because Bush is unpopular, and the economy is in the crapper.
4. Loyalty is a virtue, but it should not be automatic. It was clear early on in the Bush administration that he was making a hash of certain things. The uncritical support he received from most Republicans did not help his Presidency, or the well being of the nation. Likewise, don't get caught up in arguments about the strength of the economy when it is clear that things are starting to head south. I think Reagan's eleventh commandment is doing your party some harm.
5. Think about doing away with the electoral college. I think it will be in your interest to do so--for instance, in the next 10 years, Texas may be a swing state, and when that happens, well, it's hard to see how the Republicans will even be competitive. Doing so will also encourage both parties to appeal to a national electorate, making country first a reality rather than a campaign slogan.
1. Please, please, please, stop using the phrase "Republican Brand". It sounds horrible. Are you a political party, or a soft drink?
2. Stop blaming the liberal media every time public opinion does not go your way. You managed to win lots of times with pretty much the same media environment--in fact, now, things are even more diverse with talk radio, the internet and so forth. And if the media were so liberal, why would you be worried about the fairness doctrine?
3. Recognize why you lost. It's not Palin, it's not that McCain was a bad candidate, or anything else. You lost because Bush is unpopular, and the economy is in the crapper.
4. Loyalty is a virtue, but it should not be automatic. It was clear early on in the Bush administration that he was making a hash of certain things. The uncritical support he received from most Republicans did not help his Presidency, or the well being of the nation. Likewise, don't get caught up in arguments about the strength of the economy when it is clear that things are starting to head south. I think Reagan's eleventh commandment is doing your party some harm.
5. Think about doing away with the electoral college. I think it will be in your interest to do so--for instance, in the next 10 years, Texas may be a swing state, and when that happens, well, it's hard to see how the Republicans will even be competitive. Doing so will also encourage both parties to appeal to a national electorate, making country first a reality rather than a campaign slogan.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Election of 2008
A few things happened last night that may not be noted much elsewhere.
The Reagan Youth (people in their 40s now) have in substantial numbers left the Republican party at least for the time being. This generation was never as conservative as pundits made out, though it probably was the most apathetic generation in some time. Also, I think while there are still Reagan Democrats out there, they're old.
Southern Evangelical conservatives are changing, but still Republican. It appears that the McCain campaign had some success rallying these voters with the selection of Sarah Palin, but that also alienated others. It may be that the inability of these voters to compromise will lead to their marginalization, much like the far cultural left remains marginalized.
On the other hand, there is likely to be some renewed strength in the Republican party for what they like to call small government conservatives. In my opinion, the way you can tell that movement is reinvigorated is when they start applying the libertarian label to themselves.
There will probably be some nonsense concerning this still being a center right country. Most people do not think that systematically or ideologically about the role of government. I don't think we are likely to see a new new deal or anything of the sort. We may see some adjustment of the tax code, and we'll probably get the SCHIPS bill that would have passed last year if not for President Bush's veto.
As someone who more or less believes in free markets, my main fear is that Obama will engage in protectionism, which would be the worst thing for the economy right now--far worse that a small tax increase or anything else he's proposed.
The Reagan Youth (people in their 40s now) have in substantial numbers left the Republican party at least for the time being. This generation was never as conservative as pundits made out, though it probably was the most apathetic generation in some time. Also, I think while there are still Reagan Democrats out there, they're old.
Southern Evangelical conservatives are changing, but still Republican. It appears that the McCain campaign had some success rallying these voters with the selection of Sarah Palin, but that also alienated others. It may be that the inability of these voters to compromise will lead to their marginalization, much like the far cultural left remains marginalized.
On the other hand, there is likely to be some renewed strength in the Republican party for what they like to call small government conservatives. In my opinion, the way you can tell that movement is reinvigorated is when they start applying the libertarian label to themselves.
