If you think Obama hasn't done much to invest in our economy and our infrastructure, you should spend ninety seconds reading Amazon's sales blurb for this book on the Recovery Act's passage and effects:
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Deal-Hidden-Change/dp/1451642326
It's heartening:
From amazon:
"As ambitious and far-reaching as FDR’s New Deal, the Recovery Act is a
down payment on the nation’s economic and environmental future, the
purest distillation of change in the Obama era.
The stimulus has
launched a transition to a clean-energy economy, doubled our renewable
power, and financed unprecedented investments in energy efficiency, a
smarter grid, electric cars, advanced biofuels, and green manufacturing.
It is computerizing America’s pen-and-paper medical system. Its Race to
the Top is the boldest education reform in U.S. history. It has put in
place the biggest middle-class tax cuts in a generation, the largest
research investments ever, and the most extensive infrastructure
investments since Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. It includes
the largest expansion of antipoverty programs since the Great Society,
lifting millions of Americans above the poverty line, reducing
homelessness, and modernizing unemployment insurance. Like the first New
Deal, Obama’s stimulus has created legacies that last: the world’s
largest wind and solar projects, a new battery industry, a fledgling
high-speed rail network, and the world’s highest-speed Internet network."
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Cutting Federal Spending right now is a horrible, horrible idea
So
what do we do about the current runaway deficits that feel so dangerous? Good question, and here's your
answer: leave them alone for now. Wait until we're out of our current unemployment and growth crisis and the economy is
booming again (or something close to it) before gradually withdrawing gov't support. There's not much disadvantage to doing this, because right now the government can borrow at about 0 percent interest on a ten year bond (not including inflation--and, yes, when the world economy picks up again, it'll become much more expensive to borrow. That's fine, because that's exactly when we should stop borrowing :) ).
WHY would we want to keep US troops in Iraq?
I largely agree with the main points made in Paul Berman's article in The New Republic yesterday regarding Obama's debate performance, including that he seemed, on a gut level, serious about not allowing Iran a nuclear weapon, even if that meant very grim consequences that more cowboy-type presidents (and candidates) tend to gloss over (i.e. full-scale war is the only way to stop the program, in sanctions don't work; bombing won't work and will strengthen the Iranian regime's hand at home by providing them with an external enemy).
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109018/obama-two-most-revealing-moments-in-last-nights-debate
However, I strongly disagree with Berman's implication that Obama is glossing over a failure when he boasts of removing troops from Iraq, because certain unspecified 'people in our military'--which body of people includes hundreds of thousands of officers, not a few of which (though certainly not the majority, who tend to be sensible and competent people) have a bit of wingnuttery in them--believe the US could have done better by leaving a few troops in Iraq for 'post-bellum policing.'
Berman:
"It annoys me that Obama keeps boasting about having ended the war in Iraq, when all he means is that he failed to push hard enough to secure a "status of forces" agreement with the Iraqi government. And then he pulled out the American military—though if he had, in fact, secured an agreement, the American military people could have retained a base or two in Iraq and, if the bases were big enough, might have lent a helping hand to the Iraqis. Not war, but post-bellum policing. There are people in our own military who seem to think so, anyway."
As someone who served in Iraq in 2005, I fail to see how keeping 10-30,000 troops in Iraq, at this point to some indefinite one in the future, would serve American interests, especially since Iraq has a quasi-functional government and police-force, and since getting further involved in their sectarian mess could be a nightmare. I can also testify first-hand to the resentment regular Kuwaitis harbor toward the Americans based there, despite our obvious role in providing them security and stability since 1990 against larger, sometimes dangerous neighbors. My perception of our relationship with the Arab world includes the insight that the thing Arabs hate most about the US is when we have troops stationed in their sovereign nations on a long-term basis. It tends to build resentment, as well as suspicion that their governments are our puppets, as well as generally giving them an excuse to blame bad things on the US--which sometimes is true (hey, we kind of screwed things up in Iraq from 2003-2006, I think it's fair to say), but which is also often simple conspiracy theory. It's also worth noting that the main casus belli (as it were) for Al Qaeda pre 9-11-2001 was the presence of US troops in bases in Saudi Arabia.
The only plausible justification I can come up with for advocating such a continuing troop presence (in Iraq) is the idea that the US could be trusted with non-sectarian policing in sensitive areas, where the Shia and Sunni powers don't trust each other to command security efforts. However, I have not seen anyone, neither Berman nor less nuanced thinkers like, say, Governor Romney, who supports a continued troop presence, as did his former rival Texas governor Rick Perry in an exaggerated manner, making this argument in any coherent form. Is it too much to ask HOW a continued US troop presence in Iraq would serve our interests in that region and the world, or to note a conspicuous absence of actual argumentation to the effect it would do this.
