I start with the same proviso as everyone else looking at the bailout: "I'm not an economist, but..."
In honesty, what's happened the last two weeks I've been predicting for several years. I didn't see how it couldn't happen. What our economic engines were doing was creating credit with no assets behind it. Mortgage lenders were giving $200,000 mortgages to people with no possible ability to repay them. Pools of those mortgages were then combined and sold off for even more than the face value they supposedly represented. Institutions purchased portions of those mortgage pools with money they ostensibly had borrowed from someone else. A vicious circle of nothingness. The equivalent of printing money in your basement.
Now, there are no two people in the area of business and economics who I respect more than Warren Buffet and Paul Krugman. And each says America had no choice but to agree to a taxpayer bailout of whomever necessary to free up the flow of credit and keep the economy above water.
But here's what I don't understand. The problem was created by insufficient assets backing up credit. But America is no better off than any of those institutions or desperate homeowners. Our national debt is measured in the trillions already...we've financed our extravagant lifestyles for the last decade or more by selling IOUs to China and other foreign interests. In short, America already can not pay its bills. We are offering more nothingness.
So the problem of asset-less credit being solved by the invention of more asset-less credit works exactly how?
But, like I said, I'm no economist.
UPDATE: Someone saying what I was saying, but much more clearly...
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
2 Against 1
The most memorable candidates on this day of the first presidential debate weren't anywhere near the stage in Mississippi. While Obama and McCain effectively fought to a draw, it was their running mates who turned in performances which could well decide the election.
Palin, fresh from her disastrous wilting in front of lap dog Katie Couric, followed up with an impromptu exchange with reporters in which she again appeared unable to mouth anything but the same eight platitudes she repeated over and over again during her convention coming out party.
But it was Joe Biden, summarizing the debate during numerous television appearances, who put McCain in his place. In terms of experience, foreign policy expertise and gravitas, Biden simply erases any advantage McCain can claim. And his words also fixed a spotlight on the obvious strategy for his own debate with Palin on Thursday. Aside from pleasantries, he should simply ignore the fact that she's there. He doesn't have to worry about 'beating' her; she will very comfortably point the moose rifle at herself.
And as she does, it should be simply Biden vs. McCain. Toe to toe, jab to jab, this should be their fight. Two salty veterans of the Senate squaring off--even though one of them won't be present. Biden can leave the stage convincing America that his side has two people capable of running the country, while viewers can't help but conclude that the Republicans, at best, have one.
Palin, fresh from her disastrous wilting in front of lap dog Katie Couric, followed up with an impromptu exchange with reporters in which she again appeared unable to mouth anything but the same eight platitudes she repeated over and over again during her convention coming out party.
But it was Joe Biden, summarizing the debate during numerous television appearances, who put McCain in his place. In terms of experience, foreign policy expertise and gravitas, Biden simply erases any advantage McCain can claim. And his words also fixed a spotlight on the obvious strategy for his own debate with Palin on Thursday. Aside from pleasantries, he should simply ignore the fact that she's there. He doesn't have to worry about 'beating' her; she will very comfortably point the moose rifle at herself.
And as she does, it should be simply Biden vs. McCain. Toe to toe, jab to jab, this should be their fight. Two salty veterans of the Senate squaring off--even though one of them won't be present. Biden can leave the stage convincing America that his side has two people capable of running the country, while viewers can't help but conclude that the Republicans, at best, have one.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Cowardly Lions
A couple years ago, a book called The God Gene claimed that both the most devout of religious believers and the most fervent atheists carried a certain DNA marker that made their beliefs immutable. No matter how you argued with them, or for how long, there was simply no way to change their minds. It can't be done.
I believe this.
Now, there is news of a similar scientific study that attempted to determine whether there might be a genetic explanation for dispositions toward conservative or liberal beliefs. What they found supports my own observations of my family and friends: "People with strongly conservative views were three times more fearful than staunch liberals", after correcting for effects of age, gender, etc. I've always thought that the conservative affinity for rules, order, hierarchy, authority and even religion was rooted in simple fear. We need to protect ourselves from them.
This is hardly conclusive, and it's hard not to make this appear dogmatic. And I don't mean to say that a conservative disposition doesn't have a place. After all, turn back the clock to pre-historic times and imagine the cavemen who decided to sleep outside, saying to each other, 'Aw, don't worry, those dinosaurs aren't going to do us any harm'. If everyone had listened, none of us would be having this conversation today.
But at the same time, it was probably those same 'liberal' cavemen who decided one day to find out what was over the next hill...and eventually discovered the sea.
The scientist who conducted this concluded,
"...the study added to the growing research suggesting that over millions of years, humans have developed two cognitive styles -- conservative and liberal. Cautious conservatives prevented societies from taking undue risks, while more flexible liberals fostered cooperation.
For the species to survive, you need both."
So perhaps liberals dealing with conservatives just need to understand that they're afraid. And this might explain the need for Sarah Palin to run away from the American people. And the decision of John McCain today to run away from his first debate with Barack Obama.
Fear is in their nature.
I believe this.
Now, there is news of a similar scientific study that attempted to determine whether there might be a genetic explanation for dispositions toward conservative or liberal beliefs. What they found supports my own observations of my family and friends: "People with strongly conservative views were three times more fearful than staunch liberals", after correcting for effects of age, gender, etc. I've always thought that the conservative affinity for rules, order, hierarchy, authority and even religion was rooted in simple fear. We need to protect ourselves from them.
This is hardly conclusive, and it's hard not to make this appear dogmatic. And I don't mean to say that a conservative disposition doesn't have a place. After all, turn back the clock to pre-historic times and imagine the cavemen who decided to sleep outside, saying to each other, 'Aw, don't worry, those dinosaurs aren't going to do us any harm'. If everyone had listened, none of us would be having this conversation today.
But at the same time, it was probably those same 'liberal' cavemen who decided one day to find out what was over the next hill...and eventually discovered the sea.