There will probably be some nonsense concerning this still being a center right country. Most people do not think that systematically or ideologically about the role of government. I don't think we are likely to see a new new deal or anything of the sort. We may see some adjustment of the tax code, and we'll probably get the SCHIPS bill that would have passed last year if not for President Bush's veto.
As someone who more or less believes in free markets, my main fear is that Obama will engage in protectionism, which would be the worst thing for the economy right now--far worse that a small tax increase or anything else he's proposed.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
People Care What I Have to Say
Once every four years, people care what I have to say. Yesterday, participated in a forum in El Dorado, Arkansas, and today I visited my daughter's 2nd grade class and a 1st grade class in her school.
What struck me about both events was the intensity of this election. I encountered passionate supporters of both candidates, and a high level of interest from everybody. I am glad I was able to talk about the election in a way quite different from most media conversations.
The most surprising thing were the children--6, 7, and 8 year olds were surprisingly knowledgeable about the candidates and the nature of the Presidency. Unfortunately, the children did repeat some of misinformation that was out there as well. But it was a positive experience. I was especially moved by some of the African-American children, who really were excited by Obama's candidacy. This can be dismissed by some as identity politics, I suppose, but that is not what I saw out there. Something important is happening in America right now.
What struck me about both events was the intensity of this election. I encountered passionate supporters of both candidates, and a high level of interest from everybody. I am glad I was able to talk about the election in a way quite different from most media conversations.
The most surprising thing were the children--6, 7, and 8 year olds were surprisingly knowledgeable about the candidates and the nature of the Presidency. Unfortunately, the children did repeat some of misinformation that was out there as well. But it was a positive experience. I was especially moved by some of the African-American children, who really were excited by Obama's candidacy. This can be dismissed by some as identity politics, I suppose, but that is not what I saw out there. Something important is happening in America right now.
Monday, October 27, 2008
New direction?
After the election, I may start to post about life in the rural South--in addition my not terribly frequent political posts.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Change!
No, not a pro-Obama blog, nor an anti-Obama blog. And no, I haven't entirely abandoned the blogging project.
As we get down the election wire, we should not lose sight that however dramatic this election cycle has been, even more dramatic changes may be occurring under the surface. First, it is clear that the conservative movement, one that emerged in the forties and came to dominate American politics in the 80s is over. This is not to say that conservatism is over, not by a long shot. But the movement will have to adapt. Small government conservatism (a label I think is a capitulation by people once called libertarians) died in the first Bush term, and that death was confirmed by the enormous Wall Street bailout Paulson and Bush engineered. Social conservatism is not exactly dying, but young social conservatives appear to have very different concerns than their parents--even as they favor traditional families for themselves and strongly oppose abortion, they do not seem to be terribly troubled by homosexuality, and they are far more concerned with the environment than older social conservatives. In any event, there does not appear to be a "moral majority" out there that can mobilize these voters in a single direction.
As I've posted in the past, I'm convinced that the ideological labels of the past are obsolete. Somewhere on this blog I've posted about cosmopolitans and parochials. But really, I think that move can be understood as a description of what's happening to conservatism. It leaves open the question what is happening to liberalism.
Let's make a few observations--great society liberalism died a long time ago. Much of the change brought about by the conservative movement of the last 50 years is permanent. No one, other than maybe Washington bureaucrats, thinks Washington bureaucrats can solve problems. We will not see a top down approach to solving government problems again. Rather, what we are likely to see is a kind of new new federalism--one which will encourage more experimentalism in confronting social problems. This will not be driven by some grand new liberal ideology, but rather by pragmatic problem solving. Often, it is likely that these solutions will be market based, and even market driven.
The reason that I think liberalism will move in this de-centered direction is the way in which the ideological map is changing. For liberalism to spread beyond its coastal enclaves, it has had to adapt to new climates. There is still much work to be done--the contempt coastal elites often display for the people in the heartland is destructive. Rather than ask what's the matter with Kansas, perhaps San Franscisco hippies should be asking what's the matter with themselves. I think this is happening, though slowly, as the left begins to recognize its roots in populism and the labor movement. For this to happen heartland leftists will have to find their own voice. But this does seem to be happening.
