Aug
31
Mood, and a thought on Partisanship
Filed Under academia, personal, politics | 5 Comments
I am not in a bad mood. I am in an awful mood. I’m doing my best to remember that “I’m better than this,” but I need to get out, get my mind off where it wants to go.
I hate how my past defines me, let me put it that way. And I hate that I let this happen.
I’m going out to see The Dark Knight again in a few minutes, although Woody Allen’s latest has me tempted.
In other news – Josh and I discussed briefly yesterday a way to fix partisanship in this country, for both Left and Right. We really do need a crop of better leaders, but that isn’t going to happen as long as people believe that politics is a waste of time and not something in which one can be educated. People kinda have to believe this because of democracy’s reliance on equality. But they also believe it because they think “business” and “science” are real subjects, and learning how to use words wisely and approach issues carefully is merely a matter of temper.
Our thought is that if every College Democrat and Republican organization ran a group blog, not one venting about national issues or even issues of school governance, but just about day-to-day life, that would go a long way to advancing the state of politics in this country. People would realize that politics starts with the day-to-day. In college life, for example, it starts with dorms that are broken down and funding for student groups to how things are taught in class. There needn’t be any of the activism like the Right insists on where the sensationalist stupidies of academia are brought forth. What matters more is that people realize what everyday problems they’re confronting, and put forth the problem and try to work with others to solve it.
Partisanship isn’t “there’s some big corporate entity with officers and candidates called the party,” and you decide whether you join it or not. It’s really more like this – we have friends and interests. We join together to voice our interests together. When we get good at identifying and solving each other’s problems justly and efficiently, we’ve become good at governance in a way, and have something to share with the body politic at large. While types of governance have qualitative distinctions between them – i.e. the head of a household is not fit to be mayor on that experience alone, no matter how large the household – we can say a form of reasoning develops by taking rule seriously that ultimately is far more useful than ignoring politics altogether until it is time to vote.
What I’d like to do is run a group blog that highlighted the best of the college blogs, and attracted people’s attention to the state of the academy today. For whether the academy teaches politics properly or not, it does generate people who come out with serious amounts of education and contacts. Those people are going to rule, whether we like it or not. The issue is whether or not they can rule with any sort of tact and grace, an awareness of how to express themselves and an ability to allow others to communicate with each other better.
Aug
30
for Nancy
The New Year
Death Cab for Cutie (lyrics and song available at songmeanings.net/jango)
So this is the new year
And I don’t feel any different
The clanking of crystal
Explosions off in the distance
in the distance
So this is the new year
And I have no resolutions
For self-assigned penance
For problems with easy solutions
So everybody put your best suit or dress on
Let’s make believe that we are wealthy for just this once
Lighting firecrackers off on the front lawn
As thirty dialogues bleed into one
I wish the world was flat like the old days
Then I could travel just by folding a map
No more airplanes, or speedtrains, or freeways
There’d be no distance that can hold us back
There’d be no distance that could hold us back
There’d be no distance that could hold us back
So this is the new year (x 4)
1. Getting to the issue:
The narrator proclaims he doesn’t feel any different – the clanking of crystal might as well be explosions in the distance, the external doesn’t affect the internal.
Whatever the problem is, most types of resolutions are too small to deal with it. He doesn’t abandon the concept of resolution altogether, though. And he has hinted that “distance” is something weighing on his mind.
The external doesn’t affect the internal because the internal is resolved that the problem is external. If the world were flat and could be folded – if distance didn’t matter – then there wouldn’t be an issue.
The problem is the external, to put it bluntly. This isn’t a love song necessarily yet. The issue at hand is brought forth most clearly in a stanza describing a party:
So everybody put your best suit or dress on
Let’s make believe that we are wealthy for just this once
Lighting firecrackers off on the front lawn
As thirty dialogues bleed into one
“Let’s make believe that we are wealthy” – like what we do could be like that done in the first stanza, the official, distant celebrations. Maybe crystal has different facets because it is thirty dialogues blended into one, each dialogue representing the same differently.