Really, what we should be looking for is a balanced cost-benefit analysis of the situation, but clearly that's WAY too much to ask for.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109018/obama-two-most-revealing-moments-in-last-nights-debate
However, I strongly disagree with Berman's implication that Obama is glossing over a failure when he boasts of removing troops from Iraq, because certain unspecified 'people in our military'--which body of people includes hundreds of thousands of officers, not a few of which (though certainly not the majority, who tend to be sensible and competent people) have a bit of wingnuttery in them--believe the US could have done better by leaving a few troops in Iraq for 'post-bellum policing.'
Berman:
"It annoys me that Obama keeps boasting about having ended the war in Iraq, when all he means is that he failed to push hard enough to secure a "status of forces" agreement with the Iraqi government. And then he pulled out the American military—though if he had, in fact, secured an agreement, the American military people could have retained a base or two in Iraq and, if the bases were big enough, might have lent a helping hand to the Iraqis. Not war, but post-bellum policing. There are people in our own military who seem to think so, anyway."
As someone who served in Iraq in 2005, I fail to see how keeping 10-30,000 troops in Iraq, at this point to some indefinite one in the future, would serve American interests, especially since Iraq has a quasi-functional government and police-force, and since getting further involved in their sectarian mess could be a nightmare. I can also testify first-hand to the resentment regular Kuwaitis harbor toward the Americans based there, despite our obvious role in providing them security and stability since 1990 against larger, sometimes dangerous neighbors. My perception of our relationship with the Arab world includes the insight that the thing Arabs hate most about the US is when we have troops stationed in their sovereign nations on a long-term basis. It tends to build resentment, as well as suspicion that their governments are our puppets, as well as generally giving them an excuse to blame bad things on the US--which sometimes is true (hey, we kind of screwed things up in Iraq from 2003-2006, I think it's fair to say), but which is also often simple conspiracy theory. It's also worth noting that the main casus belli (as it were) for Al Qaeda pre 9-11-2001 was the presence of US troops in bases in Saudi Arabia.
The only plausible justification I can come up with for advocating such a continuing troop presence (in Iraq) is the idea that the US could be trusted with non-sectarian policing in sensitive areas, where the Shia and Sunni powers don't trust each other to command security efforts. However, I have not seen anyone, neither Berman nor less nuanced thinkers like, say, Governor Romney, who supports a continued troop presence, as did his former rival Texas governor Rick Perry in an exaggerated manner, making this argument in any coherent form. Is it too much to ask HOW a continued US troop presence in Iraq would serve our interests in that region and the world, or to note a conspicuous absence of actual argumentation to the effect it would do this.
Really, what we should be looking for is a balanced cost-benefit analysis of the situation, but clearly that's WAY too much to ask for.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Public investment
During the era of greatest peacetime public investment in US society (partly in technologies as part of an explicit effort to compete with Communist economies), the US economy grew at an average rate of around 4% per annum between 1947 and 1973. Everyone benefited. Who's more likely to give us policies like that in the future? --That thought's a challenge both to Romney and the GOP, whose cuts (20% cap on federal spending, 4% reserved for Defense, much more reserved for social insurance programs...any actual cuts remaining blissfully unspecified) would seem to necessarily slash existing public industrial/scientific investment, and to Obama, under whose leadership new technologies and industries necessary to grow our economy in the long term have received inadequate support--the obvious and important exceptions to this being the rescue of an existing industry, the auto industry, as well as the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act in 2009, which provided substantial funding for a few efforts like solar power (still...not enough in the medium term).
Without continued strong economic growth, broadly shared across the economy through high-level (i.e. high-tech?) jobs, the entire social compact comes under stress. Who's going to step up and fight?
Friday, October 19, 2012
Romney's moderation: Specifics! Policies!
Commentor Pfeng writes:
"Romney was able to win (and actually do a relatively ok job) in Massachusetts by being very moderate. Frankly, he doesn't need to be hard-core conservative to get the vote of ultra right-wingers, since they will vote for Anybody Who Isn't Obama, so moderate and reasonable-sounding is his best strategy.
Although I could just be missing something, it's hard to see out of this binder."
Interesting question! Why aren't the right-wingers pissed off? Romney was clearly scared of them for months. There was no convention pivot. The conventional wisdom for a while, or the big question, was whether conservatives would allow Romney to pivot to the center enough to appeal to moderates and other swing voters and have a better chance to win. He seemed terrified to do so for a long time.
I guess he changed his mind--likely after the two conventions showed him he couldn't win in his current stance. So far, though, his moderation has come with a remarkable lack of specifics, in contrast to a rather large number of promises he's made to the right on policy. The right seems to be willing to tolerate this because the month of sitting 3-7 points down in the polls scared them, too, and now the moderate switch seems to be working for everyone on the right (though it must give at least some thinking people on the right pause that this is the only way they can win...). But if Mitt's really going to govern as a moderate, I demand specifics: on the economy (his 'five point plan' seems nothing more than a dishonest collection of bullet points focusing on goals to be reached by magic, not policies), on regulation of Wall Street (which he seemed, in the second debate, to be in favor of), and on the necessary public investment in our economy's future, i.e. on technology, on high-tech manufacturing (something Obama actually mentioned at the last debate, much to his credit, but which he has not pursued nearly vigorously enough in his first term, much to his discredit), and in education: the next generation of engineers, designers, scientists and business operations managers (as opposed to business finance specialists like...uh...Romney). How are we going to do these things?