As far as wealth distribution, the latest scare to come out of this election, I hope there will finally be a recognition that while free markets and globalization have great benefits, good politics and a sense of fairness demand that public policy ensure the benefits do not accrue to the few. The pain of declining real wages for most Americans was obscured by an explosion of credit, which we're paying for now. If lagging consumer spending is a prime cause of an economic slowdown, it makes sense to enact policies that encourage consumer spending. And the only real way to do that is to boost consumer income. In short, I think supply-side economics is dead. Anyway, it was just right wing Keynesianism all along, wasn't it?
As we get down the election wire, we should not lose sight that however dramatic this election cycle has been, even more dramatic changes may be occurring under the surface. First, it is clear that the conservative movement, one that emerged in the forties and came to dominate American politics in the 80s is over. This is not to say that conservatism is over, not by a long shot. But the movement will have to adapt. Small government conservatism (a label I think is a capitulation by people once called libertarians) died in the first Bush term, and that death was confirmed by the enormous Wall Street bailout Paulson and Bush engineered. Social conservatism is not exactly dying, but young social conservatives appear to have very different concerns than their parents--even as they favor traditional families for themselves and strongly oppose abortion, they do not seem to be terribly troubled by homosexuality, and they are far more concerned with the environment than older social conservatives. In any event, there does not appear to be a "moral majority" out there that can mobilize these voters in a single direction.
As I've posted in the past, I'm convinced that the ideological labels of the past are obsolete. Somewhere on this blog I've posted about cosmopolitans and parochials. But really, I think that move can be understood as a description of what's happening to conservatism. It leaves open the question what is happening to liberalism.
Let's make a few observations--great society liberalism died a long time ago. Much of the change brought about by the conservative movement of the last 50 years is permanent. No one, other than maybe Washington bureaucrats, thinks Washington bureaucrats can solve problems. We will not see a top down approach to solving government problems again. Rather, what we are likely to see is a kind of new new federalism--one which will encourage more experimentalism in confronting social problems. This will not be driven by some grand new liberal ideology, but rather by pragmatic problem solving. Often, it is likely that these solutions will be market based, and even market driven.
The reason that I think liberalism will move in this de-centered direction is the way in which the ideological map is changing. For liberalism to spread beyond its coastal enclaves, it has had to adapt to new climates. There is still much work to be done--the contempt coastal elites often display for the people in the heartland is destructive. Rather than ask what's the matter with Kansas, perhaps San Franscisco hippies should be asking what's the matter with themselves. I think this is happening, though slowly, as the left begins to recognize its roots in populism and the labor movement. For this to happen heartland leftists will have to find their own voice. But this does seem to be happening.
As far as wealth distribution, the latest scare to come out of this election, I hope there will finally be a recognition that while free markets and globalization have great benefits, good politics and a sense of fairness demand that public policy ensure the benefits do not accrue to the few. The pain of declining real wages for most Americans was obscured by an explosion of credit, which we're paying for now. If lagging consumer spending is a prime cause of an economic slowdown, it makes sense to enact policies that encourage consumer spending. And the only real way to do that is to boost consumer income. In short, I think supply-side economics is dead. Anyway, it was just right wing Keynesianism all along, wasn't it?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Katrina, the Financial Crisis, and Civilization
Some liberals are drawing parallels between Katrina and the financial crisis, claiming that the failure of the Bush administration in one means that they cannot be trusted to handle the other. I don't know if that's the exact comparison--I long ago stopped reading anything that sought to blame everything bad on Bush. He's been a lousy President, and let's leave it at that.