The scientist who conducted this concluded,
"...the study added to the growing research suggesting that over millions of years, humans have developed two cognitive styles -- conservative and liberal. Cautious conservatives prevented societies from taking undue risks, while more flexible liberals fostered cooperation.
For the species to survive, you need both."
So perhaps liberals dealing with conservatives just need to understand that they're afraid. And this might explain the need for Sarah Palin to run away from the American people. And the decision of John McCain today to run away from his first debate with Barack Obama.
Fear is in their nature.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Journalists: Ask Questions
Journalism may be the only profession where people get more stupid the higher they rise in the hierarchy.
In any case, they're not all fools. Some possess the brilliance to ask basic questions.
To that end, when it comes to considering the bailout, this former reporter explains exactly which are the right questions to ask.
In any case, they're not all fools. Some possess the brilliance to ask basic questions.
To that end, when it comes to considering the bailout, this former reporter explains exactly which are the right questions to ask.
Weeks and Months
Sensitive to criticism that the administration is trying to pull a $700 billion dollar fast one on the American public...assessing us another $10,000 per household debt before explaining exactly how it's going to help, a White House spokesman explained today that the plan has been formulated as a 'contingency' over 'previous months and weeks' by administration officials.
OK, so that would mean that Bush and Co. knew this was a problem for all that time, but never bothered letting the public know. And that as Bush and Paulson were assuring us that the 'fundamentals' of the economy were absolutely sound--no, wait a minute--DON'T TELL ME THEY LIED!
OK, so that would mean that Bush and Co. knew this was a problem for all that time, but never bothered letting the public know. And that as Bush and Paulson were assuring us that the 'fundamentals' of the economy were absolutely sound--no, wait a minute--DON'T TELL ME THEY LIED!
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Polls are Wrong
Of course they are. They always are. Even when they're right, it's by accident.
But how are they wrong?
Here are two popular and offsetting theories. First, racism. Who is going to state--or even imply--being a racist? To avoid any such consideration, people will often claim their intent to vote for the racial minority candidate just to avoid any such appearance. But when they get into the voting booth, there is no way to tell how they really voted. So, advantage McCain.
On the other hand, do you know someone who owns a cell phone...but no hard-wired home phone? I know at least three. Each is a devout Obama supporter. But 'the polls' are conducted by phone...only to people with land lines recorded in the phone book. So, possible advantage here for Obama.
The latest wrinkle is the finding that by a 2-1 margin, voters blame the Wall Street meltdown more on Republicans than Democrats. So that should give Obama a pretty good idea of how to campaign between now and election day.
But still anyone's guess whether all that can overcome his racial negative.
But how are they wrong?
Here are two popular and offsetting theories. First, racism. Who is going to state--or even imply--being a racist? To avoid any such consideration, people will often claim their intent to vote for the racial minority candidate just to avoid any such appearance. But when they get into the voting booth, there is no way to tell how they really voted. So, advantage McCain.
On the other hand, do you know someone who owns a cell phone...but no hard-wired home phone? I know at least three. Each is a devout Obama supporter. But 'the polls' are conducted by phone...only to people with land lines recorded in the phone book. So, possible advantage here for Obama.
The latest wrinkle is the finding that by a 2-1 margin, voters blame the Wall Street meltdown more on Republicans than Democrats. So that should give Obama a pretty good idea of how to campaign between now and election day.
But still anyone's guess whether all that can overcome his racial negative.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Please Make Me Wrong...
Beginning in the Reagan administration, the process of 'deregulation' began selling off the assets and authority of the U.S. government to private interests. Much has gone to corporations and other private interests, and even more to foreign investors (particularly the Chinese) who underwrote our drunken spending on houses, SUVs and private school tuition.
The current fiscal meltdown, as painful as it is, at least gave some of us a semi-"I told you so" satisfaction, as the sinners were finally felled.
Now, the former head of Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, is in the driver's seat, taking $700 billion of our tax dollars (and those of future generations) and forwarding them to the sinners on Wall Street--for the moment with no strings attached.
If someone walked into your house, put a gun to your head and walked out with $7,000 of your dollars, what should happen to that person? Most would say he should be apprehended, made to pay back the money, and thrown in jail.
The sinners on Wall Street have done just that. Each of us now owes $7,000 because of what they've done. Will they be apprehended? No need. They're hiding in plain view. Will they be charged? Hardly. And they will never be led away in handcuffs, tossed in the clink or stand before a jury of U.S. citizens. Instead, they will be handsomely rewarded--with our money--for what they've done wrong.
I say let the bastards fail. All of them. Let them work for a living.
Ah, but Paulson says, 'no, that would be a catastrophe!'
OK, pal, I'm willing to take my chances. The country has lived through worse. Let us decide our future...not you and your criminal friends.
This is how revolutions begin.
The current fiscal meltdown, as painful as it is, at least gave some of us a semi-"I told you so" satisfaction, as the sinners were finally felled.
Now, the former head of Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, is in the driver's seat, taking $700 billion of our tax dollars (and those of future generations) and forwarding them to the sinners on Wall Street--for the moment with no strings attached.
If someone walked into your house, put a gun to your head and walked out with $7,000 of your dollars, what should happen to that person? Most would say he should be apprehended, made to pay back the money, and thrown in jail.
The sinners on Wall Street have done just that. Each of us now owes $7,000 because of what they've done. Will they be apprehended? No need. They're hiding in plain view. Will they be charged? Hardly. And they will never be led away in handcuffs, tossed in the clink or stand before a jury of U.S. citizens. Instead, they will be handsomely rewarded--with our money--for what they've done wrong.
I say let the bastards fail. All of them. Let them work for a living.
Ah, but Paulson says, 'no, that would be a catastrophe!'
OK, pal, I'm willing to take my chances. The country has lived through worse. Let us decide our future...not you and your criminal friends.
