If

Passing through a decent high school literature class creates a high probability you'll run across the Rudyard Kipling poem, If. Most people never give it a second thought. Some may remember a stanza or two. (The full version is here.) But I'm thinking that Barack Obama has a copy pasted to the mirror so that he can consult it every morning while shaving.

It's really one of the few things that explains his baffling reticence to confront his dastardly political opponents. What follows are select lines from the poem which might appeal to the President...and some thoughts on the same:

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowances for their doubting too...

In other words, above all else, keep cool. Descending to their level is a sign of weakness--even if their words and deeds are weakening you more than you could ever do to yourself.

If you can wait and not be tired of waiting, or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating, and yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise...

Well, I'm sure there's a moral message here, maintaining civility and all that. But that last phrase is a killer: could it be that Mr. Obama believes that simply opening his mouth will, de facto, make him look too wise? I mean, how could others not pale in comparison? Mr. President, trust me, the Tea Partiers are robbing you of your apparent wisdom...while you maintain your modesty.

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, and stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools...

Yes, it's true--Kipling was prescient enough to foresee the creation of Fox News. You may have no choice but to suffer the knaves...but keep the faith in his inspiration--stoop, stoop, stoop and build! Before it's too late!

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew to serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you except the will which says to them: "Hold on!"

Hold on, Mr. President. Show that heart and nerve and sinew. You can prove beyond a doubt that you're better than they are--if you simply lace up the gloves and fight.

70%

Give them credit: the Tea Partiers have done the seemingly impossible. They've introduced the topic of economics, in the form of numbers-laden debt concerns, into the public debate. Working in contradiction to the standard GOP playbook of manipulating voters with divisive social issues (abortion, flag burning, gays anyone?), the TP'ers have led us down the path of speculating on what, exactly, would need to be done to balance the budget...and erase the deficit.

Now, the cynical may ask where those sentiments were when Bill Clinton actually created a surplus, and introduced the idea that you can't fund new programs until you find an offset in the federal budget to pay for them. I don't recall too many people at the time urging that impeachment proceedings be dismissed lest they take the national eye off the ball of financial restraint.

And I don't recall a peep from these same outraged Americans when George Bush spent eight years squandering what Clinton had saved, spending like a former cocaine-addled AWOL pilot now making amends by playing soldiers with real humans. How to pay for his overseas follies? Easy. Just take the cost off the books. Leave it for the next guy to figure out. See how simple that was?

Well, at any rate we're now having a financial conversation. You can't flip a cable channel without some numbnuts throwing out a string of numbers. And that can get confusing. Thus, the title of this post--the only number that really matters: 70%.

That's the portion of the U.S. economy that depends on a single source--consumer spending. That includes every loaf of bread and box of Kleenex...every new McMansion, Escalade and pedicure. Unless consumers continue to spend, our economy will remain a mere shadow of its former self.

Now, think about what works against consumer spending: consumers not having enough money; consumers having mortgages that are higher than the value of their homes; consumers unable to get a loan for a new car; consumers not having jobs. If there's one thing we learned from the last two bubbles, maybe it's that you really can't spend money you don't have without eventually needing to pay it back. (Unless, of course, you're a Wall Street banker, in which case you can pretty much do what you want).

There's no conservative I know of (excepting Ron Paul) who believes that laying off even more workers, shutting more factories, sending more jobs overseas, further reducing wages and shredding the social safety net is the necessary medicine to cure what ails the economy. Even if that were the right prescription, it would take decades to return us to health. In the interim, the collapsing economy would begin to feed on its own decay, reducing consumer spending to levels not seen since the forced reductions of World War II.

And the amazing part of this is the inability of most large corporations to look past their own balance sheets. Of course, it is in their nature to want more productivity, a higher stock price, and greater profits. And if taxpayers are willing to help underwrite that with their tax dollars...and more of their workers are thrown out on the street...well, that's just the price of progress. That's the 'free market' at work.

But when virtually all corporations act the same way, helping 'carve out' the American economy by subjecting the middle class to financial genocide, there is, at best, a long and painful road to recovery.

How do you achieve 70% consumer spending when consumers have nothing left to spend?

What's the Matter With Kids Today?

Of all the navel gazing done concerning the 2010 election returns, one thing stands out to me: only 11% of people aged 18-29 voted. That compares to 18% when Barack Obama was elected just two years ago.

Yes, midterms always draw fewer voters.

Except, not always.

This off-year election, the number of voters over the age of 65 actually increased, from 16% to 23%. And as CNN's exit polls prove, the older, richer and whiter a voter, the far more likely he is to vote Republican.