The reason why I bring this up though is because there is an important, even critical way Hurricane Katrina needs to be considered in understanding what might be at stake here. Katrina showed us that what we take to be civilization is rather fragile. People will more or less behave decently as long as they are reasonably assured that the future will be much like the past, that their expectations of how the world works will not be shattered because of a levee break causing the Gulf of Mexico to flood our city.
Disorder is toxic.
And the financial crisis is scary. Katrina, as bad as it was, was a local event, and concerned a medium sized American city and areas to its east. And, most importantly, people understood what was happening and why, even if they could not do much about it. The levees broke, the flood waters came. The flood waters receded, the levees and the city could be repaired.
This financial thing, however, is much more critical. Think about it. You've got a dollar in your pocket. It has no tangible value. Its only value is if someone else is willing to take in return for some good or service. And the only reason someone will accept your dollar in exchange form something else is if he believes, he trusts that is, someone else will take it. Even gold does not really have much tangible value. And in today's economy, we are not even talking about specie and currency. We're talking about numbers on a spreadsheet somewhere. Really, we're talking about an abstraction. Money is really a belief. And it can be easily destroyed. If no one believes the money exists, or that it has value, then it does not.
At this point, we know that people do not respond well to the shattering of beliefs like that. People in New Orleans believed that the levees would hold, or that somehow the city, state and federal governments would be able to maintain some degree of social order, and when that turned out to be false, civil society quickly fell apart. If Americans wake up and suddenly find that all their money no longer exists, there will be trouble. Bad trouble. And the point is that's entirely possible. Beliefs can be tough to maintain.
The reason why I bring this up though is because there is an important, even critical way Hurricane Katrina needs to be considered in understanding what might be at stake here. Katrina showed us that what we take to be civilization is rather fragile. People will more or less behave decently as long as they are reasonably assured that the future will be much like the past, that their expectations of how the world works will not be shattered because of a levee break causing the Gulf of Mexico to flood our city.
Disorder is toxic.
And the financial crisis is scary. Katrina, as bad as it was, was a local event, and concerned a medium sized American city and areas to its east. And, most importantly, people understood what was happening and why, even if they could not do much about it. The levees broke, the flood waters came. The flood waters receded, the levees and the city could be repaired.
This financial thing, however, is much more critical. Think about it. You've got a dollar in your pocket. It has no tangible value. Its only value is if someone else is willing to take in return for some good or service. And the only reason someone will accept your dollar in exchange form something else is if he believes, he trusts that is, someone else will take it. Even gold does not really have much tangible value. And in today's economy, we are not even talking about specie and currency. We're talking about numbers on a spreadsheet somewhere. Really, we're talking about an abstraction. Money is really a belief. And it can be easily destroyed. If no one believes the money exists, or that it has value, then it does not.
At this point, we know that people do not respond well to the shattering of beliefs like that. People in New Orleans believed that the levees would hold, or that somehow the city, state and federal governments would be able to maintain some degree of social order, and when that turned out to be false, civil society quickly fell apart. If Americans wake up and suddenly find that all their money no longer exists, there will be trouble. Bad trouble. And the point is that's entirely possible. Beliefs can be tough to maintain.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Hurrican Gustav
You might notice my picture. Yes, New Orleans is one of my favorite cities. I last visited in January, where the recover was fragile. The tourist infrastructure was there, but outside of those areas you got a sense that the city might not make it. Of course, Katrina by itself was only part of the equation--the city had been losing its economic base for some time.
Right now, I'm holding my breath. I do think that if the damage is minimal, it will be in fact a real shot in the arm for the city. Based on what I've seen of the evacuation, the city and state learned lots of lessons, and that should give a renewed confidence in the ability of the people of New Orleans to keep their city alive.
Right now, I'm holding my breath. I do think that if the damage is minimal, it will be in fact a real shot in the arm for the city. Based on what I've seen of the evacuation, the city and state learned lots of lessons, and that should give a renewed confidence in the ability of the people of New Orleans to keep their city alive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