This is how revolutions begin.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Meltdown Detailed
For those with a greater appetite for understanding exactly what's happening, the Wall Street Journal has done a fine job describing the issue.
Indefensible
It would be difficult to find a publication doing a better job of explaining the current financial fiasco than the Financial Times. An excerpt from one of today's articles:
This will come to be seen as the greatest regulatory failure in modern history. The degree of leverage that these institutions took on is indefensible. The average large securities firm was leveraged 27 to one in mid-2007. They were not regulated by any prudential supervisor. In effect, they regulated themselves. The lack of transparency was stunning. Many big lenders did not disclose off-balance-sheet risks. In some cases, they did not understand these risks themselves. More fundamentally, we allowed a second, huge financial system to develop outside the normal banking network. It consisted of investment banks, mortgage finance companies and the like. It was unregulated, not transparent and way too leveraged. But with nine separate and mostly ineffective financial regulators, these risks were ignored. That is, until this second system crashed.
This will come to be seen as the greatest regulatory failure in modern history. The degree of leverage that these institutions took on is indefensible. The average large securities firm was leveraged 27 to one in mid-2007. They were not regulated by any prudential supervisor. In effect, they regulated themselves. The lack of transparency was stunning. Many big lenders did not disclose off-balance-sheet risks. In some cases, they did not understand these risks themselves. More fundamentally, we allowed a second, huge financial system to develop outside the normal banking network. It consisted of investment banks, mortgage finance companies and the like. It was unregulated, not transparent and way too leveraged. But with nine separate and mostly ineffective financial regulators, these risks were ignored. That is, until this second system crashed.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Employee Contribution
The Financial Times ran a story today analyzing the contributions made to a company on a per employee basis. They noted that each Nintendo full time employee is contributing approximately $1.6 million to the bottom line, even more than other standouts including Goldman Sachs and Google.
But the value of this calculation is using it as a marker against Lehman Brothers, when it filed for bankruptcy yesterday. With total debt of $613 billion spread across its 25,000 employees, each of those former highly compensated workers was personally responsible for $24,500,000 in debt.
This is the what happens when a nation's best and brightest financiers are left to do business without regulation.
But the value of this calculation is using it as a marker against Lehman Brothers, when it filed for bankruptcy yesterday. With total debt of $613 billion spread across its 25,000 employees, each of those former highly compensated workers was personally responsible for $24,500,000 in debt.
This is the what happens when a nation's best and brightest financiers are left to do business without regulation.
Monday, September 15, 2008
'Obama Should Attack!'
OK, but how?
Joe Biden has an answer. Maybe even a perfect answer.
Just tell the truth about McCain and his record in D.C.
Joe Biden has an answer. Maybe even a perfect answer.
Just tell the truth about McCain and his record in D.C.
Who Melted Wall Street?
By now everyone in America has heard the king of all McCain lies--that somehow he and his band of merry lobbyists would clean up the mess on Wall Street that they begat.
Central to the deception is Phil Gramm, shill of the financial markets during his years in Congress, and until recently a key financial advisor to McCain on all matters economic. As this article proves, Gramm more than any other politician greased the skids for a wild, entirely unregulated 'swaps' market that led to the meltdown we're seeing today.
Central to the deception is Phil Gramm, shill of the financial markets during his years in Congress, and until recently a key financial advisor to McCain on all matters economic. As this article proves, Gramm more than any other politician greased the skids for a wild, entirely unregulated 'swaps' market that led to the meltdown we're seeing today.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Oh brother
As Thomas Frank points out so clearly, the underlying goal of political conservatives is 'to get less government in business and more business in government'. That's the credo of the Bush administration.
And this is what happens...
And this is what happens...
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Third Party Candidate
It was Perot in 1992, then Nader in 2000--third party candidates who may have decided the eventual outcomes of elections in which they never had a chance.
This year we're witnessing the impact of the most powerful, but unrecognized third party candidate in history--one who may single-handedly decide the next President. His name is racism.
Here is my belief--utterly unscientific, unsubstantiated, and based entirely on instincts I developed not by living in Seattle, but in the big city and small town atmospheres of the 'heartland'. I believe that 10 to 12 percent of U.S. voters will punch McCain's name simply because they could never support the idea of a black man as President. They may not dislike Obama himself; but they would never contribute to the further dissolution of their 'way of life'. Chip in another percent or two representing radical Christians who think any person with a middle name Hussein must constitute a threat to their religious freedom and you wind up with one in seven voters who march uncontested into the McCain column.
Why are the polls so close? Easy. If Obama is trending ahead 49-35 among non-racist, non-religious wacko voters--which seems entirely plausible to me--folding back in that one-seventh segment levels the race at dead even.
Two-against-one may not be fair, but that's what Obama faces.
This year we're witnessing the impact of the most powerful, but unrecognized third party candidate in history--one who may single-handedly decide the next President. His name is racism.
Here is my belief--utterly unscientific, unsubstantiated, and based entirely on instincts I developed not by living in Seattle, but in the big city and small town atmospheres of the 'heartland'. I believe that 10 to 12 percent of U.S. voters will punch McCain's name simply because they could never support the idea of a black man as President. They may not dislike Obama himself; but they would never contribute to the further dissolution of their 'way of life'. Chip in another percent or two representing radical Christians who think any person with a middle name Hussein must constitute a threat to their religious freedom and you wind up with one in seven voters who march uncontested into the McCain column.
Why are the polls so close? Easy. If Obama is trending ahead 49-35 among non-racist, non-religious wacko voters--which seems entirely plausible to me--folding back in that one-seventh segment levels the race at dead even.
Two-against-one may not be fair, but that's what Obama faces.
Who's Authentic?
There are people--millions of them, probably--still shaking their heads over the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Sure, all of his failures weren't as painfully obvious as they are today, but still, the majority of Americans could see the guy really wasn't up to the job, right?
Right.
OK. So how, then, did he wind up loitering in the West Wing for another four years?