2. So what is the issue exactly?
It’s simply not having means to do what one wants. What makes this a love song is “us,” but the lament about wealth isn’t trivial. What I think is happening is this: in order to love, you have to pretend like you’ve made it, like as if you’re already wealthy.
Now of course, we’re not wealthy. But if we confronted that reality and perhaps did a more important “self-assigned penance,” we’d put ourselves in a position where we’d never cross distances and find love. I’ve said about “Transatlanticism” that people cross oceans all the time for love, and it works somehow.
At the same time, ignoring reality isn’t exactly a smart move. I’ve talked many times about couples breaking up over finances, fighting for the pettiest of reasons. Does the song give us a solution?
I mean, weirdly enough, this song does sound affirming. This is the new year, again – we get chances. And the chances that matter most are the ones we’re patient about. It’s a good thing to not change substantially, to wait for those who matter, to wait until the time is right. Our narrator has taken what seems to be cynicism, turned it into resolve, and is better for it. He can celebrate knowing that the world was never flat, but there will be no distance that can hold us back.
Aug
29
The Politics of Denial: On Senator Obama’s Acceptance Speech (Warning: This is Very Partisan)
Filed Under politics | 24 Comments
I’m going to rebut Senator Obama’s positions with Republican talking points, and then make a broader comment about what a sensible liberal has to do in order to achieve the most important items on their agenda. The speech I’m quoting from is here. I will provide links to the sources backing up my arguments as questions arise; I just wanted to get this written first.
A. Senator Obama’s conflation of domestic/foreign affairs, and inability to understand what the President is primarily responsible for
Senator Obama:
Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made “great progress” under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors – the man who wrote his economic plan – was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a “mental recession,” and that we’ve become, and I quote, “a nation of whiners.”
Senator Gramm was the gentleman who said that bit about us being “a nation of whiners.” He said it in response to something very specific – whether or not we are in a recession or not. Here’s the complete argument, from the Washington Times:
“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. “We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.”
“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.
“We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today,” he said. “We have benefited greatly” from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.
Mr. Gramm said the constant drubbing of the media on the economy’s problems is one reason people have lost confidence. Various surveys show that consumer confidence has fallen precipitously this year to the lowest levels in two to three decades, with most analysts attributing that to record high gasoline prices over $4 a gallon and big drops in the value of homes, which are consumers’ biggest assets.
“Misery sells newspapers,” Mr. Gramm said. “Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day.”
Now you may not agree with Senator Gramm’s tact, but he’s making a serious argument that has to be refuted point-by-point. Does Senator Obama have a response to the 1% growth rate, the major export boom, and the fact that the media does play up negative news? If he does, you don’t see it in the acceptance speech.
What you do see is a conflation of domestic and foreign priorities in the Obama speech. Yes, there are heroes in quiet ways, such as the ones making brakes every day for a closing plant, and heroes who take bullets over and over. But no one said they were whining; Senator Obama himself says they are “without complaint.” Sen. Gramm’s complaints are quite obviously aimed at the media primarily. And what Senator Obama refuses to admit – and what has been a theme all throughout the DNC – is whether the foreign has any priorities over the domestic (cf. Plato’s Republic – if we each have the perfect job for our ability, those who can kill others/guarantee security rule over us by default). If this were to be admitted, it would be devastating for the “George Bush sucks” argument. That there hasn’t been a major terrorist attack on US soil, that Iraq is far more stable and the surge has succeeded, that a shift in priorities will be the death of the Taliban in Afghanistan – those are major foreign policy accomplishments in an unstable, difficult world where talking alone means nothing when countries are willing to invade each other over far less than WMD (witness Georgia).
B. Equality of opportunity means you need to do more than talk about humble people whom you think you represent
Senator Obama uses the caricature that George Bush can do nothing right to make his case. He doesn’t really argue this. His speech gets worse when he tries to demonstrate that he understands the Republican ideology:
For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is – you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps – even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own.
If this were true, I wouldn’t be a Republican. The argument is that lower taxes and deregulation allow for the market to flourish. Private individuals can work together to make opportunities for still more individuals. Taxes crush economic growth, especially taxes on people who have the income to invest.
