“It’s a dog’s breakfast,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which has done extensive polling on public attitudes toward the war. “The reason that Democrats aren’t talking about specific plans to end the war is because it’s hard to figure out what to say without alienating a broad swath of the electorate.”Is it too much to ask that our politicians talk about what they think is right even if it might alienate some voters? If it wasn't for Joe Biden, I would have no faith in the Democratic Party at all.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
What I Hate About Politics
This is the side of politics that I hate - deciding on your message based on what plays well in the public.
Being Hateful Usually Works
A little while ago, when the debate over border security was raging, Republicans were saying that increased enforcement wouldn't affect our economy. Maybe they are right in the big picture, but it seems like a lot of small farmers are very upset. It is sad when Republicans upset their own supporters.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
No (Time)tables Available
This is why I find a lot of the talk about timetables for withdrawal to be so uninformed. With this kind of outlook from people on the ground, those who think we can plan for a withdrawal (including the Bush administration of course, which has hinted about decreasing troop levels) in the near future are saying it for partisan purposes and do not have the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind.
My favorite claim from people who favor a timetable is that we need to show the Iraqi people that we are leaving so they start to take their own security seriously. This is as delusional as when the Bush administration said that Iraqis should have stopped the looting themselves. Something tells me that the reason there is so much violence isn't because the Iraqis are being lazy about defending themselves. Instead, it is that they still are not capable of it. I agree that we made a mistake going into Iraq, but to paraphrase Colon Powell, "You break it, you own it."
My favorite claim from people who favor a timetable is that we need to show the Iraqi people that we are leaving so they start to take their own security seriously. This is as delusional as when the Bush administration said that Iraqis should have stopped the looting themselves. Something tells me that the reason there is so much violence isn't because the Iraqis are being lazy about defending themselves. Instead, it is that they still are not capable of it. I agree that we made a mistake going into Iraq, but to paraphrase Colon Powell, "You break it, you own it."
The Never Ending Half-full Glass
It seems that I am sucker for good news; I all too often grab hold of any reason to remain optimistic. Well, there is another one from Iraq. Apparently most Sunni tribes are finally so sick of the foreign insurgents that they are willing to fight them. I can only hope they really mean it.
Republic of Incumbistan
I wanted to talk about this article because I think it is touching on something a little unique, although also a fairly common phenomenon in political studies. What is unique is the level of animosity towards Congress right now. I think there is definitely a feeling that Congress (not just Republicans mind you) haven't done anything useful during this, the 109th Congress. Sure, they have bickered over some very hot topics, but most of those were meaningless to improving the quality of life for most Americans.
Unfortunately, this will probably not lead to a significant change in Congress during this year's mid-term elections. One of the biggest problems in modern politics, in my opinion, is the power of incumbents. It is nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent. Since that is the case, politicians don't need to be as in tune to the voters and instead can pay attention to the special interests that fill their war chests (I should note that I am writing this after getting some relatively depressing news - Charles Rangel is my Congressman - and might have more animosity towards incumbents than on a normal day).
Friends of mine might be surprised by my disdain for incumbents. After all, I was very much opposed to Ned Lamont's candidacy. But the truth is that I don't mind seeing Lieberman go, if it is for the right reasons and he loses to the right candidate. I didn't like Lamont because I found his anti-war message to be shallow (not all anti-war messages are, but his certainly seemed like it). As it turns out, it seems that most of his positions are shallow as well, which is why I continue to oppose him despite finding positions where I strongly disagree with Lieberman. If someone in the Howard Dean mold were running against Lieberman, I wouldn't be quite so mad.
The problem is that it is so hard to unseat an incumbent that you have to latch onto anyone who has a chance. As I said above, I find out more and more things I disagree with Lieberman on and so I can understand all the problems liberals have with him (Terry Shiavo and gay marriage to name two issues). But the left had to choose between a moderate who would finance some of the campaign on his own, or a moderate incumbent who seemed unbeatable just a while ago.
In the end though, part of the problem is the voters themselves (although campaign laws certainly help incumbents too). If you read the article, you will see that although voters are sick of Congress, most people think their Congressman is doing a great job. This has been a very common phenomenon that political scientists have known about for a while. And it is this seemingly illogical thinking that helps too many incumbents stay in office even when people know Congress isn't really working for them.
Unfortunately, this will probably not lead to a significant change in Congress during this year's mid-term elections. One of the biggest problems in modern politics, in my opinion, is the power of incumbents. It is nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent. Since that is the case, politicians don't need to be as in tune to the voters and instead can pay attention to the special interests that fill their war chests (I should note that I am writing this after getting some relatively depressing news - Charles Rangel is my Congressman - and might have more animosity towards incumbents than on a normal day).
Friends of mine might be surprised by my disdain for incumbents. After all, I was very much opposed to Ned Lamont's candidacy. But the truth is that I don't mind seeing Lieberman go, if it is for the right reasons and he loses to the right candidate. I didn't like Lamont because I found his anti-war message to be shallow (not all anti-war messages are, but his certainly seemed like it). As it turns out, it seems that most of his positions are shallow as well, which is why I continue to oppose him despite finding positions where I strongly disagree with Lieberman. If someone in the Howard Dean mold were running against Lieberman, I wouldn't be quite so mad.
The problem is that it is so hard to unseat an incumbent that you have to latch onto anyone who has a chance. As I said above, I find out more and more things I disagree with Lieberman on and so I can understand all the problems liberals have with him (Terry Shiavo and gay marriage to name two issues). But the left had to choose between a moderate who would finance some of the campaign on his own, or a moderate incumbent who seemed unbeatable just a while ago.
In the end though, part of the problem is the voters themselves (although campaign laws certainly help incumbents too). If you read the article, you will see that although voters are sick of Congress, most people think their Congressman is doing a great job. This has been a very common phenomenon that political scientists have known about for a while. And it is this seemingly illogical thinking that helps too many incumbents stay in office even when people know Congress isn't really working for them.
More on the Ag lobby
I couldn't help but add to my previous post on US and European agriculture subsidies. It seems that the agriculture lobby will even sacrifice the environment as long as it gives them an advantage over better international products. From Thomas Friedman ($):
I asked Dr. José Goldemberg, secretary for the environment for São Paulo State and a pioneer of Brazil’s ethanol industry, the obvious question: Is the fact that the U.S. has imposed a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff to prevent Americans from importing sugar ethanol from Brazil “just stupid or really stupid.”Obviously, I am not the first to think that the agriculture lobby is out of control. Whether it is battling global poverty or the evironment / foreign oil dependency, we would be much further along if we could find a way to ease our farmers off of government welfare.
Thanks to pressure from Midwest farmers and agribusinesses, who want to protect the U.S. corn ethanol industry from competition from Brazilian sugar ethanol, we have imposed a stiff tariff to keep it out. We do this even though Brazilian sugar ethanol provides eight times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it, while American corn ethanol provides only 1.3 times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it. We do this even though sugar ethanol reduces greenhouses gases more than corn ethanol. And we do this even though sugar cane ethanol can easily be grown in poor tropical countries in Africa or the Caribbean, and could actually help alleviate their poverty.
Yes, you read all this right. We tax imported sugar ethanol, which could finance our poor friends, but we don’t tax imported crude oil, which definitely finances our rich enemies. We’d rather power anti-Americans with our energy purchases than promote antipoverty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)