The answer, I think, is understanding the nature of modern elections in the Era of Rove. It isn't about issues--the Democrats actually had the advantage there according to the responses to polling in both 2000 and 2004. (Of course, Gore actually did win in 2000, both in the popular and electoral votes, but the point is it never should have been that close). It can't be about 'war heroes'--both Gore and Kerry shutout Bush on that score. Experience? No one seriously believed Bush's part-time job as Governor of planet Texas came close to the Vice Presidency of Gore or the long-time Senatorship of Kerry.
Observers who say the mad genius of Rove is simply attacking an opponent's strength are close to the truth, but it's a little more nuanced than that. You can't attack a strength that's indisputable--for example, if some woman will cast her vote just because Palin is also a woman, you can't very well argue Palin's a man. The point of attack isn't just 'strength'--it's authenticity.
That's really the watchword of our time--who, and what, is 'authentic'? Al Gore is incredibly smart, and not just on environmental issues. Smarter than almost anyone...and obviously, smarter than Bush. But if you can raise suspicions about a rival's authenticity, then strengths can be discounted and almost anything can be believed. 'Gore says he invented the Internet'--wasn't true. 'Gore claims he was the role model for Love Story'--wasn't true. Gore 'is obsessing over changing his wardrobe to earth tones'. Yeah...that was probably top of mind. The point was to paint Gore, no matter what his obvious talents and advantages, as a liar...a bragger...a dandy--someone who wasn't authentic, even to himself.
Of course, half a million more Americans still voted for him, but that didn't prevent Rove from making it close enough so it was thrown to the Supreme Court and the East German judges, or whomever it was that overturned the will of the people.
By the time Kerry stood to run, he was already road kill. Same tactic. The guy's a certified war hero? Nope--'he threw his medals overboard. He's a faux hero'. No matter that this, also, wasn't true...it gave doubters a reason to turn their backs.
But what did they turn toward? Well...in a word...authenticity. George W. Bush was the landslide winner as 'guy you'd like to have a beer with'. The screwup. The dropout. The maybe-deserter. He may have been flawed...even fatally flawed...but at least he was an authentic loser. He seemed true to himself...even if he was eventually proven not to be telling the truth.
If you doubt the power of authenticity, you need look no further than Sarah Palin. Whatever her flaws...whatever issues she embraces that you may oppose...whatever failings she may have exhibited as a wife or Mother (after all, someone wasn't around to monitor the after school entertainment of young miss Bristol)--it all could matter less. If she can only maintain the narrative that she's just got the same challenges and frustrations as any family, then she's a powerful engine for the McCain ticket, one that could power it to victory.
And there's one more important benefit to this strategy. The 'just like me' positioning of C students like Bush and Palin opens the opportunity to push the bias against 'elitists'. The 'best and the brightest' are seen as lacking--they're just too smart. (As Jon Stewart said, 'don't you want someone who's elite in that job?'). This is the argument against Obama. He may be better than you and me...but he's not like you and me. He wouldn't hang with our kind...he's not like our kind...so how could he be authentic in a way that we can relate to? Don't trust him.
All this leads to a sensible strategy for the Obama camp in the remaining weeks of the campaign, and particularly during the debates. They have choices. What they might do--mistakenly--is take the entire concept of 'attack' off the table. Or they may decide to attack the wrong things. Like positions on issues. Or qualifications: if someone contends that Governor trumps Senator, you're not going to convince them otherwise. Or arguments that simply can't be decided, like one's devotion to country, or the degree of care and devotion intended for a Down syndrome infant.
What's open for Obama...almost ridiculously so...is attacking the authenticity of both McCain and Palin.
McCain needs to answer this: "you've voted with Bush more than 90% of the time, including his measures to gift more tax breaks to the oil companies...to deny adequate benefits to war veterans like yourself...to support forms of torture you once said you opposed. Your campaign is run by the same lobbyists you promise to banish. How does this record support your contention of 'change'?"
Palin needs to answer this: "In your brief tenure in the public eye, you've already been proven a liar about things as serious as opposing the 'bridge to nowhere', and as inconsequential as firing the Alaska state chef, or selling the governor's jet on eBay. What aspects of lying do you believe will be beneficial to you and the American public as Vice President--or even President?"
What Rove intends is to shelter his clients from attacks on their authenticity, while again attacking frontally with the same weapon. It's up to the people who populate the media, and particularly the panels on the debates, to make sure these posers face the same sword they wield against their opponents.
But asking those media people to be 'authentic' journalists...speaking truth to power...is not their strong suit.
Obama must attack...but only authenticity.
Right.
OK. So how, then, did he wind up loitering in the West Wing for another four years?
The answer, I think, is understanding the nature of modern elections in the Era of Rove. It isn't about issues--the Democrats actually had the advantage there according to the responses to polling in both 2000 and 2004. (Of course, Gore actually did win in 2000, both in the popular and electoral votes, but the point is it never should have been that close). It can't be about 'war heroes'--both Gore and Kerry shutout Bush on that score. Experience? No one seriously believed Bush's part-time job as Governor of planet Texas came close to the Vice Presidency of Gore or the long-time Senatorship of Kerry.
Observers who say the mad genius of Rove is simply attacking an opponent's strength are close to the truth, but it's a little more nuanced than that. You can't attack a strength that's indisputable--for example, if some woman will cast her vote just because Palin is also a woman, you can't very well argue Palin's a man. The point of attack isn't just 'strength'--it's authenticity.
That's really the watchword of our time--who, and what, is 'authentic'? Al Gore is incredibly smart, and not just on environmental issues. Smarter than almost anyone...and obviously, smarter than Bush. But if you can raise suspicions about a rival's authenticity, then strengths can be discounted and almost anything can be believed. 'Gore says he invented the Internet'--wasn't true. 'Gore claims he was the role model for Love Story'--wasn't true. Gore 'is obsessing over changing his wardrobe to earth tones'. Yeah...that was probably top of mind. The point was to paint Gore, no matter what his obvious talents and advantages, as a liar...a bragger...a dandy--someone who wasn't authentic, even to himself.