"Romney was able to win (and actually do a relatively ok job) in Massachusetts by being very moderate. Frankly, he doesn't need to be hard-core conservative to get the vote of ultra right-wingers, since they will vote for Anybody Who Isn't Obama, so moderate and reasonable-sounding is his best strategy.
Although I could just be missing something, it's hard to see out of this binder."
Interesting question! Why aren't the right-wingers pissed off? Romney was clearly scared of them for months. There was no convention pivot. The conventional wisdom for a while, or the big question, was whether conservatives would allow Romney to pivot to the center enough to appeal to moderates and other swing voters and have a better chance to win. He seemed terrified to do so for a long time.
I guess he changed his mind--likely after the two conventions showed him he couldn't win in his current stance. So far, though, his moderation has come with a remarkable lack of specifics, in contrast to a rather large number of promises he's made to the right on policy. The right seems to be willing to tolerate this because the month of sitting 3-7 points down in the polls scared them, too, and now the moderate switch seems to be working for everyone on the right (though it must give at least some thinking people on the right pause that this is the only way they can win...). But if Mitt's really going to govern as a moderate, I demand specifics: on the economy (his 'five point plan' seems nothing more than a dishonest collection of bullet points focusing on goals to be reached by magic, not policies), on regulation of Wall Street (which he seemed, in the second debate, to be in favor of), and on the necessary public investment in our economy's future, i.e. on technology, on high-tech manufacturing (something Obama actually mentioned at the last debate, much to his credit, but which he has not pursued nearly vigorously enough in his first term, much to his discredit), and in education: the next generation of engineers, designers, scientists and business operations managers (as opposed to business finance specialists like...uh...Romney). How are we going to do these things?
No Obama debate win, or the triumph of a moderate Romney?
Gallup's 7 day tracker still has Romney up by 6 points. There may well be a bit of statistical noise, here, but this would seem to indicate the Prez didn't do so decently in the 2nd debate as people have assumed.
Or does this just mean that the suddenly moderate image Mitt Romney has presented in the first two debates has continued to pay off, despite somewhat more vigorous opposition from the president in the second debate? The policy image Romney has created over the last few weeks, often by innuendo rather than concrete promise, has been much farther to the left than anything previous. Thoughts?
Or does this just mean that the suddenly moderate image Mitt Romney has presented in the first two debates has continued to pay off, despite somewhat more vigorous opposition from the president in the second debate? The policy image Romney has created over the last few weeks, often by innuendo rather than concrete promise, has been much farther to the left than anything previous. Thoughts?
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Insights from the past (mine and the US's) on economics
I found the following note-cards, containing thoughts written down in 2005 after conversations with one Major Lamoreaux, a psychologist who was also helping me through some of the difficulties of doing medicine in a theatre of war (Iraq). They include a few thoughts on the development of ideas about government in which income is taxed and then used for the benefit of society as a whole (i.e. to create public goods like roads, bridges, and a stable health-care system):
'Before 1933, government was largely a tool of business and the wealthy, and the structure of society allowed for the suppression and neglect of the working class.
Early liberals moved government toward being an arbiter between business/industry and labor [i.e. working people, those who sweat away supporting industrial society directly, rather than managing or coming up with entrepreneurial ideas]. Government moved away from encouraging the distribution of wealth (and [perhaps] even redistribution by excessive taxation of the lower classes?) in favor of the wealthy, toward redistribution in favor of those in need, to a limited extent, and toward more balanced distribution overall.
...[An idea that also greatly expanded its hold during the period was] distribution of resources/income toward services on behalf of the whole of society, which services benefit that society as a whole (and as a collection of individuals) far more than any individual expenditures can. This last [change in the nature of government involvement in income and spending] is the basis of social democracy.'
The sections in brackets are words I've added to clarify the original writing, which occupied two sides of a three-by-five note card. This was when I was first thinking systematically about political philosophy and policy of this sort*. Thoughts? Is there something to be objected to, hear? Is this really Social Democracy, which is (or was, in those days) farther to the left, or just American Liberalism?
*I wouldn't get scared by the term 'redistribution,' which in this context is used to mean any policy that encourages wealth to accumulate toward one end of society or another--it starts out referring to a government gamed by the Gilded Age rich to grab most of the riches themselves, then seems to move toward describing the modest to marked progressive taxation (i.e. the rich pay a somewhat higher percentage of their income), as well as even-handed economic regulation, that characterized the mid-twentieth century, and which played a role in encouraging good incomes with significant but not excessive taxation for the middle class, and enough cash to government to take care of the elderly to some extent, pay for our military and security (9-10% of the economy in peace time at certain points, in those days), and do things like regulating food safety and clean air.