No Republican – except the nuttiest sort – is going to say there should be no welfare or no anti-poverty legislation. The argument in the 90’s against AFDC was that it was corrupt beyond recognition, and there were workfare programs – i.e. Wisconsin’s – that were doing excellent, creative work with individuals who needed help and genuinely extending equality of opportunity. We want to see results for the money we put at problems, not throw money at problems, so we’d much rather see private solutions than government ones. The reasoning here is that private industry may have incentives to do a better job than bureaucracy.
Obviously that reasoning can be challenged, but the way Senator Obama framed the problem, you’d think the opposition party had absolutely no reasoning but only wanted to beat up on poor people.
Now Senator Obama’s primary appeal to us concerns equality of opportunity. He cites his young vets, students, his family, the workers he helped out early in his political career as being his heroes, but his primary solution is tax-relief, which doesn’t put him at odds with the Republicans in substance, unless you really believe that Republicans want to tax 95% of working families for the heck of it – the money can’t possibly be that substantial.
C. So what does energy dependence have to do with anything?
It’s funny that Obama launches into this tirade after his discussion of taxes, because all you need is an IQ of 2 to realize that funding energy alternatives is serious cash. Cash that you might have to tax to get. The real means for equality of opportunity driving Senator Obama’s vision is in this paragraph:
As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.
This is why the McCain camp can call Obama a “tax and spend” liberal. This money has to come from somewhere – the whole plan depends on getting new technology as soon as possible through public funding. There’s no trust of us as individuals who are free, but there is a deep-seated belief that as we embrace the future, we are better for it. You might say that since Senator Obama has outlined tax breaks, he can’t possibly hold back on those promises for these promises.
But remember: the Republicans will preserve tax cuts, and historically are pledged to giving them. The real difference between both parties is on spending priorities. If Senator Obama doesn’t spend money on new technology, then the Democratic party is substantially no different than the Republican party economically. And that would mean the lobbyists for companies who have a vested interest in these sorts of programs could easily go to the McCain side.
Now Senator Obama says that his money for this and the “army of new teachers” he wants and the “health care for every single American” is going to come from corporate loopholes being closed. Besides the fact that very rich people have ways of dodging taxes that no government could hope to counter, we have noted above that if you assault the rich, you lose out on investment. If they don’t invest, you don’t get economic growth. They simply move and take their money elsewhere.
Given that Senator Obama himself is a product of class mobility, surely he understands that as problematic as some rich people are, many understand what most Americans are going through and would be happy to help in a private capacity? No?
D. Memo to Senator Obama’s Campaign Advisor: Tell your candidate to shut up about foreign policy
This passage makes absolutely no sense:
For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.
And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we’re wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.
That’s not the judgment we need. That won’t keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.
You don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don’t protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can’t truly stand up for Georgia when you’ve strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice – but it is not the change we need.
Wait a second – it looks like we actually did defeat al-Qaeda by occupying Iraq. They considered it the forefront of the battle against us, and lost there. And that’s taking Senator Obama’s cynical view of things, purposely discounting the work the Bush administration did in the Phillippines, the pressure put on the Saudis, the efforts in Somalia and Ethiopia. Moreover – the tough talk has stopped Libya completely, and pushed North Korea to the negotiating table. Is Senator Obama this blind? If he becomes President, he’s going to need to talk tough.
Furthermore – no country has lost more lives in the War on Terror than Iraq. They need and deserve that $79 billion surplus. There is no debate here, just as there is no debate about partitioning Iraq, as Senator Biden wanted to do. When the Iraqi Parliament was informed of Senator Biden’s plan to divide Iraq, several lawmakers there asked him what he thought they were dying for.
Afghanistan is clearly causing us problems now because of Pakistan, which has a vested interest in the Taliban – they created it. Talking to Pakistan, Senator Obama, is going to do squat unless you’re ready to play some complicated diplomatic games. Judging from your analysis right now, you are in no position to attempt those games.
But Afghanistan before was cleaned up in a matter of months – the resurgent Taliban isn’t because we failed with the troop levels and resources, it’s because another country is literally next door rebuilding them. Again, I don’t understand one bit of where this analysis is coming from, but if a colleague of mine offered it, I’d call him an idiot to his face.