Of course, half a million more Americans still voted for him, but that didn't prevent Rove from making it close enough so it was thrown to the Supreme Court and the East German judges, or whomever it was that overturned the will of the people.
By the time Kerry stood to run, he was already road kill. Same tactic. The guy's a certified war hero? Nope--'he threw his medals overboard. He's a faux hero'. No matter that this, also, wasn't true...it gave doubters a reason to turn their backs.
But what did they turn toward? Well...in a word...authenticity. George W. Bush was the landslide winner as 'guy you'd like to have a beer with'. The screwup. The dropout. The maybe-deserter. He may have been flawed...even fatally flawed...but at least he was an authentic loser. He seemed true to himself...even if he was eventually proven not to be telling the truth.
If you doubt the power of authenticity, you need look no further than Sarah Palin. Whatever her flaws...whatever issues she embraces that you may oppose...whatever failings she may have exhibited as a wife or Mother (after all, someone wasn't around to monitor the after school entertainment of young miss Bristol)--it all could matter less. If she can only maintain the narrative that she's just got the same challenges and frustrations as any family, then she's a powerful engine for the McCain ticket, one that could power it to victory.
And there's one more important benefit to this strategy. The 'just like me' positioning of C students like Bush and Palin opens the opportunity to push the bias against 'elitists'. The 'best and the brightest' are seen as lacking--they're just too smart. (As Jon Stewart said, 'don't you want someone who's elite in that job?'). This is the argument against Obama. He may be better than you and me...but he's not like you and me. He wouldn't hang with our kind...he's not like our kind...so how could he be authentic in a way that we can relate to? Don't trust him.
All this leads to a sensible strategy for the Obama camp in the remaining weeks of the campaign, and particularly during the debates. They have choices. What they might do--mistakenly--is take the entire concept of 'attack' off the table. Or they may decide to attack the wrong things. Like positions on issues. Or qualifications: if someone contends that Governor trumps Senator, you're not going to convince them otherwise. Or arguments that simply can't be decided, like one's devotion to country, or the degree of care and devotion intended for a Down syndrome infant.
What's open for Obama...almost ridiculously so...is attacking the authenticity of both McCain and Palin.
McCain needs to answer this: "you've voted with Bush more than 90% of the time, including his measures to gift more tax breaks to the oil companies...to deny adequate benefits to war veterans like yourself...to support forms of torture you once said you opposed. Your campaign is run by the same lobbyists you promise to banish. How does this record support your contention of 'change'?"
Palin needs to answer this: "In your brief tenure in the public eye, you've already been proven a liar about things as serious as opposing the 'bridge to nowhere', and as inconsequential as firing the Alaska state chef, or selling the governor's jet on eBay. What aspects of lying do you believe will be beneficial to you and the American public as Vice President--or even President?"
What Rove intends is to shelter his clients from attacks on their authenticity, while again attacking frontally with the same weapon. It's up to the people who populate the media, and particularly the panels on the debates, to make sure these posers face the same sword they wield against their opponents.
But asking those media people to be 'authentic' journalists...speaking truth to power...is not their strong suit.
Obama must attack...but only authenticity.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Free Market
Of all the words that send cold fear surging through your heart--terrorist, kidnapper, rapist, suicide bomber--none should cower you more than this: "free market".
As a wise man once said, "when you hear someone say 'free market', immediately duck and cover your wallet".
What Wall Street wants is a market that's free of interference and regulation when things are moving up...but no one puts their hands out faster or further then those same people suddenly called on to face the implosions resulting from their own greed and incompetence.
This may sound simplistic, but consider what the government has done with your tax dollars to prevent the markets from operating freely:
Of course, you could add to all this the $576b spent to date on the Iraq War, since the main beneficiaries of that blunder are the for-profit military contractors closest to the Bush Administration. That unprovoked invasion may prove to be the largest disguised infusion ever of public funding into private pockets.
So, hold firm to your beliefs, whether a prayer for 'heavenly intervention' or a faith in 'small town values'. But if someone comes within 100 feet of you offering a friendly 'free market' smile, head for the cellar and lock up the kids.
Because our kids will be the ones ultimately called on to pay for the mass delusion of our time.
As a wise man once said, "when you hear someone say 'free market', immediately duck and cover your wallet".
What Wall Street wants is a market that's free of interference and regulation when things are moving up...but no one puts their hands out faster or further then those same people suddenly called on to face the implosions resulting from their own greed and incompetence.
This may sound simplistic, but consider what the government has done with your tax dollars to prevent the markets from operating freely:
- 2001: $15b bailout of the airline industry
- 2008: $29b bailout of Bear Stearns
- 2008: estimated $200b bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Of course, you could add to all this the $576b spent to date on the Iraq War, since the main beneficiaries of that blunder are the for-profit military contractors closest to the Bush Administration. That unprovoked invasion may prove to be the largest disguised infusion ever of public funding into private pockets.
So, hold firm to your beliefs, whether a prayer for 'heavenly intervention' or a faith in 'small town values'. But if someone comes within 100 feet of you offering a friendly 'free market' smile, head for the cellar and lock up the kids.
Because our kids will be the ones ultimately called on to pay for the mass delusion of our time.
Deconstructing Sarah
Now that the party of misogyny has done the requisite back flips, outraged that Sarah Palin could be questioned about her 'fitness' to be both Mother and VP, why not ask her a simple straightforward question: if you are elected, will you family move with you to D.C.?
This may seem silly, but remember this is the same hokey (oops, sorry, that should be 'hockey') Mom who left her family 800 miles behind in Wasilla when she took sole possession of the governor's office in Juneau.
Not that it mattered...not that her Iron Dog husband or 'extended family' would let her teen aged daughter run off and get pregnant or anything while she was away.
But I'd like to hear the answer just the same.