'Before 1933, government was largely a tool of business and the wealthy, and the structure of society allowed for the suppression and neglect of the working class.
Early liberals moved government toward being an arbiter between business/industry and labor [i.e. working people, those who sweat away supporting industrial society directly, rather than managing or coming up with entrepreneurial ideas]. Government moved away from encouraging the distribution of wealth (and [perhaps] even redistribution by excessive taxation of the lower classes?) in favor of the wealthy, toward redistribution in favor of those in need, to a limited extent, and toward more balanced distribution overall.
...[An idea that also greatly expanded its hold during the period was] distribution of resources/income toward services on behalf of the whole of society, which services benefit that society as a whole (and as a collection of individuals) far more than any individual expenditures can. This last [change in the nature of government involvement in income and spending] is the basis of social democracy.'
The sections in brackets are words I've added to clarify the original writing, which occupied two sides of a three-by-five note card. This was when I was first thinking systematically about political philosophy and policy of this sort*. Thoughts? Is there something to be objected to, hear? Is this really Social Democracy, which is (or was, in those days) farther to the left, or just American Liberalism?
*I wouldn't get scared by the term 'redistribution,' which in this context is used to mean any policy that encourages wealth to accumulate toward one end of society or another--it starts out referring to a government gamed by the Gilded Age rich to grab most of the riches themselves, then seems to move toward describing the modest to marked progressive taxation (i.e. the rich pay a somewhat higher percentage of their income), as well as even-handed economic regulation, that characterized the mid-twentieth century, and which played a role in encouraging good incomes with significant but not excessive taxation for the middle class, and enough cash to government to take care of the elderly to some extent, pay for our military and security (9-10% of the economy in peace time at certain points, in those days), and do things like regulating food safety and clean air.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Burton's Batman: Nolan, Alan Moore, and Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman
Drank and watched
Tim Burton's 'Batman Returns' with room-mate (Rich) a few nights ago--it was stranger than I
remembered (the Penguin is played as a nasty caricature that's the
opposite of subtlety--a viscerally nasty, nightmare cartoon, Danny DeVito in very heavy makeup)--the plot points are often
crude, but Michelle Pfeiffer's sensual, physical, destructive,
half-insane, psychologically fractured Catwoman was alone worth the ticket
price (15$ for a DvD ten years ago).*** The movie has its flaws, but her portrayal of a
psychologically disturbed woman broken under a mix of poor social
confidence and nasty establishment/masculine oppression is as
close as you're going to get to the final word on the Catwoman
character. It's the darkest, the creepiest and most compelling, and has the most interesting romantic arc.The 1992 movie was also shocking in how much more successful it was, artistically (for me, at least), than Nolan's last--despite all the cartoonishness and flaws. How much more resonant and relevant the characters and themes seemed (there may be something to the assertion in the article linked below: that Burton in 1989 made a quintessentially Burtonesque film that nevertheless had its finger on the character's pulse more than Nolan ever did. I think this is arguable--thoughts? Certainly, say, Anne Hathaway's Selena Kyle, while competently rendered, is less resonant and striking than Pfeiffer's, I'd say
But the other issue is this: Burton's second Batman film (which I almost made it through without pause, until the beginning of Act V, when the Penguin launched into a Shakespearian/Greek pre-battle oration addressed to...an army of penguins with rockets on their backs colored like barbershop poles. Which penguins were somehow radio-controlled and about to set off on a military strike against Gotham's population centers...fucking weird), which is not his most celebrated but which was nevertheless striking, also reminded me that Burton was once 'a gifted visual director' who 'coupled a cartoonist's expressiveness with a deeply humane empathy for the socially dispossessed,' in the words of the article linked to below, which rightly calls out Burton (and Depp) for his/their oddly lightweight fare since the mid-nineties or so, something fans have been rather slow to admit.
How did it come to this? How did Burton's dark cartoon aesthetic, full of storytelling verve and grounded in sympathy for the underdog and the dispossessed, go so hollow? Read the article--it's mostly dead on, with the exception that I'm not on board with the author's interpretation of the Keaton Batman being an 'overgrown boy crouched in a cave' (or words to that effect), or the idea that is a basic part of the Batman myth. But the rest is worth your time if you're interested in his ouvre.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8462672/what-happened-tim-burton-career-how-did-all-go-wrong-fast
Thoughts? How does Burton's vision compare to Nolan's, with the less successful last installment under the latter's belt? What happened to Burton? And the following:
***Selena Kyle's character raises one final question: Alan Moore's 'The Killing Joke,' with its portrayal of a likewise psychologically fractured Joker, is known to have influenced Burton's Batman material. But is that influence actually stronger in the second film than the first--where it's usually assumed to connect because that's the one about the Joker? Nicholson's hammy take on The Joker is pretty may share a plot point or two with The Killing Joke, but his character is pretty much uniformly malevolent.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Classical Liberalism and Liberalism
I've been lying awake, and letting ideas float across my head, and now I'm going to try and put a specific historical/philosophical idea out there, maybe the boldest one I've even put in print and in a public place.