If the Democrats want to retain the White House in 2012, they better figure out a way to convince young people to vote--starting now.

How the Senate Explains America

As a reference point for America, or even American politics, the U.S. Senate seems to have a glaring defect: it's inherently non-representative. It is the counterbalance built into the Constitution by the founding fathers to assure that big states would not overwhelm little ones. After all, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Virginia was a population bully--12 times the size of Delaware. Without the Senate, the good folks of Delaware could be lost in the shuffle.

Today, the disparity is even worse. We have a Vice President from Delaware, which certainly would not have happened if big states were allowed to fully exercise their populous muscle. Delaware simply wouldn't matter. California today contains 68 times as many people as Wyoming. In fact, California is home to more folks than 21 other states combined.

Still, I think studying the Senate explains American politics. Largely because voters look at Senate candidates in a more sober, studied way than those for any other office. After all, they are making a six year commitment--longer than they devote to a college choice, a car loan, or most romantic relationships. Those six years give a sense of familiarity that is seldom associated with any Congressman. While Presidential races are characterized by a numbing overload of pomp and circumstance, from declaration all the way through inauguration day, those who would be Senator are seen through a lens more sharply focused on reality.

And it is because of this, I believe, that those Tea Partiers who saw themselves as Senators--Miller in Alaska, Angle in Nevada, Raese in West Virginia, Buck in Colorado, and O'Donnell in Delaware--went home without trophies this time around. In the end, they were not judged Senate-worthy.

In fact, statistically the Senate seems precisely aligned with the sentiments of America. This fall, among those voters who were willing to declare a party affiliation (leaving the independents aside), 52% said 'Democrat' compared to 48% for 'Republican'. It appears the new Senate will include 52 Senators caucusing with Democrats...compared to 48 with the Republicans. A perfect match.

But beneath the surface, there are two central currents running through the Senate that help explain America's political divide better than 24 straight hours of any political punditry.

True, in general Republicans are richer and Democrats less so; Democrats more progressive and Republicans more conservative. The GOP is whiter, while the Dems get more female votes. But working against the stereotypes are jarring exceptions: there are two very moderate female GOP Senators representing the state of Maine, each assailed by members of their own party as 'liberals' for their positions on social issues; on the Democratic side of the aisle, that party can take nothing for granted from Blue Dog members who would logically support the progressive policies designed to provide better times for their relatively poorer constituencies.

What explains this?

Isolation...and religion.

There are 13 states in America where population density is more than 200 people per square mile. They don't seem to have much in common: Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio and Hawaii are not close together. California houses four of the nation's 12 biggest cities. The densest state--New Jersey--doesn't even include one in the top 60.

But people in those states have one thing in common--contact with a lot of other people. They cross paths. They interact. They find out about each other. They have no choice. They have to share--roads and school rooms and open spaces. They are the answer to Rodney King's plea--yes, they all can just get along.

However, does this constant contact make them anxious and angry...or more forgiving? Do they end up wanting to help their fellow men...or punish them? Maybe a good test would be to study who they elect as Senators. Do they want 'help your fellow man' Democrats? Or 'every man for himself' conservatives?

Here's the breakdown for those 26 elected officials: 21 are Democrats...and only five Republicans. When people have to get along, they do. Isolation breeds desolation. Familiarity would seem to breed consideration for your fellow man. Perhaps close contact promote appreciation for the fundamental liberties our first patriots envisioned.

The other definitive fissure in American politics is religion. On one side of the chasm you have good, God-fearing Christians. On the other, there's your collection of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, witches, cultists, devil-worshipers, and those who spend their Sunday mornings on golf courses that may or may not have been created by intelligent design.

How does the Senate scorecard play out here? Of the ten states where church attendance is lowest, fourteen senators are Democrats, and only six Republicans. Not worshipping there is not fatal to a political career.

But in the ten states where people most often attend Sunday services, a whopping 17 Senators carry the GOP banner, compared to three lowly Democrats. Here, it is definitely advisable to be seen consulting the Good Book.

Over the next two years, the legislative engine of Congress will most certainly seize. It's hard to see either side giving an inch (if the Democrats have learned even a modicum of reality). And into that void, the media will jump, yabbering about what they really want to talk about anyway--Sarah Palin.

As a resident of the state with the most open space...and already clearly comfortable with the concept of Messiah...Ms. Palin seems perfectly suited to play to her base.

But it's not yet clear that her act will play as well where Americans really have to interact and assess strangers every day...where more faith is placed in human beings than supreme beings.

Yes, she is blissfully isolated and vocally devout.

But could America ever see her as a Senator...much less a President?