This may seem silly, but remember this is the same hokey (oops, sorry, that should be 'hockey') Mom who left her family 800 miles behind in Wasilla when she took sole possession of the governor's office in Juneau.
Not that it mattered...not that her Iron Dog husband or 'extended family' would let her teen aged daughter run off and get pregnant or anything while she was away.
But I'd like to hear the answer just the same.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Who's Your Daddy?
Throughout modern history, the Republicans have promoted themselves as the 'daddy party', the people who would best protect Americans in times of peril. So it was a gift from heaven that after taking office, and fully ignoring all signs and warnings concerning al Qaeda, the GOP was able to transform the 9/11 disaster they helped enable into an enduring asset for that military deserter, George W. Bush. Hey, you take what's given.
The logical heir to this mantle was John McCain, a man whose instincts may indeed be honorable, but whose resolve (Hanoi Hilton-induced or otherwise), is sorely lacking. He can talk the talk, but never walks the walk. He is the ultimate paradox--the war hero who wound up with the personal character of a quisling.
Into this breach tonight marched Sarah Palin, striding confidently to the podium in Minneapolis. The party held its breath. Would she be able to maintain composure...even remain upright...under the rigor of delivering a scathing speech that had been authored weeks before for whomever McCain chose?
The answer was a resounding yes. Not only did she deliver, but she relished the very lines that any vice president is assigned...the ones that would 'tear the face off' the opposing presidential candidate. There was no need to rise to a challenge. She was already in her element.
From the moment the spin doctors decided their response to criticism of the Palin nomination, the game plan has been comically transparent. Every GOP spokesperson would challenge questions about Palin's qualifications by comparing them to Obama's. If you can make the battle your VP against their presidential candidate, you have won the fight. Because your presidential contender then rises above the level of that face off. He stands alone. From the perspective of pure argument, the strategy is nearly foolproof.
Nearly.
But now, there will be a new battle for the GOP to fight. McCain himself...the queen of flip-floppers...the 'hero' who decided to surrender to the attacks on his family that made his own wife weep in 2000...the man who felt 'manly' by viciously attacking the teen aged child of the Clintons--that coward must now step onto the same stage to prove himself not the equal of Obama...but of Palin. Because as of now, the pants in the GOP family are worn by Palin.
The war hero...the darling of the media...the driver of the Straight Talk Express...must now prove himself to be the pilot of his own ticket. The question could come to vex Republicans--exactly who's your Daddy?
The logical heir to this mantle was John McCain, a man whose instincts may indeed be honorable, but whose resolve (Hanoi Hilton-induced or otherwise), is sorely lacking. He can talk the talk, but never walks the walk. He is the ultimate paradox--the war hero who wound up with the personal character of a quisling.
Into this breach tonight marched Sarah Palin, striding confidently to the podium in Minneapolis. The party held its breath. Would she be able to maintain composure...even remain upright...under the rigor of delivering a scathing speech that had been authored weeks before for whomever McCain chose?
The answer was a resounding yes. Not only did she deliver, but she relished the very lines that any vice president is assigned...the ones that would 'tear the face off' the opposing presidential candidate. There was no need to rise to a challenge. She was already in her element.
From the moment the spin doctors decided their response to criticism of the Palin nomination, the game plan has been comically transparent. Every GOP spokesperson would challenge questions about Palin's qualifications by comparing them to Obama's. If you can make the battle your VP against their presidential candidate, you have won the fight. Because your presidential contender then rises above the level of that face off. He stands alone. From the perspective of pure argument, the strategy is nearly foolproof.
Nearly.
But now, there will be a new battle for the GOP to fight. McCain himself...the queen of flip-floppers...the 'hero' who decided to surrender to the attacks on his family that made his own wife weep in 2000...the man who felt 'manly' by viciously attacking the teen aged child of the Clintons--that coward must now step onto the same stage to prove himself not the equal of Obama...but of Palin. Because as of now, the pants in the GOP family are worn by Palin.
The war hero...the darling of the media...the driver of the Straight Talk Express...must now prove himself to be the pilot of his own ticket. The question could come to vex Republicans--exactly who's your Daddy?
Full Circle
From the Grapes of Wrath to the seminal TV documentary Harvest of Shame, Americans in the 20th century initially were conditioned to connect poverty and associated family disorders with white sharecroppers. These were the 'poor working families' laboring within the most abundant and prosperous nation on Earth. Most who watched were touched; overall, few cared enough to act. In any case, we understood that the poor and suffering came from the coal mines of Appalachia and the barren fields of Oklahoma.
By the 70's, poverty literally had taken on a new face--a black one.
The crowning achievement of this transformation was Ronald Reagan's adoption of the 'welfare queen' as a staple of his 1976 presidential campaign. Not only had white become black, but in the process pity turned to scorn.
His mythical foil was a woman on the southside of Chicago who invented 80 aliases, 30 addresses and 12 Social Security cards to bilk the government out of $150,000. (In actuality, the person to whom he apparently referred used two aliases to collect $8,000. No matter--the impression congealed). The algebra of the stereotype was settled: poor=black=lazy=waster of your tax dollars. This perfect recipe for a 'southern strategy' would help award Reagan two terms in the White House, and leave conservative politicians wondering, 'how could it get any better than this?'
Well actually, there was one more tasty ingredient to add--sexual promiscuity. As the enemy 'welfare queen' became 'welfare mother', there were even more to resent--not just the single mothers, but all of their 'illegitimate' children, as well.
Now, I interrupt myself to state that there clearly is a problem with unwed mothers, with fathers who desert their families, and how both conspire against children left with a woefully insufficient family structure. And yes, some of these people are black. If not, black fathers as diverse as Bill Cosby and Barack Obama would not be challenging all their counterparts to do their parts.
Unfortunately, no matter how accurate, these criticisms also helped perpetuate the stereotype. 'Poor' and all its associated depictions remained so radioactive that even the Democrats decided to excise the word from their convention vocabulary. 'Middle class' sounds so much safer. And so, all seemed happy in Conservativeville.