Libertarians (and certain types of Conservatives) think they're direct descendants of Classical Liberals--maintaining the views of Thomas Jefferson as everyone else mucks around with that legacy.
They're not.
Sean Wilentz and/or E.J. Dionne, I believe, has said that 'Liberalism is an impulse, an attitude'--that innervates modern society on the Left and that does not equate to the philosophy of Classical Liberalism. But what does he mean by this 'attitude'? What are the specifics in terms of ideas and policies?
Well, let us see: Liberalism, the word, originates from Liberty, yes, but it identifies, even in the 'Classical' period a body of (somewhat varying) ideas and attitudes developing in the western intellectual classes and elsewhere throughout society, especially the middle classes. The French were more Laisseiz Faire (spelling?) (some of the Scots, too), but also included in most of Liberalism, aside from individual rights, and a Liberal Democracy founded on protection of those rights--was a sense of noblesse oblige and common purpose as a society: Civic Republicanism--the other half of Liberalism, even the Classical kind.
That's why, though the states wrote semi-rigid rules for the Federal Government (they were operating under recent trauma and a fear of a central authority), they retained to themselves the instruments of law and government. That's why, though Liberals of the eighteenth century were often concerned with preventing economic meddling that would distort markets and make people less free (because this, in part, is what the Imperialist/Mercantilist nations were doing), this tells us more about the way that impulse led to policy outcomes to serve the greater good IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. It does not tell us that the overall philosophy was a libertarian one.
I could cite numerous eighteenth century laws passed just after the constitution to make this point, and links later, but for the moment I will just note that a reading of the letters of Thomas Jefferson shows many passages indicating his belief that society and government must come together at times for the common good. His own presidency accepted most of the practical innovations the Federalists had created to run government and expand it to the point it functioned, and it closed with a huge interference (blockage of US participation) in international trade. Neither Jefferson, nor his cohorts, were libertarians. Oh, Jefferson was a bit on the Libertarianish side of the things compared to your average founding father, maybe, but he was still part of the larger tradition we simply, and correctly, call: Liberalism--who wrote the US government's capacity 'to protect the common welfare' into the Constitution's preamble.
Classical Liberalism is not equal to Liberalism? False choice. Classical Liberalism was a manifestation of Liberal attitudes and ideas about the decency of all human life in the eighteenth century. Social Liberalism (or Modern American Liberalism) is the manifestation in our own. Conservativism draws on aspects of it, but ignores what it doesn't like and makes changes material to suit its own purposes.
Libertarians (and certain types of Conservatives) think they're direct descendants of Classical Liberals--maintaining the views of Thomas Jefferson as everyone else mucks around with that legacy.
They're not.
Sean Wilentz and/or E.J. Dionne, I believe, has said that 'Liberalism is an impulse, an attitude'--that innervates modern society on the Left and that does not equate to the philosophy of Classical Liberalism. But what does he mean by this 'attitude'? What are the specifics in terms of ideas and policies?
Well, let us see: Liberalism, the word, originates from Liberty, yes, but it identifies, even in the 'Classical' period a body of (somewhat varying) ideas and attitudes developing in the western intellectual classes and elsewhere throughout society, especially the middle classes. The French were more Laisseiz Faire (spelling?) (some of the Scots, too), but also included in most of Liberalism, aside from individual rights, and a Liberal Democracy founded on protection of those rights--was a sense of noblesse oblige and common purpose as a society: Civic Republicanism--the other half of Liberalism, even the Classical kind.
That's why, though the states wrote semi-rigid rules for the Federal Government (they were operating under recent trauma and a fear of a central authority), they retained to themselves the instruments of law and government. That's why, though Liberals of the eighteenth century were often concerned with preventing economic meddling that would distort markets and make people less free (because this, in part, is what the Imperialist/Mercantilist nations were doing), this tells us more about the way that impulse led to policy outcomes to serve the greater good IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. It does not tell us that the overall philosophy was a libertarian one.
I could cite numerous eighteenth century laws passed just after the constitution to make this point, and links later, but for the moment I will just note that a reading of the letters of Thomas Jefferson shows many passages indicating his belief that society and government must come together at times for the common good. His own presidency accepted most of the practical innovations the Federalists had created to run government and expand it to the point it functioned, and it closed with a huge interference (blockage of US participation) in international trade. Neither Jefferson, nor his cohorts, were libertarians. Oh, Jefferson was a bit on the Libertarianish side of the things compared to your average founding father, maybe, but he was still part of the larger tradition we simply, and correctly, call: Liberalism--who wrote the US government's capacity 'to protect the common welfare' into the Constitution's preamble.