E. If you’re liberal, how can you be realistic?
The deep problem with this speech is how it assesses the situation. There are elements of truth – I personally think the job market is no less than broken, actually – but Senator Obama doesn’t get at the difference between the quality of work available and the benefits one receives from work. He almost exclusively sides with the benefits; his world is one where as long as people are getting stuff, they’re happy.
That’s not my world. That’s not my America.
I think the denial of reality has to happen because liberals can’t outright call Republicans gay-hating women-hating fascists. They can’t do this because it’s not true for the majority of conservatives, especially not the evangelicals I know who are genuinely tolerant. So they have to make up a narrative where we pretty much hate poor people and want to kill people all across the world and give money to corporations who are our true gods, and pretty much just stop short of calling us evil. We’re just really, really misguided.
I’ve outlined where Leftist thought can emerge in critiquing Senator Obama’s speech. If he portrayed Republican ideas on economics realistically, he could respond with something like “lower taxes work best in conjunction with these social programs.” Instead, he just moves to energy, teachers, and healthcare, and the loose thinking just makes absolutely no sense to me, it looks like a grab bag of government funded waste waiting to happen. If he portrayed the conduct of foreign policy realistically, he could have had an argument I would have no quarrel with, which is whether we should be in Iraq in the first place (I would still argue we had to be there). He could have argued that American interests are better served any number of other ways.
But by not taking up the decision-making behind Iraq, he drops the best argument he had against Republican thinking. He just assumes the decision was wrong, and there’s no mention of the good our soldiers – the ones he claims to represent – have done specifically there.
For a powerful contrast with this speech, look at President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, where the logic does add up. The true American promise is one we share, not one we grab. It has to be extended globally in some way. The world is a dangerous place, and building windmills for power while withdrawing troops from places terrorists are coalescing doesn’t help. What does help is when we look beyond ourselves and reach out to others.
If you’re liberal, and want to be realistic, think about how selfish Senator Obama’s wishlist is.
Aug
28
- Globalsecurity.org is very reliable, and often contains facts you don’t see reported anywhere else, but are vital to making a judgment of any sort. Sometimes a judgment is made in the mere reporting of facts, for example from their front page on this topic now: “Russian officials and Russian commentators magnified the significance of this conflict to a scale greatly exceeding Western perceptions. While the full extent of the fighting was unclear, Russian reports of thousands dead and massive destruction could not be reconciled with available annecdotal evidence of vastly less death and destruction. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, meeting with South Ossetia refugees who had fled across the border to the Russian city of Vladikavkaz, described Georgia’s actions as “complete genocide” – further raising the stakes of the contest. While Western commentators and officials tended to regard this conflict in isolation, Russian officials and commentators have been quick to link the affair to Kosovo independence, NATO enlargement, and American designs to contain Russia.”
- Michael Totten’s report has a lot of background about Russian policy previously, so we can assess consistency of action: “They [Russia] tried that [creating ethnic conflict] in a number of countries. They tried it in the Baltic states, but the fuses were defused. Nothing much happened. They tried it in Ukraine. It has not happened yet, but it’s getting hotter. They tried it in Moldova. There it worked, and now we have Transnitria. They tried it in Armenia and Azerbaijan and it went beyond their wildest dreams and we ended up with a massive, massive war. And they tried it in two territories in Georgia, which I’ll talk about in a minute…”
- Strobe Talbott debunks Russian claims that it is merely keeping the peace.
- Yes, oil is at stake, and that makes this even more troubling and problematic.
- What does this tell us about the state of democracy in Russia, btw?
Aug
28
Not Terribly Objective Thoughts on a Portion of the Democratic Convention
Filed Under politics | Leave a Comment
I only saw Senator Kerry, Lt. Gen. Kennedy, Rep. Chet Edwards and the Spielberg/Hanks video, Beau Biden and Joe Biden, so my remarks are limited to that alone. Disclaimer: I do vote Republican, support President Bush, and am voting for McCain.
1. Senator Kerry did his best to completely derail the Obama campaign. He remarked (I hope I’m remembering this correctly) about the need for change and not just sitting around for long-terms in the Senate, and one had to wonder if this comment was based on experience.