But when an earthquake approaches, sooner or later you're going to feel the temblors beneath your feet.
First, it was that damn Bill Clinton--of all people!--pushing welfare reform through Congress. Republicans howled that he 'stole their issue!' In reality, he just reduced the equation. Now that most of those 'poor' people could be proven to be working, 'lazy' and 'welfare' had to be removed. No matter, 'black' and 'promiscuous' still remained--a potent brew if there ever was one! On any summer night, at a million suburban barbecues across America, you could find the already satisfied further satisfying themselves that, as I've heard more than once, 'those people will keep just keep churning out kids--there's nothing you can do!'
Occasionally, a voice would suggest that yes, actually, there were things that might be done. Alas, by that time the church ladies of the far right had crashed the GOP party, tut-tutting that the one thing they would not put up with was abortion. It mattered not whether the 'problem' of unwed motherhood might be reversed by a simple surgical procedure--no dice. We want those babies to be born. Oh yeah, by the way, no contraceptives either. God decides when pregnancy occurs!
By then, the social conservatives had tied themselves in a rhetorical knot--you don't want to 'pay for all those black welfare babies', but at the same time you're refusing to take any steps to prevent them. Unquestionably, a fig leaf (figuratively and metaphorically) was required. And so they invented one called 'abstinence'.
And that became the call of the not-so-wild. They shall pledge to stay chaste, and we will work to use abstinence not only to augment, but in some cases even replace actual knowledge of human reproduction being taught in our schools. Our girls will be saved (at least the white ones from 'good' families escorted by their fathers to creepy 'purity balls'). This must be God's compromise.
And then the results started pouring in. First, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears announces she's preggers--and looks pretty darned happy about it. Then news comes of the 'pregnancy club' among 17-year-olds in Gloucester, Mass.--a suburb that's 97% white. The latest statistics show that teen births have jumped 3%, the first increase in 14 years, and that births to unmarried women of any age are at a record high. Wherefore art thou, abstinence?
And now, finally, the national celebration of the pregnancy of unmarried, 17-year-old Bristol Palin. No one dare call that child-to-be 'illegitimate'! Suddenly, 'unwed mothers' aren't all black. They embody problems that 'affect all families'. And they aren't necessarily the result of 'broken homes'--unless you expand the definition to include mothers whose governor's mansion is 800 miles away from where her teen aged daughters live.
When sexual promiscuity involves our daughters, no longer is it wasteful, wanton, or even black. Welcome to the new world of 'moral depravity, of 'spiritual poverty'. Guess what--it's white, too!
We have come full circle.
By the 70's, poverty literally had taken on a new face--a black one.
The crowning achievement of this transformation was Ronald Reagan's adoption of the 'welfare queen' as a staple of his 1976 presidential campaign. Not only had white become black, but in the process pity turned to scorn.
His mythical foil was a woman on the southside of Chicago who invented 80 aliases, 30 addresses and 12 Social Security cards to bilk the government out of $150,000. (In actuality, the person to whom he apparently referred used two aliases to collect $8,000. No matter--the impression congealed). The algebra of the stereotype was settled: poor=black=lazy=waster of your tax dollars. This perfect recipe for a 'southern strategy' would help award Reagan two terms in the White House, and leave conservative politicians wondering, 'how could it get any better than this?'
Well actually, there was one more tasty ingredient to add--sexual promiscuity. As the enemy 'welfare queen' became 'welfare mother', there were even more to resent--not just the single mothers, but all of their 'illegitimate' children, as well.
Now, I interrupt myself to state that there clearly is a problem with unwed mothers, with fathers who desert their families, and how both conspire against children left with a woefully insufficient family structure. And yes, some of these people are black. If not, black fathers as diverse as Bill Cosby and Barack Obama would not be challenging all their counterparts to do their parts.
Unfortunately, no matter how accurate, these criticisms also helped perpetuate the stereotype. 'Poor' and all its associated depictions remained so radioactive that even the Democrats decided to excise the word from their convention vocabulary. 'Middle class' sounds so much safer. And so, all seemed happy in Conservativeville.
But when an earthquake approaches, sooner or later you're going to feel the temblors beneath your feet.
First, it was that damn Bill Clinton--of all people!--pushing welfare reform through Congress. Republicans howled that he 'stole their issue!' In reality, he just reduced the equation. Now that most of those 'poor' people could be proven to be working, 'lazy' and 'welfare' had to be removed. No matter, 'black' and 'promiscuous' still remained--a potent brew if there ever was one! On any summer night, at a million suburban barbecues across America, you could find the already satisfied further satisfying themselves that, as I've heard more than once, 'those people will keep just keep churning out kids--there's nothing you can do!'
Occasionally, a voice would suggest that yes, actually, there were things that might be done. Alas, by that time the church ladies of the far right had crashed the GOP party, tut-tutting that the one thing they would not put up with was abortion. It mattered not whether the 'problem' of unwed motherhood might be reversed by a simple surgical procedure--no dice. We want those babies to be born. Oh yeah, by the way, no contraceptives either. God decides when pregnancy occurs!
By then, the social conservatives had tied themselves in a rhetorical knot--you don't want to 'pay for all those black welfare babies', but at the same time you're refusing to take any steps to prevent them. Unquestionably, a fig leaf (figuratively and metaphorically) was required. And so they invented one called 'abstinence'.
And that became the call of the not-so-wild. They shall pledge to stay chaste, and we will work to use abstinence not only to augment, but in some cases even replace actual knowledge of human reproduction being taught in our schools. Our girls will be saved (at least the white ones from 'good' families escorted by their fathers to creepy 'purity balls'). This must be God's compromise.