Classical Liberalism is not equal to Liberalism? False choice. Classical Liberalism was a manifestation of Liberal attitudes and ideas about the decency of all human life in the eighteenth century. Social Liberalism (or Modern American Liberalism) is the manifestation in our own. Conservativism draws on aspects of it, but ignores what it doesn't like and makes changes material to suit its own purposes.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Values, policies, and politics (link)
Great article by Nathaniel Frank about the need, in politics, to convince voters that you will fight for them on behalf of a recognizable set of values, something Democrats too often forget (The Roosevelts understood it, and the Kennedys and Johnson, and Truman, and with the 2012 convention, the modern party seemed to be remembering it--but Obama fell woefully short of communicating any core of values or vision for governing):
http://prospect.org/article/were-all-values-voters
" But policies mean little if they’re not communicated as part of a larger narrative that speaks to voters’ values. I don’t mean gay marriage and abortion, per se, but the belated understanding by Dems (decades after the GOP) that voters make choices based on whether a candidate shares their values more than whether she promises the best policies. Policies matter, but primarily insomuch as they express what a candidate values and telegraph that she can be trusted to represent values that voters hold dear.
That lesson went unapplied in the first presidential debate this week. Viewers were bombarded with wonkish talk, he-said-he-said assertions, and half-truths or outright falsehoods. In particular, President Obama seemed to get caught up in policy details without framing his positions as part of a digestible and resonant story about how he’d lead America.
To get their narrative back, Democrats should be making three main points over the next month..."
The details on this are worth it. Furthermore, he notes (with backing evidence!):
"Widespread economic insecurity has made Americans more open to government intervention. A trend has accelerated: Despite the general success of conservative think tanks in eroding trust in government through their “starve the beast” strategy, Americans are more—not less—supportive of government intervention in their lives today than they were in past years."
The whole article is worth checking out.
UPDATE:
Michael Tomasky in the 'Prospect' a few years back puts together some thoughts on the same subject, framing it around coming together around a common political philosophy that the average person can accept:
http://prospect.org/article/party-search-notion-0
The article (from a little before the 2006 recapture of Congress), is prescient in its observation of the difficulties Democrats have (and would have in the years since) making a case for who they are, and why you should vote for them (a gap the right-wing propaganda machine has been perfectly willing to fill with lies and hyperbole).
"For many years -- during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society -- the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today's. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.
This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance -- not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity."
http://prospect.org/article/were-all-values-voters
" But policies mean little if they’re not communicated as part of a larger narrative that speaks to voters’ values. I don’t mean gay marriage and abortion, per se, but the belated understanding by Dems (decades after the GOP) that voters make choices based on whether a candidate shares their values more than whether she promises the best policies. Policies matter, but primarily insomuch as they express what a candidate values and telegraph that she can be trusted to represent values that voters hold dear.
That lesson went unapplied in the first presidential debate this week. Viewers were bombarded with wonkish talk, he-said-he-said assertions, and half-truths or outright falsehoods. In particular, President Obama seemed to get caught up in policy details without framing his positions as part of a digestible and resonant story about how he’d lead America.
To get their narrative back, Democrats should be making three main points over the next month..."
The details on this are worth it. Furthermore, he notes (with backing evidence!):
"Widespread economic insecurity has made Americans more open to government intervention. A trend has accelerated: Despite the general success of conservative think tanks in eroding trust in government through their “starve the beast” strategy, Americans are more—not less—supportive of government intervention in their lives today than they were in past years."
The whole article is worth checking out.
UPDATE:
Michael Tomasky in the 'Prospect' a few years back puts together some thoughts on the same subject, framing it around coming together around a common political philosophy that the average person can accept:
http://prospect.org/article/party-search-notion-0
The article (from a little before the 2006 recapture of Congress), is prescient in its observation of the difficulties Democrats have (and would have in the years since) making a case for who they are, and why you should vote for them (a gap the right-wing propaganda machine has been perfectly willing to fill with lies and hyperbole).
"For many years -- during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society -- the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today's. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.
This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance -- not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity."
Friday, October 5, 2012
The Democratic mandate, or the philosophical good?
Republican leaders, or philosopher kings? In response to noted philosopher
Clancy 'Lord of Pierce and Other Vermin' Smith's
broaching of the question: did Chris 'the Corpulent' Christie do his job in abrogating the Democratic mandate according to the higher principle of protecting the traditional nature of marriage:
Clancy, I have no easy answer to the question of democratic politicians' dual mandate (the good or the will of the people). I would say, in part, that a good politician does his job by providing leadership which shows the people how they can act, or not act, to better their own society, and that this brings the two mandates closer together, reducing, if not eliminating, the discord.