The case he made for Senator Obama relied mainly on the service of Senator Obama’s ancestors, and the shots at Republicans and Rove as fear-mongerers who question the patriotism of their opponents rang hollow given the lack of specifics: he could have brought up the flag-pin issue or any number of issues and taken time to refute the charge. Instead, the one time he sounded credible and specific involved the word “swift-boating.” Hmm.
He did bring up the idea that serving your country in more peaceful, not just martial ways, was critical. That alone was a great idea and I wish he had expanded on it; it is absolutely necessary for the Democratic party to demonstrate how their vision for America builds America. Senator Obama’s patriotism may not be questionable, but quite a few think there are many who vote Democrat that wouldn’t mind burning the flag in front of veterans.
Finally, instead of articulating a positive case for Senator Obama’s vision, he spent most of the time pronouncing Senator McCain wrong, and asserting Senator Obama to be no less than prescient on a host of issues. Not good by Kerry: anyone looking into what Obama actually said at the time of any given issue is going to find a ton of contradictions. And by declaring Senator Obama a “friend” of Georgia when Sen. McCain has been most vocal against Russia, he must make most voters following that issue wonder how stupid he thinks they are.
2. Lt. Gen. Kennedy made the worst of all logical errors. She asserted that she was proud of those whom had served under her for various reasons, and that she was also proud of Senator Obama. Only – I’m adding to her argument here, it wasn’t clear how she was arguing her competence to judge. She just kinda asserted “I’m a general, I know what works, here’s Senator Obama, he works,” except without saying any of that. She then went on to talk about Senator Obama’s ancestors and their military service.
3. Rep. Chet Edwards and the Spielberg/Hanks video were the Democrats at their best. Quite honestly, even though the primary appeal was emotional, this is about as good as politics gets even in a deliberative sense.
The argument was that Senator McCain favors policies that would keep money away from veterans. The story he then told was of a veteran with both his legs blown off who had an infant son. The obvious need to address this issue made the room such you could hear a pin drop.
The video shown had plenty of military expressing their pride and their concerns about the military itself and the work done through it. It was generic enough that it could have been shown at the Republican convention, but it was tasteful and moving and sobering. It added to the weight of the question about the use of force – if using force falls disproportionately on one segment of the population, do we want someone willing to go to war more readily, or someone more eager to keep the peace?
4. And then came Senator Biden, after his son gave a vigorous, glowing tribute to him, to toot his own horn about how wonderful he was, how wonderful his son was, how wonderful his Mom and Dad were, how middle class families in America are struggling because nothing has gone right the past 8 years, how he understands being middle class (he sees them from the train, no joke) and having a family, how Democrats are devoted to the family. Nary a word about reproductive rights or gay marriage or how more regulation and more taxes choke small businesses or any of that; I’m not saying Senator Biden doesn’t represent middle class families, but there’s something screwy when the other party is just wrong on everything and only gives tax breaks to the rich. It doesn’t seem plausible that 50% of America could consider voting for that party when all it wants to do is kill Iraqis and give corporations money, and Senator Biden didn’t help his case by being a complete “attack dog.” Senator McCain was accused of being “more of the same” repeatedly, while Senator Obama brought “change.” I got tired of hearing this and felt it was just shrill, meant to make me think, if I already blamed Bush for everything, that I should blame everyone else who doesn’t believe in “change” and “hope” alone for everything too.
5. After Senator Biden, Senator Obama appeared briefly, and what a contrast to the dour old people before. He was lively and smiling and seemed genuinely warm. He had everyone give a big round of applause to everyone who came before, and said that they were going to use Mile High Stadium for his speech because they wanted to be as inclusive as possible. He didn’t seem egotistical or arrogant at all, he seemed welcoming and positive.
It might be the case that Senator Obama has become wholly independent of the Democratic party in a deep sense. He needed things like Kos and the Netroots to get started, but once he got started, it became his show. The GOP should really just get some candidates to run for Congress everywhere and not concede any race a Democrat is in. There might not be any Obama coattails; he may well be a singular phenomenon.