And then the results started pouring in. First, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears announces she's preggers--and looks pretty darned happy about it. Then news comes of the 'pregnancy club' among 17-year-olds in Gloucester, Mass.--a suburb that's 97% white. The latest statistics show that teen births have jumped 3%, the first increase in 14 years, and that births to unmarried women of any age are at a record high. Wherefore art thou, abstinence?
And now, finally, the national celebration of the pregnancy of unmarried, 17-year-old Bristol Palin. No one dare call that child-to-be 'illegitimate'! Suddenly, 'unwed mothers' aren't all black. They embody problems that 'affect all families'. And they aren't necessarily the result of 'broken homes'--unless you expand the definition to include mothers whose governor's mansion is 800 miles away from where her teen aged daughters live.
When sexual promiscuity involves our daughters, no longer is it wasteful, wanton, or even black. Welcome to the new world of 'moral depravity, of 'spiritual poverty'. Guess what--it's white, too!
We have come full circle.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Argument
Aristotle explained that all arguments devolve to one of three forms: blame, values or choices. For example, when a Mom complains to her teen, "I told you twice yesterday to clean up your room and you didn't move a muscle. I can't imagine how anyone could be such a slob. I'll tell you one thing--if that room isn't spotless by tomorrow night, you're not going to that party, do you understand me?" In one neat package, she has covered all three.
But the parlor trick in Aristotle's simple analysis is the added dimension of time frame: blame is about the past, values about the present, and choices about the future.
The Democratic convention, despite the hope (future tense) represented by Obama, was really all about the past. With a target as large as George Bush, it was a rhetorical no-brainer to repeat his litany of failures, and attempt to tie John McCain to the blame. (While ironic that Bush and McCain do not get along, and squared off personally as enemy combatants in 2000, McCain's 90%+ voting record in support of Bush gives the connection intellectual weight).
The Republicans, quite understandably, have tried to move the argument along to the present tense...to values. McCain's claims of 'honor' and 'country before self interest' are attempts to both say what his is...and draw a contrast to his depiction of Obama as some sort of self-absorbed 'celebrity'. But the, "here's who I am / here's who he is" framing of the present tense fell all but flat on Thursday when Obama conclusively defined himself to 38 million viewers. Love him or loathe him, it would be hard for many of those watching to any longer claim they 'really don't know who he is'.
At that moment it was difficult to understand exactly how McCain could be rescued from his personal precipice, facing in a matter of days a convention of his own to command. How could he possibly respond?
And then...just like a scene out of an old Western...in rode Hurricane Gustav to the rescue.
First, it gave the necessary cover for Bush and Cheney to skip the Minneapolis trip altogether. As the New York Times reported in a lengthy article in its magazine section over the weekend, "Bush will be ushered out of the spotlight as quickly as possible"--all the better to minimize the blame game of the past. Now, the Gulf Coast wind and rain have delivered an official excused absence.
But what would appear a larger gambit may come to pass in a couple of days, if and when McCain decides to address his own convention by satellite, from the scene of his battle with Gustav. Strategically, this is brilliant. It would allow the smaller man, with a smaller message and a smaller audience, to step squarely away from any direct comparison with the tour de force Obama delivered in Denver.
But beyond that, it could also move McCain's argument away from values, and right into a future of choices. He would appear to already be delivering on his promise to put honor in front of self-interest. He would represent a tomorrow of action rather than words. Never mind that he would have no more official standing in the Gulf Coast region than your pet cat, and by the time of his arrival could have no impact on crisis response.
What he would have accomplished is a considerable feat of political jujitsu, throwing off the yoke of Bush, sidestepping the colossus that is Obama, and at least momentarily shifting the argument from past recriminations to an imagined future of better choices.
But the parlor trick in Aristotle's simple analysis is the added dimension of time frame: blame is about the past, values about the present, and choices about the future.
The Democratic convention, despite the hope (future tense) represented by Obama, was really all about the past. With a target as large as George Bush, it was a rhetorical no-brainer to repeat his litany of failures, and attempt to tie John McCain to the blame. (While ironic that Bush and McCain do not get along, and squared off personally as enemy combatants in 2000, McCain's 90%+ voting record in support of Bush gives the connection intellectual weight).
The Republicans, quite understandably, have tried to move the argument along to the present tense...to values. McCain's claims of 'honor' and 'country before self interest' are attempts to both say what his is...and draw a contrast to his depiction of Obama as some sort of self-absorbed 'celebrity'. But the, "here's who I am / here's who he is" framing of the present tense fell all but flat on Thursday when Obama conclusively defined himself to 38 million viewers. Love him or loathe him, it would be hard for many of those watching to any longer claim they 'really don't know who he is'.
At that moment it was difficult to understand exactly how McCain could be rescued from his personal precipice, facing in a matter of days a convention of his own to command. How could he possibly respond?
And then...just like a scene out of an old Western...in rode Hurricane Gustav to the rescue.
First, it gave the necessary cover for Bush and Cheney to skip the Minneapolis trip altogether. As the New York Times reported in a lengthy article in its magazine section over the weekend, "Bush will be ushered out of the spotlight as quickly as possible"--all the better to minimize the blame game of the past. Now, the Gulf Coast wind and rain have delivered an official excused absence.
But what would appear a larger gambit may come to pass in a couple of days, if and when McCain decides to address his own convention by satellite, from the scene of his battle with Gustav. Strategically, this is brilliant. It would allow the smaller man, with a smaller message and a smaller audience, to step squarely away from any direct comparison with the tour de force Obama delivered in Denver.
But beyond that, it could also move McCain's argument away from values, and right into a future of choices. He would appear to already be delivering on his promise to put honor in front of self-interest. He would represent a tomorrow of action rather than words. Never mind that he would have no more official standing in the Gulf Coast region than your pet cat, and by the time of his arrival could have no impact on crisis response.
What he would have accomplished is a considerable feat of political jujitsu, throwing off the yoke of Bush, sidestepping the colossus that is Obama, and at least momentarily shifting the argument from past recriminations to an imagined future of better choices.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)