Re: Christie, I think there is another point to be made: there is an assumption among politicos is that the dominant force in his decision to veto gay marriage was the desire to please national GOP primary voters and institutions for the 2016 presidential election. This attention to a narrow sliver of the populace seems a distortion of the democratic process, and it also assumes a crass attention to a mandate from a minority (i.e. not a mandate), rather than a principled stand. Admittedly, we have no direct evidence that this is the case; it's just an assumption. But it does complicate the situation your question addresses, methinks. Politics is a messy way of making sausages, whether made of human or tastier meats.
Clancy 'Lord of Pierce and Other Vermin' Smith's
broaching of the question: did Chris 'the Corpulent' Christie do his job in abrogating the Democratic mandate according to the higher principle of protecting the traditional nature of marriage:
Clancy, I have no easy answer to the question of democratic politicians' dual mandate (the good or the will of the people). I would say, in part, that a good politician does his job by providing leadership which shows the people how they can act, or not act, to better their own society, and that this brings the two mandates closer together, reducing, if not eliminating, the discord.
Re: Christie, I think there is another point to be made: there is an assumption among politicos is that the dominant force in his decision to veto gay marriage was the desire to please national GOP primary voters and institutions for the 2016 presidential election. This attention to a narrow sliver of the populace seems a distortion of the democratic process, and it also assumes a crass attention to a mandate from a minority (i.e. not a mandate), rather than a principled stand. Admittedly, we have no direct evidence that this is the case; it's just an assumption. But it does complicate the situation your question addresses, methinks. Politics is a messy way of making sausages, whether made of human or tastier meats.
Motives and realities of US foreign policy
Some have claimed that US wars are fought to profit US Business interests. I would argue that, while not completely inaccurate, this is an oversimplification that is fundamentally at odds with the broader picture of US policy.
As I wrote to a friend on the subject:
I think you're conflating a couple of largely separate issues when you talk about serving US business's profit motive and executive security powers; while it's true that the areas can overlap (it's at least arguable that politicians' connections to the energy industry [Cheney, but not just him] encouraged, but did not determine, the Iraq war {though, afterward, it's a Sovereign though not democratic Iraq that controls the energy resources, not us, and they contract with whoever they want}. There's also telecom retroactive immunity, I suppose), I'd say that private business's (partial) control of regulation and government policy is 75-95% a separate concern from the modern expansion of executive power used for defense and policing purposes. The extent to which the former premised situation is a reality is also not completely clear (business appears to be only one, non-monolithic, influence among many on government policy, though there's a common belief which I endorse, that the scales have tipped too far in favor of the power of that broad and diverse faction (industry, i.e. the US Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, the financial industry lobbyists, etc).
Ryan, I guess I'm disturbed by your comment that seems to acknowledge the institutional difficulties and limitations constricting the presidency. Would it not, then, be better to help re-elect a cautious reformist like Obama who, granted, has large weaknesses and is not oppositional enough to some of the nastier powers out there and has failed on some measures of leadership, than to allow the selection of an opponent who's both ideologically and fund-raising-wise and primary-voter-wise in the pockets of the powers that you loath (on both of the issues above: economics and security policy)?
As I wrote to a friend on the subject:
I think you're conflating a couple of largely separate issues when you talk about serving US business's profit motive and executive security powers; while it's true that the areas can overlap (it's at least arguable that politicians' connections to the energy industry [Cheney, but not just him] encouraged, but did not determine, the Iraq war {though, afterward, it's a Sovereign though not democratic Iraq that controls the energy resources, not us, and they contract with whoever they want}. There's also telecom retroactive immunity, I suppose), I'd say that private business's (partial) control of regulation and government policy is 75-95% a separate concern from the modern expansion of executive power used for defense and policing purposes. The extent to which the former premised situation is a reality is also not completely clear (business appears to be only one, non-monolithic, influence among many on government policy, though there's a common belief which I endorse, that the scales have tipped too far in favor of the power of that broad and diverse faction (industry, i.e. the US Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, the financial industry lobbyists, etc).
Ryan, I guess I'm disturbed by your comment that seems to acknowledge the institutional difficulties and limitations constricting the presidency. Would it not, then, be better to help re-elect a cautious reformist like Obama who, granted, has large weaknesses and is not oppositional enough to some of the nastier powers out there and has failed on some measures of leadership, than to allow the selection of an opponent who's both ideologically and fund-raising-wise and primary-voter-wise in the pockets of the powers that you loath (on both of the issues above: economics and security policy)?
Thoughts on the Obama administration's decision not to prosecute former officials for 'enhanced interrogation' under the previous administration (made in response to others):
See original thread here:
http://www.facebook.com/ryan.doxtader/posts/10151259999197228?comment_id=26395925¬if_t=like
Me:
Obama's not 'okay with torture.' Prosecuting US intelligence agents for past actions authorized from above would lose him the national security vote, guaranteed. But he did put in place sensible legal procedures at least aimed at striking a balance between the rights of (quasi)war detainees and national security. He also no longer claims that the executive can do basically anything in war-time because of vast security powers, no matter what Congress and the courts say about it, which is a pretty important philosophical/policy difference.
Obama has disappointed on many fronts, but the alternative is so insanely bad (Romney's foreign policy advisers seem to be all junior Neocon ass-hats, people like Dan Senor, who served with W) that you should vote for him anyway.
Remember how many people in 2000 claimed that there was no real difference between Gore and Bush, and so therefore one shouldn't vote, or should vote for Nader? How'd that work out for them?
See original thread here:
http://www.facebook.com/ryan.doxtader/posts/10151259999197228?comment_id=26395925¬if_t=like
Me:
Obama's not 'okay with torture.' Prosecuting US intelligence agents for past actions authorized from above would lose him the national security vote, guaranteed. But he did put in place sensible legal procedures at least aimed at striking a balance between the rights of (quasi)war detainees and national security. He also no longer claims that the executive can do basically anything in war-time because of vast security powers, no matter what Congress and the courts say about it, which is a pretty important philosophical/policy difference.
Obama has disappointed on many fronts, but the alternative is so insanely bad (Romney's foreign policy advisers seem to be all junior Neocon ass-hats, people like Dan Senor, who served with W) that you should vote for him anyway.
Remember how many people in 2000 claimed that there was no real difference between Gore and Bush, and so therefore one shouldn't vote, or should vote for Nader? How'd that work out for them?
K the destroyer:"and
i think we can all agree that there is no ethical responsibility to
punish government-approved torture, especially if it will lose you the
national security vote:"
(Cave Bear's response):
Politics
is a field full of conflicting ethical responsibilities--as well as
being the art of the possible. You have to weigh the benefits of such a
move against the fact that such
a move would almost certainly lose the President the 2012
election(polls and elections show that middle Americans tend to care
more about security than civil liberties, and have been particularly
skeptical of Democrats in this regard since 1972), which would bring on a
GOP presidency whose national security policy would (as asserted above)
most likely resemble W's much more closely, and explicitly include
further 'enhanced interrogation.' Has Obama no responsibility to prevent
such a thing, if we can?
All that's not to mention all the unrelated ethical and policy issues at stake on the domestic front that Obama would sacrifice, over which Obama would be ceding control to an out-of-touch plutocrat terrified of his own right flank, as well as probability such action would indirectly cause permanent change to the US social contract, shifting it to the right and causing more of America's least powerful and most in need to be abandoned to the chaos of nature without material support from their fellow citizens for the forseeable future, a future which would also include a more unequal (and unjust) distribution of wealth and a banking system more likely to destroy the entire world's economy. Preventing all this is far, far more important than prosecuting 23 CIA agents from a previous administration. One must weigh one consequence and policy against another, but here the choice is very clear.
(For what it's worth, I think there are areas in which Obama could probably move left on civil liberties, if he wanted to, without losing substantial political capital. This isn't one of them.)
___
It's worth reading the original thread in its entirety, but I shall attempt to excerpt portions of it in a coherent manner over the next few days, for the immense benefit of the larger public.
All that's not to mention all the unrelated ethical and policy issues at stake on the domestic front that Obama would sacrifice, over which Obama would be ceding control to an out-of-touch plutocrat terrified of his own right flank, as well as probability such action would indirectly cause permanent change to the US social contract, shifting it to the right and causing more of America's least powerful and most in need to be abandoned to the chaos of nature without material support from their fellow citizens for the forseeable future, a future which would also include a more unequal (and unjust) distribution of wealth and a banking system more likely to destroy the entire world's economy. Preventing all this is far, far more important than prosecuting 23 CIA agents from a previous administration. One must weigh one consequence and policy against another, but here the choice is very clear.
(For what it's worth, I think there are areas in which Obama could probably move left on civil liberties, if he wanted to, without losing substantial political capital. This isn't one of them.)
___
It's worth reading the original thread in its entirety, but I shall attempt to excerpt portions of it in a coherent manner over the next few days, for the immense benefit of the larger public.
Thoughts from beyond humanity
As a newcomer to humanity's social problems (trust me, they're both the same and different than those facing us during prehistoric or medieval periods), I've ended up commenting extensively on US affairs in social media. This blog aims to give me and mine a place to speak at length about important subjects such as macroeconomics, government policy, the media, the progression of human culture and evolution, alchemical philosophy, and various bear-specific concerns which you may or may not be interested in.
You can learn more about myself, a surviving European Cave Bear unfrozen for the second time (the first being during the 'medieval warm period,' of roughly 1000 - 1400 CE, during which I was worshiped by Berserks and others) and now dedicating to observing human society, in my profile. Meanwhile, I shall cross-post a few of my thoughts from previous writings for inaugural posts.
You can learn more about myself, a surviving European Cave Bear unfrozen for the second time (the first being during the 'medieval warm period,' of roughly 1000 - 1400 CE, during which I was worshiped by Berserks and others) and now dedicating to observing human society, in my profile. Meanwhile, I shall cross-post a few of my thoughts from previous writings for inaugural posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)